Observational studyActa orthopaedica2026
The accuracy of radiographic peer review in identifying primary hip and knee arthroplasties at higher risk of early aseptic revision: an observational cohort study from the JointCare registry of South Africa.
Observational study in Acta orthopaedica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeHealthcare value might be improved with radiographic peer review to evaluate surgical quality. While numerous radiographic recommendations are available, peer review differs by including expert appraisal. We aimed to assess the predictive value of radiographic peer review in identifying primary hip and knee arthroplasties at higher risk of aseptic revision.
methodsA retrospective observational cohort study was conducted to compare aseptic revision rates with peer review scores, using data from the JointCare registry of South Africa. Matching and weighting was applied among cohorts, and revision rates were compared using Cox proportional hazards regression.
resultsThe sample consisted of 7,218 arthroplasties performed between January 2020 and June 2023. 5,126 arthroplasties were scored as "good," 1,931 as "acceptable," and 161 as "suboptimal." "Suboptimal" arthroplasties had a significantly higher hazard ratio (HR) for aseptic revision than "good" arthroplasties (HR 9.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.6-24.5). Furthermore, "suboptimal" total hip (HR 11.4, CI 2.6-49.7), total knee (HR 5.7, CI 1.3-25.6), and medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (HR 9.8, CI 2.0-47.4) had significantly higher HRs than "good" ones. Overall and for each procedure, "acceptable" arthroplasties had higher HRs than "good" arthroplasties; however, these results were not statistically significant.
conclusionRadiographic review by experienced arthroplasty surgeons was able to identify arthroplasties at higher risk of aseptic revision. As such, radiographic review could be used for quality improvement by identifying directions for surgical improvement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.