ArticleBone & joint open2026
Developing a new CT-based bone defect classification in revision knee arthroplasty : a Delphi consensus study.
Article in Bone & joint open, 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
40 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: To seek consensus on the principles and criteria necessary to develop a CT-based bone defect classification (BDC) for revision knee arthroplasty. Methods: A three-round structured Delphi study was conducted. First, five interviews were held with international knee revision experts to support the development of 29 statements. Two consecutive rounds of Delphi survey statements were distributed among 56 international knee revision experts in the first round, and to 37 in the second round. Consensus (≥ 80% agreement) was sought on the statements covering bone defect definitions, imaging, and zonal assessment. Results: A total of 37 experts responded to the first survey round, and 34 also completed the second round. Consensus was reached on 93% of the statements after both survey rounds. Experts agreed that a BDC should guide both surgical planning and implant selection, and that CT imaging improves knee revision bone defect assessment. Consensus was also reached on the definition of a bone defect. While anatomical zones (epiphysis, metaphysis, diaphysis) were considered important for inclusion in a BDC, the results showed no consensus on which landmarks define these anatomical zones. Conclusion: The expert panel indicated that CT evaluation and distinct assessment of anatomical zones are essential in a (new) BDC, although no consensus was reached on the definition of those anatomical zones. Moreover, a CT-based BDC should be useful for guiding surgical planning and implant selection.
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.