Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36907938›Full record

SynthesisKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2023

High variation among clinical studies in the assessment of physical function after knee replacement: a systematic review.

Marco Adriani, Roland Becker, Giuseppe Milano, Krzysztof Lachowski, Robert Prill

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Checklists, risk of bias tools, and reporting guidelines for research in orthopedics, sports medicine, and rehabilitation.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023
    Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Marco AdrianiDepartment of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences, and Public Health, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy. m.adriani93@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3116-613X
Roland BeckerCenter of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University Hospital Brandenburg/Havel, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Brandenburg a.d.H., Germany.
Giuseppe MilanoDepartment of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences, and Public Health, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Krzysztof LachowskiCenter of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University Hospital Brandenburg/Havel, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Brandenburg a.d.H., Germany.
Robert PrillCenter of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University Hospital Brandenburg/Havel, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Brandenburg a.d.H., Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this study was to summarise the current use of outcome measures for the assessment of physical function after knee joint replacement.

methodsA systematic approach following the PRISMA guidelines was used. Literature search was performed on MEDLINE database via PubMed and on Epistemonikos. Clinical trials (level of evidence I-II) on knee joint replacement reporting data on the 'physical function' domain published between January 2017 and June 2022 were included. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the evidence.

resultsIn the 181 articles that met the inclusion criteria, 49 different outcome measurements were used to evaluate clinical outcomes after knee joint replacement. The most frequently adopted patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were the Knee Society Score (KSS) (78 studies; 43.1%), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Arthritis Index (62 studies; 34.3%), the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) (51 studies; 28.2%) and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) (36 studies; 20%). The most frequently used performance-based outcome measures (PBOMs) were the Timed-Up-and-Go (TUG) test (30 studies; 16.6%) and the 6-min-walk test (6MWT) (21 studies; 11.6%). Among impairment-based outcome measures (IBOMs), range of motion (ROM) was the most used (74 studies; 40.9%).

conclusionThere is considerable variation among clinical studies regarding the assessment of the physical function of patients after knee joint replacement. PROMs were found to be the most commonly adopted outcome measures; however, no single PROM was used in more than half of the papers analysed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, systematic review of level I-II studies.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeOsteoarthritis, KneeHumansKnee JointOutcome Assessment, Health CareRange of Motion, ArticularTreatment OutcomeWalk TestDomainsKnee arthroplastyKnee replacementOutcomesPhysical function

Identifiers

PMID36907938
PMCPMC10435639

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.