Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37909694›Full record

ArticleEFORT open reviews2023

Clinical investigations to evaluate high-risk orthopaedic devices: a systematic review of the peer-reviewed medical literature.

Anne Lübbeke, Christophe Combescure, Christophe Barea, Amanda Inez Gonzalez, Keith Tucker, Per Kjærsgaard-Andersen, Tom Melvin, Alan G Fraser, Rob Nelissen, James A Smith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFORT open reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

10 authors.

Anne LübbekeDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, Geneva University Hospitals and University of Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-6905-6120
Christophe CombescureDivision of Clinical Epidemiology, Geneva University Hospitals and University of Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-2631-4780
Christophe BareaDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, Geneva University Hospitals and University of Geneva, Switzerland.
Amanda Inez GonzalezDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, Geneva University Hospitals and University of Geneva, Switzerland.
Keith TuckerChair Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel, UK.
Per Kjærsgaard-AndersenCenter for Adult Hip and Knee Reconstruction, Department of Orthopaedics, South Danish University, Vejle Hospital, Denmark.
Tom MelvinSchool of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland.
Alan G FraserDepartment of Cardiology, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK.
Rob NelissenDepartment of Orthopaedics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1228-4162
James A SmithCentre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The objective of this systematic review was to give an overview of clinical investigations regarding hip and knee arthroplasty implants published in peer-reviewed scientific medical journals before entry into force of the EU Medical Device Regulation in May 2021. Methods: We systematically reviewed the medical literature for a random selection of hip and knee implants to identify all peer-reviewed clinical investigations published within 10 years before and up to 20 years after regulatory approval. We report study characteristics, methodologies, outcomes, measures to prevent bias, and timing of clinical investigations of 30 current implants. The review process was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: We identified 2912 publications and finally included 151 papers published between 1995 and 2021 (63 on hip stems, 34 on hip cups, and 54 on knee systems). We identified no clinical studies published before Conformité Européene (CE)-marking for any selected device, and no studies even up to 20 years after CE-marking in one-quarter of devices. There were very few randomized controlled trials, and registry-based studies generally had larger sample sizes and better methodology. Conclusion: The peer-reviewed literature alone is insufficient as a source of clinical investigations of these high-risk devices intended for life-long use. A more systematic, efficient, and faster way to evaluate safety and performance is necessary. Using a phased introduction approach, nesting comparative studies of observational and experimental design in existing registries, increasing the use of benefit measures, and accelerating surrogate outcomes research will help to minimize risks and maximize benefits.

Indexed as

clinical evidencehip arthroplastyknee arthroplastymedical device regulationregistriessystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37909694
PMCPMC10646516

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.