MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2539475487 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000005215

Short-stem prostheses in primary total hip arthroplasty

2016· review· en· W2539475487 on OpenAlex
Shaochuan Huo, Fan Wang, Lujue Dong, Wei Wei, Jingqi Zeng, Hongxing Huang, Qing-Min Han, Ruiqi Duan

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineCochrane LibraryMeta-analysisStress shieldingRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalHarris Hip ScoreArthroplastyOsteoarthritisSurgeryImplantDentistryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Short-stem (SS) prostheses require less resection of the femoral neck, produce a more physiological load pattern in the proximal femur, reduce stress shielding, and aid bone conservation and are, therefore, beneficial for young patients. Conventional cementless implants in total hip arthroplasty (THA) have shown excellent clinical results; however, it is unclear whether SS prostheses can obtain the same clinical and radiological outcomes. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate whether SS prostheses are superior to conventional implants after primary THA. METHODS: We reviewed the literature published up to June 2016 from PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library to find relevant RCTs comparing SSs and conventional stems in primary THA. Quality assessment was performed by 2 independent reviewers. The RevMan 5.3 software program of the Cochrane Collaboration was used to analyze the data. Random- or fixed-effect models were used to calculate standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each comparison. RESULTS: Six RCTs involving 552 patients with 572 hips were identified. Strong evidence indicated that SS prostheses were more effective for reducing thigh pain than conventional implants (I = 46%, P = 0.002; risk ratio [RR], 95% CI 0.15, 0.04-0.49). However, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups in Harris Hip Scores (I = 0%, P = 0.84; SMD, 95% CI 0.02, -0.15-0.18), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index Scores (I = 0%, P = 0.35; SMD, 95% CI 0.09, -0.10-0.27), femoral offset of stem (I = 0%, P = 0.57; SMD, 95% CI 0.06, -0.16-0.29), and leg-length discrepancy (I = 79%, P = 0.88; SMD, 95% CI 0.04, -0.44-0.51). CONCLUSION: SS prostheses achieve the same clinical and radiological outcomes as conventional implants, and were superior in terms of reducing thigh pain. But whether the postoperative thigh pain applied in 2nd-generation cementless prosthesis still needs further large-scale multicenter studies with longer follow-up to confirm.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it