Letter to the Editor: Does the Risk of Death Within 48 Hours of Hip Hemiarthroplasty Differ Between Patients Treated With Cemented and Cementless Implants? A Meta-analysis of Large, National Registries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To the Editor, We read the article by Dahl and Pripp [2] with great interest. In this well-designed study, the authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis and concluded that cemented prostheses were associated with a higher risk of death within 48 hours after surgery compared with uncemented prostheses. We would like to point out some methodological flaws to further refine this important study. The authors noted in their study that they only searched within two databases (MEDLINE and Embase). We believe that this is not sufficient, and insufficient searches are likely to miss many potentially eligible papers. Therefore, we expanded the database search to Web of Science, Google Scholar, Scopus, and PsycINFO following our own search strategy. To our surprise, two eligible large national registry studies were omitted [4, 7]. Therefore, we combined these two papers with the original five studies [1, 6, 9-11], and the new meta-analysis outcome generally confirmed the conclusions made by the authors (Fig. 1), although the effect sizes differed somewhat.Fig. 1: Our reanalyzed forest plot for any mortality within 48 hours after surgery between the cemented and cementless implants.Additionally, we would like to highlight some methodological shortcomings of this meta-analysis. First, we believe as a matter of principle that all meta-analyses should be pre-registered (in a database like PROSPERO, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/); this is important for the same reason that prospective registration of randomized trials is [5]. Second, in the Methods section of the paper, the authors used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for assessing study quality. This scale has, at best, unknown validity, and we believe—and others have suggested [8]—that it attributes points for study quality to study design elements that are not necessarily associated with high-quality research. We agree with the analysis by Andreas Stang [8] that using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale in systematic reviews and meta-analyses may result in a misleading appraisal of the quality of the included studies. We suggest using a modified version of the Downs and Black tool to assess the methodological quality of retrospective studies [3]. Finally, the authors did not suggest whether the recommendations they offer were based on evidence that was sufficiently high-quality to be trustworthy. An important principle of meta-analysis is that not all source studies from which data may arise are similarly well designed and convincing, and a good meta-analysis makes its recommendations in light of that fact. Given the problems with the Newcastle-Ottawa Sale and the other issues we raised, we are unsure whether the evidence in the meta-analysis by Dahl and Pripp [2] meets this standard. While we are grateful to Dahl and Pripp [2] for contributing research that can guide clinical decision-making, high-quality studies with large sample sizes are still needed to determine whether the risk of death within 48 hours of hip hemiarthroplasty differs between patients treated with cemented and cementless implants
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".