IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0163032.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Meta-Review of the Quantity and Quality of Evidence for Knee Arthroplasty Devices

Author

Listed:
  • Anna R Gagliardi
  • Ariel Ducey
  • Pascale Lehoux
  • Sue Ross
  • Patricia Trbovich
  • Anthony Easty
  • Chaim Bell
  • Julie Takata
  • Christof Pabinger
  • David R Urbach

Abstract

Introduction: Some cardiovascular devices are licensed based on limited evidence, potentially exposing patients to devices that are not safe or effective. Research is needed to ascertain if the same is true of other types of medical devices. Knee arthroplasty is a widely-used surgical procedure yet implant failures are not uncommon. The purpose of this study was to characterize available evidence on the safety and effectiveness of knee implants. Methods: A review of primary studies included in health technology assessments (HTA) on total (TKA) and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) was conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Biotechnology & BioEngineering Abstracts were searched from 2005 to 2014, plus journal tables of contents and 32 HTA web sites. Patients were aged 18 and older who underwent primary TKA or UKA assessed in cohort or randomized controlled studies. Summary statistics were used to report study characteristics. Results: A total of 265 eligible primary studies published between 1986 and 2014 involving 59,217 patients were identified in 10 HTAs (2 low, 7 moderate, 1 high risk of bias). Most evaluated TKA (198, 74.5%). The quality of evidence in primary studies was limited. Most studies were industry-funded (23.8%) or offered no declaration of funding or conflict of interest (44.9%); based on uncontrolled single cohorts (58.5%), enrolled fewer than 100 patients (66.4%), and followed patients for 2 years or less (UKA: single cohort 29.8%, comparative cohort 16.7%, randomized trial 25.0%; TKA: single cohort 25.0%, comparative cohort 31.4%, randomized trial 48.6%). Furthermore, most devices were evaluated in only one study (55.3% TKA implants, 61.1% UKA implants). Conclusions: Patients, physicians, hospitals and payers rely on poor-quality evidence to support decisions about knee implants. Further research is needed to explore how decisions about the use of devices are currently made, and how the evidence base for device safety and effectiveness can be strengthened.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna R Gagliardi & Ariel Ducey & Pascale Lehoux & Sue Ross & Patricia Trbovich & Anthony Easty & Chaim Bell & Julie Takata & Christof Pabinger & David R Urbach, 2016. "Meta-Review of the Quantity and Quality of Evidence for Knee Arthroplasty Devices," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-11, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0163032
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163032
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0163032
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0163032&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0163032?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0163032. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.