↓ Skip to main content

Variability of indication criteria in knee and hip replacement: an observational study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, October 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
Title
Variability of indication criteria in knee and hip replacement: an observational study
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, October 2010
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-11-249
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raquel Cobos, Amaia Latorre, Felipe Aizpuru, Jose I Guenaga, Cristina Sarasqueta, Antonio Escobar, Lidia García, Carmen Herrera-Espiñeira

Abstract

Total knee (TKR) and hip (THR) replacement (arthroplasty) are effective surgical procedures that relieve pain, improve patients' quality of life and increase functional capacity. Studies on variations in medical practice usually place the indications for performing these procedures to be highly variable, because surgeons appear to follow different criteria when recommending surgery in patients with different severity levels. We therefore proposed a study to evaluate inter-hospital variability in arthroplasty indication. The pre-surgical condition of 1603 patients included was compared by their personal characteristics, clinical situation and self-perceived health status. Patients were asked to complete two health-related quality of life questionnaires: the generic SF-12 (Short Form) and the specific WOMAC (Western Ontario and Mcmaster Universities) scale. The type of patient undergoing primary arthroplasty was similar in the 15 different hospitals evaluated.The variability in baseline WOMAC score between hospitals in THR and TKR indication was described by range, mean and standard deviation (SD), mean and standard deviation weighted by the number of procedures at each hospital, high/low ratio or extremal quotient (EQ5-95), variation coefficient (CV5-95) and weighted variation coefficient (WCV5-95) for 5-95 percentile range. The variability in subjective and objective signs was evaluated using median, range and WCV5-95. The appropriateness of the procedures performed was calculated using a specific threshold proposed by Quintana et al for assessing pain and functional capacity. The variability expressed as WCV5-95 was very low, between 0.05 and 0.11 for all three dimensions on WOMAC scale for both types of procedure in all participating hospitals. The variability in the physical and mental SF-12 components was very low for both types of procedure (0.08 and 0.07 for hip and 0.03 and 0.07 for knee surgery patients). However, a moderate-high variability was detected in subjective-objective signs. Among all the surgeries performed, approximately a quarter of them could be considered to be inappropriate. A greater inter-hospital variability was observed for objective than for subjective signs for both procedures, suggesting that the differences in clinical criteria followed by surgeons when indicating arthroplasty are the main responsible factors for the variation in surgery rates.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 3%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 71 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 22%
Other 7 9%
Student > Master 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 18 24%
Unknown 17 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Engineering 3 4%
Sports and Recreations 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 27 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 January 2018.
All research outputs
#3,758,768
of 22,986,950 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#746
of 4,089 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,588
of 99,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#8
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,986,950 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,089 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 99,986 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.