appropriate depending on the research question, availability of data, and feasibility.
The most common observational study designs in total joint arthroplasty research are
cohort and cross-sectional studies. This article describes methodological considerations
for different study designs with examples from the total joint arthroplasty literature.
We highlight the advantages and feasibility of experimental and observational study
designs using real-world examples. We illustrate how to avoid common mistakes, such
as incorrect labeling of matched cohort studies as case-control studies. We further
guide investigators through a step-by-step design of a case-control study. We conclude
with considerations when choosing between alternative study designs. Please visit the following for videos that explain the highlights of the article in practical terms.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select ‘Academic and Personal’
- For corporate R&D use, select ‘Corporate R&D Professionals’
Clinical trials in orthopaedics research. Part II. Prioritization for randomized controlled clinical trials.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93: e30
Clinical trials in orthopaedics research. Part III. Overcoming operational challenges in the design and conduct of randomized clinical trials in orthopaedic surgery.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012; 94: e35
Clinical trials in orthopaedics research. Part I. Cultural and practical barriers to randomized trials in orthopaedics.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93: e15
Avoiding systematic bias in orthopedics research through informed variable selection: a discussion of confounders, mediators, and colliders.
J Arthroplasty. 2022; (under review)
Introducing levels of evidence to the journal.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003; 85: 1-3
The magic of randomization versus the myth of real-world evidence.
N Engl J Med. 2020; 382: 674-678
Characteristics of randomized clinical trials in surgery from 2008 to 2020: a systematic review.
JAMA Netw Open. 2021; 4: e2114494
Common elective orthopaedic procedures and their clinical effectiveness: umbrella review of level 1 evidence.
BMJ. 2021; 374: n1511
Clinical epidemiology in the era of big data: new opportunities, familiar challenges.
Clin Epidemiol. 2017; 9: 245
Seven myths of randomisation in clinical trials.
Stat Med. 2013; 32: 1439-1450
La magia de la aleatorización versus el mito de la evidencia a partir de la práctica clínica (The magic of randomization versus the myth of real-world evidence).
New Engl J Med. 2020; 382: 674-678
Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation.
Lancet. 2009; 374: 1097-1104
The PRECIS-2 tool: designing trials that are fit for purpose.
BMJ. 2015; 350: h2147
Series: pragmatic trials and real world evidence: paper 1. Introduction.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017; 88: 7-13
P-Values and power in orthopedic research: myths and reality.
J Arthroplasty. 2022; (under review)
Orthopedic registry research—limitations and future perspectives.
Acta Orthop. 2015; 86: 1-2
Risk factors for prosthetic joint infection: case-control study.
Clin Infect Dis. 1998; 27: 1247-1254
Risk factors for early dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: a matched case-control study.
J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2010; 18: 179-183
Physical activity and risk of revision total knee arthroplasty in individuals with knee osteoarthritis: a matched case-control study.
J Rheumatol. 2004; 31: 1384-1390
Geographic variation and factors associated with rates of knee arthroplasty in Korea-a population based ecological study.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019; 20: 400
Published online: September 05, 2022
Received in revised form:
In Press Journal Pre-Proof
One or more of the authors of this paper have disclosed potential or pertinent conflicts of interest, which may include receipt of payment, either direct or indirect, institutional support, or association with an entity in the biomedical field which may be perceived to have potential conflict of interest with this work. For full disclosure statements refer to https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2022.05.028.
Funding: This work was funded by a grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS) grant P30AR76312 and the American Joint Replacement Research-Collaborative (AJRR-C) . The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Access this article on ScienceDirect