Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 192

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Database and Registry Research in Orthopaedic Surgery: Part I

Pugely, Andrew J., Martin, Christopher T., Harwood, Jared, Ong, Kevin L., Bozic, Kevin J., Callaghan, John J.·2015·The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery

Abstract

The use of large-scale national databases for observational research in orthopaedic surgery has grown substantially in the last decade, and the data sets can be grossly categorized as either administrative claims or clinical registries. Administrative claims data comprise the billing records associated with the delivery of health-care services. Orthopaedic researchers have used both government and private claims to describe temporal trends, geographic variation, disparities, complications, outcomes, and resource utilization associated with both musculoskeletal disease and treatment. Medicare claims comprise one of the most robust data sets used to perform orthopaedic research, with >45 million beneficiaries. The U.S. government, through the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, often uses these data to drive changes in health policy. Private claims data used in orthopaedic research often comprise more heterogeneous patient demographic samples, but allow longitudinal analysis similar to that offered by Medicare claims. Discharge databases, such as the U.S. National Inpatient Sample, provide a wide national sampling of inpatient hospital stays from all payers and allow analysis of associated adverse events and resource utilization. Administrative claims data benefit from the high patient numbers obtained through a majority of hospitals. Using claims, it is possible to follow patients longitudinally throughout encounters irrespective of the location of the institution delivering health care. Some disadvantages include lack of precision of ICD-9 (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision) coding schemes. Much of these data are expensive to purchase, complicated to organize, and labor-intensive to manipulate--often requiring trained specialists for analysis. Given the changing health-care environment, it is likely that databases will provide valuable information that has the potential to influence clinical practice improvement and health policy for years to come.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2106/jbjs.n.01260

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 192

Metadata

Authors
Pugely, A. J., Martin, C. T., Harwood, J., Ong, K. L., Bozic, K. J., & Callaghan, J. J.
Venue
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery
Published
2015-08
Volume
97
Issue
15
Pages
1278-1287
ISSN
0021-9355 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1904726308
Cited by
192
References
2
FWCI
31.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Database and Registry Research in Orthopaedic Surgery: Part I. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2106/jbjs.n.01260
The paper
Pugely, A. J., Martin, C. T., Harwood, J., Ong, K. L., Bozic, K. J., & Callaghan, J. J. (2015). Database and Registry Research in Orthopaedic Surgery: Part I. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.n.01260

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.