Skip to main content
Tessa NewsLink
Paste a health news link, or browse

Source study found

Story checked

Prognosis of 1st time revision due to pain following primary total hip arthroplasty - a nationwide cohort study from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register | medRxiv (opens in a new tab)

medrxiv.org · 2026-09-09

Short answerEvidenceSource

Short answer

Supported

Supported.

The story matches what the study reports.

  • 5 supported

Checked against the study summary. The full text wasn't available, so some details couldn't be settled either way.

Share this check

Follow the evidence trail
1

The story

Prognosis of 1st time revision due to pain following primary total hip arthroplasty - a nationwide cohort study from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register | medRxiv

medrxiv.org · 2026-09-09

The story’s checkable claims.

Read the original story (opens in a new tab)
2

NewsLink checks it

Supported

Every claim holds up. All five claims match what the study reports.

  • 5 supported
Open claim evidence
3
Source paper

Source layer

The 8 papers the story cites

Source study separated from background citations.

The research anchor for the report.

Then inspect each claim

Evidence layer

Claim by claim

Each claim gets a verdict. Expand it to see the evidence directly below.

5 claims in this story

Showing all 5 claimsChoose a verdict to focus the list.

Claim 1 of 5SupportedRevision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for persistent or unexplained pain remains controversial, and uncertainty remains about the subsequent risk of re-revision after revision THA for pain.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The abstract-level profile states that revision THA for persistent or unexplained pain is controversial and that the subsequent risk of re-revision after revision for pain is uncertain. The story frames this as background uncertainty rather than as a result.

1

Study evidence

Secondary outcomes are defined as cause-specific re-revision due to pain, aseptic loosening, infection, or dislocation.

“Secondary outcomes are cause-specific re-revision due to pain, aseptic loosening, infection, or dislocation.”
Claim 2 of 5SupportedThe study’s objective is to compare the risk of all-cause and cause-specific re-revision after first-time revision THA performed for pain versus aseptic loosening.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The paper profile identifies the objective as comparing all-cause and cause-specific re-revision after first-time revision THA for pain versus aseptic loosening.

1

Study evidence

Nationwide register-based cohort study using the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register to compare time to all-cause re-revision after first-time revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) performed for pain versus aseptic loosening among patients undergoing index revision between 1995 and 2025. Follow-up is from the index revision until re-revision, death, emigration, or end of follow-up. The primary outcome is time to all-cause re-revision; secondary outcomes are cause-specific re-revision due to pain, aseptic loosening, infection, or dislocation. Planned analyses include competing-risk cumulative incidence estimation and Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate hazard ratios.

“This nationwide, register-based cohort study will use data from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register.”
2

Study evidence

Secondary outcomes are defined as cause-specific re-revision due to pain, aseptic loosening, infection, or dislocation.

“Secondary outcomes are cause-specific re-revision due to pain, aseptic loosening, infection, or dislocation.”
Claim 3 of 5SupportedThis nationwide, register-based cohort study will use Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register data on patients who had primary THA followed by first-time revision THA for pain or aseptic loosening between 1995 and 2025, and will follow them for re-revision, death, emigration, or end of follow-up.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The profile describes a nationwide register-based cohort using the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register, including patients with primary THA followed by first-time revision THA for pain or aseptic loosening from 1995 to 2025, with follow-up to re-revision, death, emigration, or end of follow-up.

1

Study evidence

Nationwide register-based cohort study using the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register to compare time to all-cause re-revision after first-time revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) performed for pain versus aseptic loosening among patients undergoing index revision between 1995 and 2025. Follow-up is from the index revision until re-revision, death, emigration, or end of follow-up. The primary outcome is time to all-cause re-revision; secondary outcomes are cause-specific re-revision due to pain, aseptic loosening, infection, or dislocation. Planned analyses include competing-risk cumulative incidence estimation and Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate hazard ratios.

“This nationwide, register-based cohort study will use data from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register.”
2

Study evidence

Secondary outcomes are defined as cause-specific re-revision due to pain, aseptic loosening, infection, or dislocation.

“Secondary outcomes are cause-specific re-revision due to pain, aseptic loosening, infection, or dislocation.”
Claim 4 of 5SupportedThe primary outcome is time to all-cause re-revision; secondary outcomes are cause-specific re-revision due to pain, aseptic loosening, infection, or dislocation, analyzed with competing-risk methods and Cox proportional hazards regression.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The profile states that the primary outcome is time to all-cause re-revision and secondary outcomes are cause-specific re-revision due to pain, aseptic loosening, infection, or dislocation. It also states planned competing-risk cumulative incidence methods and Cox proportional hazards regression.

1

Study evidence

Nationwide register-based cohort study using the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register to compare time to all-cause re-revision after first-time revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) performed for pain versus aseptic loosening among patients undergoing index revision between 1995 and 2025. Follow-up is from the index revision until re-revision, death, emigration, or end of follow-up. The primary outcome is time to all-cause re-revision; secondary outcomes are cause-specific re-revision due to pain, aseptic loosening, infection, or dislocation. Planned analyses include competing-risk cumulative incidence estimation and Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate hazard ratios.

“This nationwide, register-based cohort study will use data from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register.”
2

Study evidence

Secondary outcomes are defined as cause-specific re-revision due to pain, aseptic loosening, infection, or dislocation.

“Secondary outcomes are cause-specific re-revision due to pain, aseptic loosening, infection, or dislocation.”
Claim 5 of 5SupportedThe study is intended to provide nationwide evidence to inform clinical decision-making and patient counselling.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The profile reports the authors’ stated interpretation that the study will provide nationwide evidence on re-revision risk after revision THA for pain and may inform clinical decision-making and patient counselling. The story presents this as intended and hedged, not as achieved clinical impact.

1

Study evidence

Secondary outcomes are defined as cause-specific re-revision due to pain, aseptic loosening, infection, or dislocation.

“Secondary outcomes are cause-specific re-revision due to pain, aseptic loosening, infection, or dislocation.”
Then look for missing context

Context layer

What the story carried across

Nothing material from the study was dropped.

6 things the story did carry across
  • Primary objective: compare risk of all-cause re-revision after first-time revision THA for pain versus aseptic loosening using nationwide Danish registry data from 1995–2025.
  • Secondary objective/outcomes: compare cause-specific re-revision risks for pain, aseptic loosening, infection, and dislocation, accounting for competing risks.
  • Study design and cohort: planned nationwide register-based cohort using the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register, including patients with primary THA followed by first-time revision THA for pain or aseptic loosening between 1995 and 2025.
  • Follow-up framework: follow patients from index revision until re-revision, death, emigration, or end of follow-up.
  • Planned statistical analysis: competing-risk cumulative incidence estimation and Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate hazard ratios.
  • No numerical results, effect estimates, sample size, event counts, or follow-up duration are reported in the abstract.
Then read the study layer

Study layer

Study at a glance

Scan the study first. Expand only the parts you want to inspect.

Pieces of work

2

Evidence read

study summary

Lead result

secondary data

1Lead resultsecondary dataCompare the risk of all-cause re-revision after first-time revision THA performed for pain versus aseptic loosening using nationwide Danish registry data (1995–2025).Nationwide register-based cohort (Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register)Expand

In plain English

Nationwide register-based cohort study using the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register to compare time to all-cause re-revision after first-time revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) performed for pain versus aseptic loosening among patients undergoing index revision between 1995 and 2025. Follow-up is from the index revision until re-revision, death, emigration, or end of follow-up. The primary outcome is time to all-cause re-revision; secondary outcomes are cause-specific re-revision due to pain, aseptic loosening, infection, or dislocation. Planned analyses include competing-risk cumulative incidence estimation and Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate hazard ratios.

Key findings

No separate finding listed.

“This nationwide, register-based cohort study will use data from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register.”
2secondary dataCompare cause-specific re-revision risks (pain, aseptic loosening, infection, dislocation) after first-time revision THA for pain versus aseptic loosening, accounting for competing risks.Nationwide register-based cohort study (Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register)Expand

In plain English

Planned nationwide register-based cohort analysis (Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register) comparing cause-specific re-revision risks after first-time revision THA performed for pain versus aseptic loosening. Secondary outcomes are re-revision for pain, aseptic loosening, infection, or dislocation. Cumulative incidence of cause-specific re-revision will be estimated using competing-risk methods and hazard ratios estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression. The cohort includes patients with primary THA followed by first-time revision for pain or aseptic loosening between 1995 and 2025, with follow-up from index revision to re-revision, death, emigration, or end of follow-up. The abstract describes objectives and analysis plan but reports no numerical results.

Key findings

  • Secondary outcomes are defined as cause-specific re-revision due to pain, aseptic loosening, infection, or dislocation.
  • Planned use of competing-risk methods to estimate cumulative incidence of cause-specific re-revision and Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate hazard ratios comparing revision for pain versus aseptic loosening.
“Secondary outcomes are cause-specific re-revision due to pain, aseptic loosening, infection, or dislocation.”
What this piece can’t prove
  • Abstract reports objectives and analysis plan but provides no results or numerical estimates.

4 further details could not be confirmed from the summary.

Finally, the search trail

Method layer

NewsLink found the paper. Tessa takes you deeper.

NewsLink checks the story. Tessa is where you inspect the paper, authors, evidence, and research context.

Papers considered

The selected paper, plus nearby candidates.

PubMed, Crossref, Europe PMC · 15 candidate papers

Candidate

Favorable 17-Year Outcome of a Bulk Femoral Head Allograft Combined With a Burch-Schneider Antiprotrusio Cage in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty for Severe Acetabular Osteolysis and Pelvic Discontinuity: A Case Report.

Cureus · 2026 · PubMed

Tessa (opens in a new tab)Source (opens in a new tab)
Candidate

A Case Report of Metallosis-Related Aseptic Loosening of Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Implant Managed with Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty

A Case Report of Metallosis-Related Aseptic Loosening of Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Implant Managed with Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty · 2026 · Crossref

Source (opens in a new tab)

And 9 more candidates considered.