Abstract:To the Editor: We read with interest the article, ‘‘Systematic Review of Cemented and Uncemented Hemiarthroplasty Outcomes for Femoral Neck Fractures’’ by Ahn et al. [1], which concluded there was no significant difference between cemented and uncemented techniques for reported outcome measurements of femoral neck fractures. Respecting the highly influential status of systematic review in the hierarchy of evidence, we wish to bring attention to three important issues. First, seven trials, two randomized controlled trials [RCT] [15, 16], and five retrospective trials [6, 8, 14, 18, 19] could have been retrieved and included in the meta-analysis. In addition, one RCT [2] was retrieved but not included. The authors arbitrarily searched the literature after 1980 while missing two classic trials [15, 19] before 1980. As a result, there is a definite bias of selection that may lead to an inappropriate conclusion. Unfortunately, no detailed reasons were provided to justify their search strategy. Second, we would like to offer some observations regarding their data extraction (see Supplementary website material) and pooled analysis. (1) The data referring to Eiskjaer et al. [4] was in fact extracted from another article from Eiskjaer and Østgård [5]. A similar instance is seen with Lausten et al. [12], which should be replaced by the earlier article by Lausten and Vedel [11]. (2) It appears the authors neglected the cemented group with Hastings prosthesis in the article by Eiskjaer and Østgård [5]. The mortality of this group was not included. Also, neither the revision rate nor the followup was extracted. (3) Gebhard et al. [8] reported six revisions in each group by 1 year. However, these data were mistakenly included in the column, ‘‘Complication’’ of their Supplementary Website Material. (4) The authors failed to explain why 15 cemented cases and 61 uncemented cases with thigh pain were not included in the subgroup of Lo et al. [13]. (5) In the report by Sonne-Holm et al. [17], 11 deaths that occurred in each group by 6 weeks were not listed in their Supplementary Website Material. Also, Sonne-Holm et al. noted only 30% of the patients with cemented prostheses (12 patients) reported pain compared with 60% of the patients with uncemented prostheses (21 patients) after 6 months. The result contradicts those of 23 cases versus 13 cases extracted by Ahn et al. [1]. (6) There were actually three revisions reported by Dorr et al. [3] instead of four revisions. (7) The correct order of Fig. 2 in the metaanalysis [1] should be ‘‘(A) intermediate mortality,’’ ‘‘(B) long-term mortality,’’ ‘‘(C) perioperative mortality,’’ ‘‘(D) complications,’’ ‘‘(E) pain,’’ and ‘‘(F) revision.’’ (8) The mortality data within 1 month by Foster et al. [7] should (Re: Ahn J, Man LX, Park S, Sodl JF, Esterhai JL. Systematic review of cemented and uncemented hemiarthroplasty outcomes for femoral neck fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008 Jul 24. [Epub ahead of print]) (Editor’s note: A reply was requested from Ahn et al.; however, none was received.)

Corrigendum: Stem Cells in Rotator Cuff Injuries and Reconstructions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Advances in the treatment of rotator cuff lesions by cytokines

Stem cell-based therapeutic strategies for rotator cuff tendinopathy

Letter to the Editor: Cemented Hemiarthroplasty Confers Less Pain and Better Mobility Than Uncemented Hemiarthroplasty.

Corrigendum: Biofabrication of Cell-Free Dual Drug-Releasing Biomimetic Scaffolds for Meniscal Regeneration (2022 Biofabrication 14 015001)

Correction to: Is cell transplantation a reliable therapeutic strategy for spinal cord injury in clinical practice? A systematic review and meta-analysis from 22 clinical controlled trials

Corrigendum: Advances in regenerative sports medicine research

Corrigendum: Comparative Study of Alginate and Type I Collagen As Biomaterials for Cartilage Stem/progenitor Cells to Construct Tissue-Engineered Cartilage in Vivo

Current Biological Strategies to Enhance Surgical Treatment for Rotator Cuff Repair

An Updated Review of the Literature

Research Progress on Stem Cell Therapies for Articular Cartilage Regeneration

Corrigendum to “development of Methods for Detecting the Fate of Mesenchymal Stem Cells Regulated by Bone Bioactive Materials” [bioact. Mater. 6(3) (2021) 613–626]

Correction: Therapy for Cartilage Defects: Functional Ectopic Cartilage Constructed by Cartilage-Simulating Collagen, Chondroitin Sulfate and Hyaluronic Acid (CCH) Hybrid Hydrogel with Allogeneic Chondrocytes

Enhanced Repaired Enthesis Using Tenogenically Differentiated Adipose-Derived Stem Cells in a Murine Rotator Cuff Injury Model

Correction: Corrigendum: Mesenchymal Stem Cells Reversed Morphine Tolerance and Opioid-induced Hyperalgesia

Progress in tissue-engineering for tendon-to-bone healing after rotator cuff repair

A network meta-analysis of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair

Retracted: Effect of Arthroscopic Acromioplasty Combined with Rotator Cuff Repair in the Treatment of Aged Patients with Full-Thickness Rotator Cuff Tear and Rotator Cuff Injury

Corrigendum to “Biologically modified implantation as therapeutic bioabsorbable materials for bone defect repair” [Regen Ther 19 (2022) 9–23]

Corrigendum: Advances in stem cell therapy for diabetic foot

Correction to: Mesenchymal stem cells in the treatment of severe COVID-19