Appendix Table 1.

Analyzed total hip arthroplasty articles.

Journal	Author	Year	Comparison	Patients enrolled	Lost to follow-up	Outcomes (no.)	FI∗
ACTA	Gustafson et al. [1]	2014	Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing vs metal-on-polyethylene THA	54	10	14	6
	Flatøy et al. [2]	2016	Electrochemically deposited vs conventional plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite femoral stem	55	30	2	9
BJJ	Vendittoli et al. [3]	2013	Hybrid hip resurfacing vs metal-on-metal uncemented THA	219	55	6	5
	Lee et al. [4]	2014	28-mm vs 32-mm Ceramic heads	120	107	1	13
	van der Veen et al. [5]	2015	Metal-on-metal vs metal-on-polyethylene THA	104	6	1	9
	Schilcher et al. [6]	2017	Bisphosphonate solution vs saline	60	2	3	5
	Ando et al. [7]	2018	Large vs conventional femoral head	185	69	1	2
	Sköldenberg et al. [8]	2019	Argon-gas gamma-sterilized vs vitamin E-doped, highly crosslinked polyethylene	42	4	1	2
CORR	Della Valle et al. [9]	2010	Mini-incision vs two-incision THA	72	0	3	8
	Goosen et al. [10]	2011	Minimally invasive vs classic posterolateral approach	120	0	10	7
	Corten et al. [11]	2011	Cemented vs cementless	250	0	5	6
	Weber et al. [12]	2014	Fluoroscopy vs imageless navigation	125	9	4	7
	Engh et al. [13]	2016	Ceramic-on-metal vs metal-on-metal	72	9	2	5
	Parratte et al. [14]	2016	Computer-assisted vs conventional	60	0	1	10
	Kim et al. [15]	2016	Ultrashort vs conventional anatomic cementless femoral stem	212	12	3	16
	Hopper et al. [16]	2018	Crosslinked vs conventional polyethylene	230	0	4	4
	Nakamura et al. [17]	2018	Robot-assisted vs hand-rasped stem	130	15	1	4
	Taunton et al. [18]	2018	Direct anterior vs mini posterior THA	116	15	1	4
	Mjaaland et al. [19]	2019	Direct anterior vs direct lateral THA	164	11	2	9
Int. Orthop.	Bascarevic et al. [20]	2010	Alumina-on-alumina ceramic vs metal on highly cross-linked polyethylene	150	0	23	6
JOA	Amanatullah et al. [21]	2011	Ceramic-ceramic vs ceramic-polyethylene	357	45	19	6
	Beaupre et al. [22]	2013	Ceramic-on-ceramic vs ceramic-on-crossfire polyethylene	92	14	1	3
	Barrett et al. [23]	2013	Direct anterior vs posterolateral THA	87	0	20	7
	Gurgel et al. [24]	2014	Computer-assisted vs conventional THA	40	0	1	9
	Lass et al. [25]	2014	Imageless navigation system vs conventional THA	130	5	1	7
	Hamilton et al. [26]	2015	28-mm vs 36-mm Femoral heads	345	113	1	3
	Wegrzyn et al. [27]	2015	Tantalum vs titanium cup	111	25	2	4
	Gao et al. [28]	2015	Tranexamic acid with epinephrine vs tranexamic acid alone	110	3	11	7
	Suarez et al. [29]	2015	Bipolar sealer vs standard electrocautery	118	0	1	1
	Sculco et al. [30]	2016	Perioperative corticosteroids vs placebo	40	13	7	7
	North et al. [31]	2016	Topical vs intravenous tranexamic acid	139	0	1	1
	Cheng et al. [32]	2017	Direct anterior vs posterior approach THA	75	2	15	5
	Guild et al. [33]	2017	Hybrid plasma scalpel vs bipolar sealer	232	0	1	29
	Abdel et al. [34]	2017	Two-incision vs mini-posterior approach THA	72	1	4	8
	Gielis et al. [35]	2019	Short vs wedge-shaped straight stem	150	10	8	7
	Brun et al. [36]	2019	Direct lateral vs minimal invasive anterior approach THA	164	0	8	5
JBJS	Barsoum et al. [37]	2011	Bipolar sealer vs standard electrocautery	140	0	2	9
	Howie et al. [38]	2012	28-mm vs 36-mm Femoral heads	645	30	1	2
	Devane et al. [39]	2017	Highly cross-linked vs ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene	122	31	1	5
	Kayupov et al. [40]	2017	Oral vs intravenous tranexamic acid	89	6	1	10

Acta, Acta Orthopaedica; BJJ, Bone & Joint Journal; CORR, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research; Int. Orthop., International Orthopedics; JBJS, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery; JOA, Journal of Arthroplasty.

^∗Average for all outcomes rounded to the nearest digit.