Aims. The principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM) are the foundation of modern medical practice. Surgeons are familiar with the commonly used statistical techniques to test hypotheses, summarize findings, and provide answers within a specified range of probability. Based on this knowledge, they are able to critically evaluate research before deciding whether or not to adopt the findings into practice. Recently, there has been an increased use of artificial intelligence (AI) to analyze information and derive findings in orthopaedic research. These techniques use a set of statistical tools that are increasingly complex and may be unfamiliar to the orthopaedic surgeon. It is unclear if this shift towards less familiar techniques is widely accepted in the orthopaedic community. This study aimed to provide an exploration of understanding and acceptance of AI use in research among orthopaedic surgeons. Methods. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were carried out on a sample of 12 orthopaedic surgeons. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify key themes. Results. The four intersecting themes identified were: 1) validity in traditional research, 2) confusion around the definition of AI, 3) an inability to validate AI research, and 4) cautious optimism about AI research. Underpinning these themes is the notion of a validity heuristic that is strongly rooted in traditional research teaching and embedded in medical and surgical training. Conclusion. Research involving AI sometimes challenges the accepted traditional evidence-based framework. This can give rise to confusion among orthopaedic surgeons, who may be unable to confidently validate findings. In our study, the impact of this was mediated by cautious optimism based on an ingrained validity heuristic that orthopaedic surgeons develop through their medical training. Adding to this, the integration of AI into everyday life works to reduce suspicion and aid acceptance. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(9):696–703

In 2017, the British Society for Children’s Orthopaedic Surgery engaged the profession and all relevant stakeholders in two formal research prioritization processes. In this editorial, we describe the impact of this prioritization on funding, and how research in children’s orthopaedics, which was until very recently a largely unfunded and under-investigated area, is now flourishing. Establishing research priorities was a crucial step in this process. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5):422–424

Aims. The evidence base within trauma and orthopaedics has traditionally favoured quantitative research methodologies. Qualitative research can provide unique insights which illuminate patient experiences and perceptions of care. Qualitative methods reveal the subjective narratives of patients that are not captured by quantitative data, providing a more comprehensive understanding of patient-centred care. The aim of this study is to quantify the level of qualitative research within the orthopaedic literature. Methods. A bibliometric search of journals’ online archives and multiple databases was undertaken in March 2024, to identify articles using qualitative research methods in the top 12 trauma and orthopaedic journals based on the 2023 impact factor and SCImago rating. The bibliometric search was conducted and reported in accordance with the preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO). Results. Of the 7,201 papers reviewed, 136 included qualitative methods (0.1%). There was no significant difference between the journals, apart from Bone & Joint Open, which included 21 studies using qualitative methods, equalling 4% of its published articles. Conclusion. This study demonstrates that there is a very low number of qualitative research papers published within trauma and orthopaedic journals. Given the increasing focus on patient outcomes and improving the patient experience, it may be argued that there is a requirement to support both quantitative and qualitative approaches to orthopaedic research. Combining qualitative and quantitative methods may effectively address the complex and personal aspects of patients’ care, ensuring that outcomes align with patient values and enhance overall care quality

Aims. To identify the minimum set of outcomes that should be collected in clinical practice and reported in research related to the care of children with idiopathic congenital talipes equinovarus (CTEV). Methods. A list of outcome measurement tools (OMTs) was obtained from the literature through a systematic review. Further outcomes were collected from patients and families through a questionnaire and interview process. The combined list, as well as the appropriate follow-up timepoint, was rated for importance in a two-round Delphi process that included an international group of orthopaedic surgeons, physiotherapists, nurse practitioners, patients, and families. Outcomes that reached no consensus during the Delphi process were further discussed and scored for inclusion/exclusion in a final consensus meeting involving international stakeholder representatives of practitioners, families, and patient charities. Results. In total, 39 OMTs were included from the systematic review. Two additional OMTs were identified from the interviews and questionnaires, and four were added after round one Delphi. Overall, 22 OMTs reached ‘consensus in’ during the Delphi and two reached ‘consensus out’; 21 OMTs reached ‘no consensus’ and were included in the final consensus meeting. In all, 21 participants attended the consensus meeting, including a wide diversity of clubfoot practitioners, parent/patient representative, and an independent chair. A total of 21 outcomes were discussed and voted upon; six were voted ‘in’ and 15 were voted ‘out’. The final COS document includes nine OMTs and two existing outcome scores with a total of 31 outcome parameters to be collected after a minimum follow-up of five years. It incorporates static and dynamic clinical findings, patient-reported outcome measures, and a definition of CTEV relapse. Conclusion. We have defined a minimum set of outcomes to draw comparisons between centres and studies in the treatment of CTEV. With the use of these outcomes, we hope to allow more meaningful research and a better clinical management of CTEV. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(1):98–106

Aims. The follow-up interval of a study represents an important aspect that is frequently mentioned in the title of the manuscript. Authors arbitrarily define whether the follow-up of their study is short-, mid-, or long-term. There is no clear consensus in that regard and definitions show a large range of variation. It was therefore the aim of this study to systematically identify clinical research published in high-impact orthopaedic journals in the last five years and extract follow-up information to deduce corresponding evidence-based definitions of short-, mid-, and long-term follow-up. Methods. A systematic literature search was performed to identify papers published in the six highest ranked orthopaedic journals during the years 2015 to 2019. Follow-up intervals were analyzed. Each article was assigned to a corresponding subspecialty field: sports traumatology, knee arthroplasty and reconstruction, hip-preserving surgery, hip arthroplasty, shoulder and elbow arthroplasty, hand and wrist, foot and ankle, paediatric orthopaedics, orthopaedic trauma, spine, and tumour. Mean follow-up data were tabulated for the corresponding subspecialty fields. Comparison between means was conducted using analysis of variance. Results. Of 16,161 published articles, 590 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 321 were of level IV evidence, 176 level III, 53 level II, and 40 level I. Considering all included articles, a long-term study published in the included high impact journals had a mean follow-up of 151.6 months, a mid-term study of 63.5 months, and a short-term study of 30.0 months. Conclusion. The results of this study provide evidence-based definitions for orthopaedic follow-up intervals that should provide a citable standard for the planning of clinical studies. A minimum mean follow-up of a short-term study should be 30 months (2.5 years), while a mid-term study should aim for a mean follow-up of 60 months (five years), and a long-term study should aim for a mean of 150 months (12.5 years). Level of Evidence: Level I. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(5):344–350

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(4):256–258.

The ability to edit DNA at the nucleotide level using clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) systems is a relatively new investigative tool that is revolutionizing the analysis of many aspects of human health and disease, including orthopaedic disease. CRISPR, adapted for mammalian cell genome editing from a bacterial defence system, has been shown to be a flexible, programmable, scalable, and easy-to-use gene editing tool. Recent improvements increase the functionality of CRISPR through the engineering of specific elements of CRISPR systems, the discovery of new, naturally occurring CRISPR molecules, and modifications that take CRISPR beyond gene editing to the regulation of gene transcription and the manipulation of RNA. Here, the basics of CRISPR genome editing will be reviewed, including a description of how it has transformed some aspects of molecular musculoskeletal research, and will conclude by speculating what the future holds for the use of CRISPR-related treatments and therapies in clinical orthopaedic practice. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2020;9(7):351–359

Objectives. As tumours of bone and soft tissue are rare, multicentre prospective collaboration is essential for meaningful research and evidence-based advances in patient care. The aim of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators encountered in large-scale collaborative research by orthopaedic oncological surgeons involved or interested in prospective multicentre collaboration. Methods. All surgeons who were involved, or had expressed an interest, in the ongoing Prophylactic Antibiotic Regimens in Tumour Surgery (PARITY) trial were invited to participate in a focus group to discuss their experiences with collaborative research in this area. The discussion was digitally recorded, transcribed and anonymised. The transcript was analysed qualitatively, using an analytic approach which aims to organise the data in the language of the participants with little theoretical interpretation. Results. The 13 surgeons who participated in the discussion represented orthopaedic oncology practices from seven countries (Argentina, Brazil, Italy, Spain, Denmark, United States and Canada). Four categories and associated themes emerged from the discussion: the need for collaboration in the field of orthopaedic oncology due to the rarity of the tumours and the need for high level evidence to guide treatment; motivational factors for participating in collaborative research including establishing proof of principle, learning opportunity, answering a relevant research question and being part of a collaborative research community; barriers to participation including funding, personal barriers, institutional barriers, trial barriers, and administrative barriers and facilitators for participation including institutional facilitators, leadership, authorship, trial set-up, and the support of centralised study coordination. Conclusions. Orthopaedic surgeons involved in an ongoing international randomised controlled trial (RCT) were motivated by many factors to participate. There were a number of barriers to and facilitators for their participation. There was a collective sense of fatigue experienced in overcoming these barriers, which was mirrored by a strong collective sense of the importance of, and need for, collaborative research in this field. The experiences were described as essential educational first steps to advance collaborative studies in this area. Knowledge gained from this study will inform the development of future large-scale collaborative research projects in orthopaedic oncology. Cite this article: J. S. Rendon, M. Swinton, N. Bernthal, M. Boffano, T. Damron, N. Evaniew, P. Ferguson, M. Galli Serra, W. Hettwer, P. McKay, B. Miller, L. Nystrom, W. Parizzia, P. Schneider, A. Spiguel, R. Vélez, K. Weiss, J. P. Zumárraga, M. Ghert. Barriers and facilitators experienced in collaborative prospective research in orthopaedic oncology: A qualitative study. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:–314. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.65.BJR-2016-0192.R1

Objectives. Despite the fact that research fraud and misconduct are under scrutiny in the field of orthopaedic research, little systematic work has been done to uncover and characterise the underlying reasons for academic retractions in this field. The purpose of this study was to determine the rate of retractions and identify the reasons for retracted publications in the orthopaedic literature. Methods. Two reviewers independently searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (1995 to current) using MeSH keyword headings and the ‘retracted’ filter. We also searched an independent website that reports and archives retracted scientific publications (. www.retractionwatch.com. ). Two reviewers independently extracted data including reason for retraction, study type, journal impact factor, and country of origin. Results. One hundred and ten retracted studies were included for data extraction. The retracted studies were published in journals with impact factors ranging from 0.000 (discontinued journals) to 13.262. In the 20-year search window, only 25 papers were retracted in the first ten years, with the remaining 85 papers retracted in the most recent decade. The most common reasons for retraction were fraudulent data (29), plagiarism (25) and duplicate publication (20). Retracted articles have been cited up to 165 times (median 6; interquartile range 2 to 19). Conclusion. The rate of retractions in the orthopaedic literature is increasing, with the majority of retractions attributed to academic misconduct and fraud. Orthopaedic retractions originate from numerous journals and countries, indicating that misconduct issues are widespread. The results of this study highlight the need to address academic integrity when training the next generation of orthopaedic investigators. Cite this article: J. Yan, A. MacDonald, L-P. Baisi, N. Evaniew, M. Bhandari, M. Ghert. Retractions in orthopaedic research: A systematic review. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:263–268. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.56.BJR-2016-0047

Aims. To provide normative data that can assess spinal-related disability and the prevalence of back or leg pain among adults with no spinal conditions in the UK using validated questionnaires. Methods. A total of 1,000 participants with equal sex distribution were included and categorized in five age groups: 20 to 29, 30 to 39, 40 to 49, 50 to 59, and 60 to 69 years. Individuals with spinal pathologies were excluded. Participants completed the Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22r), visual analogue scale (VAS) for back/leg pain, and the EuroQol five-dimension index (EQ-5D/VAS) questionnaires, and disclosed their age, sex, and occupation. They were also categorized in five professional groups: doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, office workers, and manual workers. Results. The mean age of all participants was 43.8 years (20 to 69). There was no difference in the SRS-22r, EQ-5D, or VAS scores among male and female participants (p > 0.05). There was incremental decrease in SRS-22r total scores as the age increased. The mean EQ-5D index score (0.84) ranged little across the age groups (0.72 to 0.91) but reduced gradually with increasing age. There was difference between the SRS-22r total score (4.51), the individual domain scores, and the EQ-5D score (index: 0.94 and VAS: 89) for the doctors’ group compared to all other occupational categories (p < 0.001). Doctors had a younger mean age of participants, which may explain their improved spinal health. There was no difference in the total or sub-domain SRS-22r and EQ-5D scores between the other four occupational groups. Conclusion. This study provides the first normative data for the SRS-22r, EQ-5D, and VAS for back/leg pain questionnaires among adults in the UK. We recorded an excellent correlation between the three assessment tools with individuals who reported less back and leg pain having better quality of life and greater function. The participants’ age, rather than their sex or profession, appears to be the major determinant for spinal health and quality of life. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(2):130–134

Aims

This study aimed to demonstrate the promoting effect of elastic fixation on fracture, and further explore its mechanism at the gene and protein expression levels.

Aims. High-quality clinical research in children’s orthopaedic surgery has lagged behind other surgical subspecialties. This study used a consensus-based approach to identify research priorities for clinical trials in children’s orthopaedics. Methods. A modified Delphi technique was used, which involved an initial scoping survey, a two-round Delphi process and an expert panel formed of members of the British Society of Children’s Orthopaedic Surgery. The survey was conducted amongst orthopaedic surgeons treating children in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Results. A total of 86 clinicians contributed to both rounds of the Delphi process, scoring priorities from one (low priority) to five (high priority). Elective topics were ranked higher than those relating to trauma, with the top ten elective research questions scoring higher than the top question for trauma. Ten elective, and five trauma research priorities were identified, with the three highest ranked questions relating to the treatment of slipped capital femoral epiphysis (mean score 4.6/ 5), Perthes’ disease (4.5) and bone infection (4.5). Conclusion. This consensus-based research agenda will guide surgeons, academics and funders to improve the evidence in children’s orthopaedic surgery and encourage the development of multicentre clinical trials. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:680–4

Objectives. One commonly used rat fracture model for bone and mineral research is a closed mid-shaft femur fracture as described by Bonnarens in 1984. Initially, this model was believed to create very reproducible fractures. However, there have been frequent reports of comminution and varying rates of complication. Given the importance of precise anticipation of those characteristics in laboratory research, we aimed to precisely estimate the rate of comminution, its importance and its effect on the amount of soft callus created. Furthermore, we aimed to precisely report the rate of complications such as death and infection. Methods. We tested a rat model of femoral fracture on 84 rats based on Bonnarens’ original description. We used a proximal approach with trochanterotomy to insert the pin, a drop tower to create the fracture and a high-resolution fluoroscopic imager to detect the comminution. We weighed the soft callus on day seven and compared the soft callus parameters with the comminution status. Results. The mean operating time was 34.8 minutes (. sd. 9.8). The fracture was usable (transverse, mid-shaft, without significant comminution and with displacement < 1 mm) in 74 animals (88%). Of these 74 usable fractures, slight comminution was detected in 47 (63%). In 50 animals who underwent callus manipulation, slight comminution (n = 32) was statistically correlated to the amount of early callus created (r = 0.35, p = 0.015). Two complications occurred: one death and one deep infection. Conclusions. We propose an accurate description of comminution and complications in order to improve experiments on rat femur fracture model in the field of laboratory research. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2013;2:149–54

Tendinopathy is a debilitating musculoskeletal condition which can cause significant pain and lead to complete rupture of the tendon, which often requires surgical repair. Due in part to the large spectrum of tendon pathologies, these disorders continue to be a clinical challenge. Animal models are often used in this field of research as they offer an attractive framework to examine the cascade of processes that occur throughout both tendon pathology and repair. This review discusses the structural, mechanical, and biological changes that occur throughout tendon pathology in animal models, as well as strategies for the improvement of tendon healing. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:193–202

Objectives. Evidence -based medicine (EBM) is designed to inform clinical decision-making within all medical specialties, including orthopaedic surgery. We recently published a pilot survey of the Canadian Orthopaedic Association (COA) membership and demonstrated that the adoption of EBM principles is variable among Canadian orthopaedic surgeons. The objective of this study was to conduct a broader international survey of orthopaedic surgeons to identify characteristics of research studies perceived as being most influential in informing clinical decision-making. Materials and Methods. A 29-question electronic survey was distributed to the readership of an established orthopaedic journal with international readership. The survey aimed to analyse the influence of both extrinsic (journal quality, investigator profiles, etc.) and intrinsic characteristics (study design, sample size, etc.) of research studies in relation to their influence on practice patterns. Results. A total of 353 surgeons completed the survey. Surgeons achieved consensus on the ‘importance’ of three key designs on their practices: randomised controlled trials (94%), meta-analyses (75%) and systematic reviews (66%). The vast majority of respondents support the use of current evidence over historical clinical training; however subjective factors such as journal reputation (72%) and investigator profile (68%) continue to influence clinical decision-making strongly. Conclusion. Although intrinsic factors such as study design and sample size have some influence on clinical decision-making, surgeon respondents are equally influenced by extrinsic factors such as investigator reputation and perceived journal quality. Cite this article: Dr M. Ghert. An international survey to identify the intrinsic and extrinsic factors of research studies most likely to change orthopaedic practice. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:130–136. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.54.2000578