To develop a multidisciplinary health research agenda (HRA) utilizing expertise from various disciplines to identify and prioritize evidence uncertainties in orthopaedics, thereby reducing research waste. We employed a novel, structured framework to develop a HRA. We started by systematically collecting all evidence uncertainties from stakeholders with an interest in orthopaedic care, categorizing them into 13 sub-themes defined by the Dutch Orthopaedic Association (NOV). Subsequently, a modified two-phased Delphi study (two rounds per phase), adhering to the Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies (CREDES) guideline, was conducted. In Phase 1, board members assessed the collected evidence uncertainties on a three-point Likert scale to confirm knowledge gaps. In Phase 2, diverse stakeholders, including orthopaedic surgeons, rated the confirmed knowledge gaps on a seven-point Likert scale. Panel members rated one self-selected sub-theme and two randomly assigned sub-themes. The results from Phase 2 were ranked based on the overall average score for each uncertainty. Finally, a focus group discussion with patient associations’ representatives identified their top-ranked uncertainty from a predefined consensus process, leading to the final HRA. An advisory board, the Federation of Medical Specialists, and the NOV research coordinator oversaw the process.Aims
Methods
Multiligament knee injuries (MLKI) are devastating injuries that can result in significant morbidity and time away from sport. There remains considerable variation in strategies employed for investigation, indications for operative intervention, outcome reporting, and rehabilitation following these injuries. At present no study has yet provided a comprehensive overview evaluating the extent, range, and overall summary of the published literature pertaining to MLKI. Our aim is to perform a methodologically rigorous scoping review, mapping the literature evaluating the diagnosis and management of MLKI. This scoping review will address three aims: firstly, to map the current extent and nature of evidence for diagnosis and management of MLKI; secondly, to summarize and disseminate existing research findings to practitioners; and thirdly, to highlight gaps in current literature. A three-step search strategy as described by accepted methodology will be employed to identify peer-reviewed literature including reviews, technical notes, opinion pieces, and original research. An initial limited search will be performed to determine suitable search terms, followed by an expanded search of four electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science). Two reviewers will independently screen identified studies for final inclusion.Aims
Methods
