Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 7 of 7
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 104-B, Issue 12 | Pages 1281 - 1283
1 Dec 2022
Azizpour K Birch NC Peul WC


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 105-B, Issue 4 | Pages 341 - 342
15 Mar 2023
Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 102-B, Issue 11 | Pages 1431 - 1434
1 Nov 2020
Trompeter AJ Furness H Kanakaris NK Costa ML


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 101-B, Issue 1 | Pages 4 - 6
1 Jan 2019
Haddad FS Corbett SA Hatrick NC Tennent TD


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 7 | Pages 871 - 874
1 Jul 2015
Breakwell LM Cole AA Birch N Heywood C

The effective capture of outcome measures in the healthcare setting can be traced back to Florence Nightingale’s investigation of the in-patient mortality of soldiers wounded in the Crimean war in the 1850s.

Only relatively recently has the formalised collection of outcomes data into Registries been recognised as valuable in itself.

With the advent of surgeon league tables and a move towards value based health care, individuals are being driven to collect, store and interpret data.

Following the success of the National Joint Registry, the British Association of Spine Surgeons instituted the British Spine Registry. Since its launch in 2012, over 650 users representing the whole surgical team have registered and during this time, more than 27 000 patients have been entered onto the database.

There has been significant publicity regarding the collection of outcome measures after surgery, including patient-reported scores. Over 12 000 forms have been directly entered by patients themselves, with many more entered by the surgical teams.

Questions abound: who should have access to the data produced by the Registry and how should they use it? How should the results be reported and in what forum?

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:871–4.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 96-B, Issue 7 | Pages 853 - 854
1 Jul 2014
Parsons N Griffin XL Stengel D Carey Smith R Perry DC Costa ML

The Bone & Joint Journal provides the latest evidence to guide the clinical practice of orthopaedic surgeons. The benefits of one intervention compared with another are presented using outcome measures; some may be specific to a limb or joint and some are more general health-related quality of life measures. Readers will be familiar with many of these outcome measures and will be able to judge the relative benefits of different interventions when measured using the same outcome tool; for example, different treatments for pain in the knee measured using a particular knee score. But, how should readers compare outcomes between different clinical areas using different outcome measures? This article explores the use of standardised effect sizes.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:853–4.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 88-B, Issue 4 | Pages 421 - 426
1 Apr 2006
Pountos I Jones E Tzioupis C McGonagle D Giannoudis PV