Aims

Weightbearing instructions after musculoskeletal injury or orthopaedic surgery are a key aspect of the rehabilitation pathway and prescription. The terminology used to describe the weightbearing status of the patient is variable; many different terms are used, and there is recognition and evidence that the lack of standardized terminology contributes to confusion in practice.

We evaluated the top 13 journals in trauma and orthopaedics by impact factor and looked at the longer-term effect regarding citations of their papers.

All 4951 papers published in these journals during 2007 and 2008 were reviewed and categorised by their type, subspecialty and super-specialty. All citations indexed through Google Scholar were reviewed to establish the rate of citation per paper at two, four and five years post-publication. The top five journals published a total of 1986 papers. Only three (0.15%) were on operative orthopaedic surgery and none were on trauma. Most (n = 1084, 54.5%) were about experimental basic science. Surgical papers had a lower rate of citation (2.18) at two years than basic science or clinical medical papers (4.68). However, by four years the rates were similar (26.57 for surgery, 30.35 for basic science/medical), which suggests that there is a considerable time lag before clinical surgical research has an impact.

We conclude that high impact journals do not address clinical research in surgery and when they do, there is a delay before such papers are cited. We suggest that a rate of citation at five years post-publication might be a more appropriate indicator of importance for papers in our specialty.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:414–19.

The poor reporting and use of statistical methods in orthopaedic papers has been widely discussed by both clinicians and statisticians. A detailed review of research published in general orthopaedic journals was undertaken to assess the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting. A representative sample of 100 papers was assessed for compliance to CONSORT and STROBE guidelines and the quality of the statistical reporting was assessed using a validated questionnaire. Overall compliance with CONSORT and STROBE guidelines in our study was 59% and 58% respectively, with very few papers fulfilling all criteria. In 37% of papers patient numbers were inadequately reported; 20% of papers introduced new statistical methods in the ‘results’ section not previously reported in the ‘methods’ section, and 23% of papers reported no measurement of error with the main outcome measure. Taken together, these issues indicate a general lack of statistical rigour and are consistent with similar reviews undertaken in a number of other scientific and clinical research disciplines. It is imperative that the orthopaedic research community strives to improve the quality of reporting; a failure to do so could seriously limit the development of future research.

In May 2012, in airports across the globe, seven orthopaedic surgeons bravely said goodbye to their loved ones, and slowly turned towards their respective aircraft. Filled with expectation and mild trepidation they stepped into the unknown… the ABC fellowship of 2012.

This paper offers a summary of the ethical guide for the European orthopaedic community; the full report will be published in the EFORT Journal.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1130–2.

We evaluated the quality of guidelines on thromboprophylaxis in orthopaedic surgery by examining how they adhere to validated methodological standards in their development. A structured review was performed for guidelines that were published between January 2005 and April 2013 in medical journals or on the Internet. A pre-defined computerised search was used in MEDLINE, Scopus and Google to identify the guidelines. The AGREE II assessment tool was used to evaluate the quality of the guidelines in the study.

Seven international and national guidelines were identified. The overall methodological quality of the individual guidelines was good. ‘Scope and Purpose’ (median score 98% interquartile range (IQR)) 86% to 98%) and ‘Clarity of Presentation’ (median score 90%, IQR 90% to 95%) were the two domains that received the highest scores. ‘Applicability’ (median score 68%, IQR 45% to 75%) and ‘Editorial Independence’ (median score 71%, IQR 68% to 75%) had the lowest scores.

These findings reveal that although the overall methodological quality of guidelines on thromboprophylaxis in orthopaedic surgery is good, domains within their development, such as ‘Applicability’ and ‘Editorial Independence’, need to be improved. Application of the AGREE II instrument by the authors of guidelines may improve the quality of future guidelines and provide increased focus on aspects of methodology used in their development that are not robust.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:19–23.

As of April 2010 all NHS institutions in the United Kingdom are required to publish data on surgical site infection, but the method for collecting this has not been decided. We examined 7448 trauma and orthopaedic surgical wounds made in patients staying for at least two nights between 2000 and 2008 at our institution and calculated the rate of surgical site infection using three definitions: the US Centers for Disease Control, the United Kingdom Nosocomial Infection National Surveillance Scheme and the ASEPSIS system. On the same series of wounds, the infection rate with outpatient follow-up according to Centre for Disease Control was 15.45%, according to the UK Nosocomial infection surveillance was 11.32%, and according to ASEPSIS was 8.79%. These figures highlight the necessity for all institutions to use the same method for diagnosing surgical site infection.

If different methods are used, direct comparisons will be invalid and published rates of infection will be misleading.

In order to assess the efficacy of inspection and accreditation by the Specialist Advisory Committee for higher surgical training in orthopaedic surgery and trauma, seven training regions with 109 hospitals and 433 Specialist Registrars were studied over a period of two years.

There were initial deficiencies in a mean of 14.8% of required standards (10.3% to 19.2%). This improved following completion of the inspection, with a mean residual deficiency in 8.9% (6.5% to 12.7%.) Overall, 84% of standards were checked, 68% of the units improved and training was withdrawn in 4%.

Most units (97%) were deficient on initial assessment. Moderately good rectification was achieved but the process of follow-up and collection of data require improvement. There is an imbalance between the setting of standards and their implementation. Any major revision of the process of accreditation by the new Post-graduate Medical Education and Training Board should recognise the importance of assessment of training by direct inspection on site, of the relationship between service and training, and the advantage of defining mandatory and developmental standards.