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. 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).Aims
Methods
Disorders of bone integrity carry a high global disease burden, frequently requiring intervention, but there is a paucity of methods capable of noninvasive real-time assessment. Here we show that miniaturized handheld near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) scans, operated via a smartphone, can assess structural human bone properties in under three seconds. A hand-held NIR spectrometer was used to scan bone samples from 20 patients and predict: bone volume fraction (BV/TV); and trabecular (Tb) and cortical (Ct) thickness (Th), porosity (Po), and spacing (Sp).Aims
Methods
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. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were carried out on a sample of 12 orthopaedic surgeons. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify key themes.Aims
Methods
Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the highest level of evidence used to inform patient care. However, it has been suggested that the quality of randomization in RCTs in orthopaedic surgery may be low. This study aims to describe the quality of randomization in trials included in systematic reviews in orthopaedic surgery. Systematic reviews of RCTs testing orthopaedic procedures published in 2022 were extracted from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. A random sample of 100 systematic reviews was selected, and all included RCTs were retrieved. To be eligible for inclusion, systematic reviews must have tested an orthopaedic procedure as the primary intervention, included at least one study identified as a RCT, been published in 2022 in English, and included human clinical trials. The Cochrane Risk of Bias-2 Tool was used to assess random sequence generation as ‘adequate’, ‘inadequate’, or ‘no information’; we then calculated the proportion of trials in each category. We also collected data to test the association between these categories and characteristics of the RCTs and systematic reviews.Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate machine-learning-based computerized adaptive tests (CATs) for the Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), and the Oxford Elbow Score (OES) and its subscales. We developed CAT algorithms for the OHS, OKS, OSS, overall OES, and each of the OES subscales, using responses to the full-length questionnaires and a machine-learning technique called regression tree learning. The algorithms were evaluated through a series of simulation studies, in which they aimed to predict respondents’ full-length questionnaire scores from only a selection of their item responses. In each case, the total number of items used by the CAT algorithm was recorded and CAT scores were compared to full-length questionnaire scores by mean, SD, score distribution plots, Pearson’s correlation coefficient, intraclass correlation (ICC), and the Bland-Altman method. Differences between CAT scores and full-length questionnaire scores were contextualized through comparison to the instruments’ minimal clinically important difference (MCID).Aims
Methods
Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, incidence of hip fracture has not changed. Evidence has shown increased mortality rates associated with COVID-19 infection. However, little is known about the outcomes of COVID-19 negative patients in a pandemic environment. In addition, the impact of vitamin D levels on mortality in COVID-19 hip fracture patients has yet to be determined. This multicentre observational study included 1,633 patients who sustained a hip fracture across nine hospital trusts in North West England. Data were collected for three months from March 2020 and for the same period in 2019. Patients were matched by Nottingham Hip Fracture Score (NHFS), hospital, and fracture type. We looked at the mortality outcomes of COVID-19 positive and COVID-19 negative patients sustaining a hip fracture. We also looked to see if vitamin D levels had an impact on mortality.Aims
Methods
COVID-19 represents one of the greatest global healthcare challenges in a generation. Orthopaedic departments within the UK have shifted care to manage trauma in ways that minimize exposure to COVID-19. As the incidence of COVID-19 decreases, we explore the impact and risk factors of COVID-19 on patient outcomes within our department. We retrospectively included all patients who underwent a trauma or urgent orthopaedic procedure from 23 March to 23 April 2020. Electronic records were reviewed for COVID-19 swab results and mortality, and patients were screened by telephone a minimum 14 days postoperatively for symptoms of COVID-19.Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to review the role
of clinical trial networks in orthopaedic surgery. A total of two
electronic databases (MEDLINE and EMBASE) were searched from inception
to September 2013 with no language restrictions. Articles related
to randomised controlled trials (RCTs), research networks and orthopaedic
research, were identified and reviewed. The usefulness of trainee-led
research collaborations is reported and our knowledge of current
clinical trial infrastructure further supplements the review. Searching
yielded 818 titles and abstracts, of which 12 were suitable for
this review. Results are summarised and presented narratively under
the following headings: 1) identifying clinically relevant research
questions; 2) education and training; 3) conduct of multicentre
RCTs and 4) dissemination and adoption of trial results. This review
confirms growing international awareness of the important role research
networks play in supporting trials in orthopaedic surgery. Multidisciplinary
collaboration and adequate investment in trial infrastructure are crucial
for successful delivery of RCTs. Cite this article:
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:
