Cite this article:
Cite this article:
Research into COVID-19 has been rapid in response to the dynamic global situation, which has resulted in heterogeneity of methodology and the communication of information. Adherence to reporting standards would improve the quality of evidence presented in future studies, and may ensure that findings could be interpreted in the context of the wider literature. The COVID-19 pandemic remains a dynamic situation, requiring continued assessment of the disease incidence and monitoring for the emergence of viral variants and their transmissibility, virulence, and susceptibility to vaccine-induced immunity. More work is needed to assess the long-term impact of COVID-19 infection on patients who sustain a hip fracture. The International Multicentre Project Auditing COVID-19 in Trauma & Orthopaedics (IMPACT) formed the largest multicentre collaborative audit conducted in orthopaedics in order to provide an emergency response to a global pandemic, but this was in the context of many vital established audit services being disrupted at an early stage, and it is crucial that these resources are protected during future health crises. Rapid data-sharing between regions should be developed, with wider adoption of the revised 2022 Fragility Fracture Network Minimum Common Data Set for Hip Fracture Audit, and a pragmatic approach to information governance processes in order to facilitate cooperation and meta-audit. This editorial aims to: 1) identify issues related to COVID-19 that require further research; 2) suggest reporting standards for studies of COVID-19 and other communicable diseases; 3) consider the requirement of new risk scores for hip fracture patients; and 4) present the lessons learned from IMPACT in order to inform future collaborative studies. Cite this article:
Health economic evaluations potentially provide
valuable information to clinicians, health care administrators,
and policy makers regarding the financial implications of decisions
about the care of patients. The highest quality research should
be used to inform decisions that have direct impact on the access
to care and the outcome of treatment. However, economic analyses
are often complex and use research methods which are relatively unfamiliar
to clinicians. Furthermore, health economic data have substantial
national, regional, and institutional variability, which can limit
the external validity of the results of a study. Therefore, minimum
guidelines that aim to standardise the quality and transparency
of reporting health economic research have been developed, and instruments
are available to assist in the assessment of its quality and the
interpretation of results. The purpose of this editorial is to discuss the principal types
of health economic studies, to review the most common instruments
for judging the quality of these studies and to describe current
reporting guidelines. Recommendations for the submission of these
types of studies to Cite this article:
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:
The limitations and benefits of patient-reported
outcome measures, in defining the merits of arthroplasty surgery,
are discussed. Cite this article:
Trauma and Orthopaedic care has been through
a rapid evolution over the past few decades. This Editorial discusses
some of the advances. Cite this article:
The variation in surgical performance, both between
centres and individual surgeons, has recently been of significant
political, media and public interest. Within the United Kingdom, a
government agenda to increase accountability amongst surgeons has
led to the online publication of ‘surgeon-level’ data. Surgeons,
journalists and the public need to understand these data if they
are to be useful in driving up standards of surgical care. This
Editorial describes the use of Funnel Plots, which are the common
means by which such data are presented, and discusses how the plots
are generated. Cite this article:
In cerebral palsy, the site and severity of the brain lesion are directly linked to gross motor function and the development of musculoskeletal deformities. The relationship between walking ability and orthopaedic surgery in children with cerebral palsy is not fully understood. The development of new tools such as the Functional Assessment Questionnaire and the Functional Mobility Scale can be used to give new insights on the functional impact of multilevel surgery. These scales are most useful as part of systematic, long-term follow-up.
