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
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
It is unusual, if not unique, for three major research papers concerned with the management of the fractured neck of femur (FNOF) to be published in a short period of time, each describing large prospective randomized clinical trials. These studies were conducted in up to 17 countries worldwide, involving up to 80 surgical centers and include large numbers of patients (up to 2,900) with FNOF. Each article investigated common clinical dilemmas; the first paper comparing total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for FNOF, the second as to whether ‘fast track’ care offers improved clinical outcomes and the third, compares sliding hip with multiple cancellous hip screws. Each paper has been deemed of sufficient quality and importance to warrant publication in The Lancet or the New England Journal of Medicine. Although ‘premier’ journals, they only occationally contain orthopaedic studies and thus may not be routinely read by the busy orthopaedic/surgical clinician of any grade. It is therefore our intention with this present article to accurately summarize and combine the results of all three papers, presenting, in our opinion, the most important clinically relevant facts. Cite this article:
