Journal Of Orthopaedic Trauma Research Articles

Incidence, Diversity, and Quality of Publications in Orthopaedic Trauma Literature

Introduction: Modern medicine increasingly relies on evidence-based care, using academic journals as vehicles for information dissemination. Increasing rates of publication have led to an overwhelming volume of literature. This study evaluates the proportion of dedicated orthopaedic trauma literature, the frequency of different topic domains, and the quality of currently published information. Methods: Top orthopaedic journals were selected by impact factor and scientific articles published between 2016 –2019 were evaluated. All articles were categorized by subspecialty and pre-defined topic domains and level of evidence was recorded. Results: 3,697 articles were published in Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma (JOT), Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (CORR), the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (JBJS), and Bone and Joint Journal (BJJ). 32% of articles were dedicated to orthopaedic trauma topics. Joint Arthroplasty was the most published subspecialty in general journals (35.37%, P<0.002). Hip fractures were the most prevalent trauma topic domain in all four journals (15.5%, P<0.002). Pelvic ring injuries were the second most prevalent topic in orthopaedic trauma journals, versus distal radius fractures in non-trauma journals (P<0.05). 48.4% of published literature was level III evidence, with no differences between trauma and non-trauma publications (P>0.05). Conclusion: Orthopaedic trauma is well represented within the orthopaedic literature with a diverse distribution of topics over the four-year period, second only to Joint Arthroplasty which was by far the most common topic in general orthopaedic journals. Level of Evidence in trauma literature parallel other orthopaedic subspecialties, but there is an overall low proportion of level I and II studies in the orthopaedic literature. Level of Evidence: Level II

The top 100 most cited articles on intramedullary nail fixation from 2018-2022: a bibliometric and visualized analysis.

Intramedullary nails are commonly used for the purposes of internal fixation in the repair of tubular bone fractures, allowing for optimal fixation while minimizing intraoperative bleeding, surgical incision size, and associated stress. These nails are thus often utilized to repair hip and peripheral fractures, femur fractures, tibial fractures, humerus fractures, and clavicle fractures. Recent life expectancy increases, rising economic standards, and technological innovations have led to the application of a wider range of materials and techniques in the context of orthopedic device production, further expanding the clinical indications for intramedullary nailing. Despite the growing importance of this technique, there is currently a lack of any bibliometric or visual analyses that provide a robust overview of recent progress in the intramedullary nailing research space. Accordingly, this study was developed to succinctly and comprehensively summarize the current research status and major hotspots in this field through a bibliometric review of major relevant scientific articles focused on intramedullary nailing published in recent years. For this analysis, the top 100 most-cited articles focused on intramedullary nails published between 2018 and 2022 were identified through a search of the Web of Science Core Collection database. Countries, institutions, journals, and other specific parameters associated with these articles were then analyzed using tools including CiteSpace, VOS-viewer, Origin, and SCImago Graphica in an effort to more clearly define the latest trends in the intramedullary nail-related research space. The top 3 most-cited articles related to intramedullary nailing over the past five years were "Antibacterial and immunogenic behavior of silver coatings on additively manufactured porous titanium", "Diaphyseal long bone nonunions - types, etiology, economics, and treatment recommendations", and "Epidemiology, treatment, and mortality of trochanteric and subtrochanteric hip fractures: data from the Swedish fracture register", all of which were published in 2018, respectively exhibiting 93, 83, and 81 citations. Of the 100 most-cited intramedullary nailing-related articles, 38, 20, and 12 were respectively published by researchers from the USA, China, and the UK, while research groups from Italy and Spain each published 7 articles. Four of this field's most highly cited articles were published by individuals affiliated with the US-based University of California System and the University System of Ohio. Of the 15 journals that published the largest number of these top 100 articles, the "Injury International Journal of The Care of The Injured" and the "Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma" published 9 manuscripts each, which was more than any other journal, while the "Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery" and the "Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics" published 7 each. In total, 73 highly cited articles focused on utilizing intramedullary nailing in orthopedic applications. Rozbruch SR from the USA published 3 high-quality articles in this research space, while the Chinese researchers Chang Shi Min, Du Shou Chao, Hou Zhi Yong, and Hu Sun Jun exhibited a total linkage strength of 21 in global interaction analyses. The most common keywords associated with intramedullary nail-related research identified in these analyses included "Hip fracture", "Nonunion", "Limb lengthening", "Proximal humeral fractures", "Additive manufacturing", "Induced membrane", and "Endoprosthetic replacement". Promising areas of potential future research focus may include "Limb reconstruction", "Pediatric deformity", and "Congenital femoral deficiency". This analysis revealed that the highest volume of high-impact research output focused on intramedullary nailing over the past 5 years has been produced by the USA, followed by China and the UK. The most influential journals in this research space were Injury International Journal of The Care of The Injured and the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, while the institutions associated with the most highly cited articles were the University of California System and the University System of Ohio. Intramedullary nailing is commonly utilized to treat intertrochanteric fractures and other tubular bone fractures. In the future, the application of augmented and virtual reality technologies may help shorten the learning curve for orthopedic surgeons and trauma surgeons who are learning intramedullary nailing-related techniques, and the combination of intramedullary nailing with antibacterial drugs, metal alloys, 3D navigation, and sensor devices may help improve patient outcomes.

Analysis of Orthopaedic In-Training Examination Trauma Questions: 2017 to 2021

The Orthopaedic In-Training Examination (OITE) is a multiple-choice examination developed by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons annually since 1963 to assess orthopaedic residents' knowledge. This study's purpose is to analyze the 2017 to 2021 OITE trauma questions to aid orthopaedic residents preparing for the examination. The 2017 to 2021 OITEs on American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons' ResStudy were retrospectively reviewed to identify trauma questions. Question topic, references, and images were analyzed. Two independent reviewers classified each question by taxonomy. Trauma represented 16.6% (204/1,229) of OITE questions. Forty-nine percent of trauma questions included images (100/204), 87.0% (87/100) of which contained radiographs. Each question averaged 2.4 references, of which 94.9% were peer-reviewed articles and 46.8% were published within 5 years of the respective OITE. The most common taxonomic classification was T1 (46.1%), followed by T3 (37.7%) and T2 (16.2%). Trauma represents a notable portion of the OITE. Prior OITE trauma analyses were published greater than 10 years ago. Since then, there has been an increase in questions with images and requiring higher cognitive processing. The Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma (24.7%), Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (10.1%), and Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume (9.3%) remain the most cited sources.

The utility of patient-reported outcome measures in orthopaedic trauma research: a systematic review

Background: Patient-reported outcome score measures (PROM) are valuable tools in assessing patient function following management of orthopaedic conditions. The purpose of this study was to investigate and characterize the use of PROM in the orthopaedic trauma literature. Methods: Articles published in the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma (JOT), Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (JBJS), Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (CORR), Foot and Ankle International (FAI), Journal of Hand Surgery (JHS), and Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery (JSES) from 2011 to 2019 were reviewed. Publications pertaining to outcomes after trauma were included. Publication year, number of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) used, and the specific PROMs published per study were recorded. Results: Of the 11,873 articles reviewed, 3,583 (30%) articles pertained to trauma. Twenty-nine percent of orthopaedic trauma articles utilized at least one PROM. There was a gradual increase in trauma publications with PROMs over 9 yr. An average of two PROMs were reported per publication. The percentage of trauma studies that included PROMs varied by journal. In JOT, 35% of trauma articles published included PROM, 30% of articles published in JBJS, 27% in CORR, 48% in JSES, 30% in JHS, and 49% of trauma articles in FAI utilized PROM. The most commonly used PROMs included: visual analog scale (VAS) (n=411), Disabilities of the Arm and Hand Score (DASH) (n=281), Constant-Murley Score (n=145), Short Form Survey-36 (n=123), the Mayo Elbow Performance Index (n=101), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment (n=93). Conclusions: Clinical outcome studies utilizing PROMs after orthopaedic trauma represented a minority of publications across six major journals between 2011 to 2019. Standardization of PROMs is lacking, making comparison between studies challenging. The VAS and DASH scores were the most frequently PROMs reported followed by additional PROMs for the upper extremity. Characterizing the use of PROMs directs future investigators toward selecting applicable PROMs to evaluate patient outcomes following orthopaedic trauma. Level of Evidence: Level IV.

The utility of routine dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans in matched-pair cadaveric biomechanical trauma research

Background: Performing cadaveric dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scanning is a routine part of orthopaedic biomechanical research, but it is not without cost. Matched pairs are often used in biomechanical studies to further equalize comparison groups. Despite the widespread use of matched-pair analysis, the practical utility of obtaining routine DEXA scans remains unknown. The authors’ objective was to determine the value of DEXA scans in biomechanical cadaveric trauma studies. Methods: The authors identified 10 sequential journal articles from the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma from February 2013 to February 2019 that were biomechanical studies with two comparison groups using matched pairs, which were DEXA-scanned prior to experimentation. For each study, the authors determined the number of pairs used, number of pairs discarded, any significant differences in bone density between groups compared, and how density results were reported for individual specimens or pairs. Results: None of the 113 matched pairs reported in these studies were discarded because of DEXA scan results. There were inconsistencies between studies on reported units of measurement and how the specimens were compared. No significant differences in density between the compared groups were reported in the 10 studies. No studies disclosed the bone density for any individual specimen or score difference for any individual pair. Conclusions: As currently used in the literature, routine DEXA scans of cadaveric matched-pair specimens do not typically lead to any modification of experimental design or reporting of results. Level of Evidence: Level IV.

A bibliometric analysis of clinical research on fracture-related infection

Background Infection following orthopaedic trauma surgery is increasingly recognized as one of the major research priorities with as primary goal, improving patient care. This increased interest has been anecdotally recognized through published research, research grants, and, finally, with the development of the fracture-related infection (FRI) consensus group. In 2017, the accepted consensus definition of FRI was published, which has been followed by consensus recommendations from both a surgical and medical perspective. A bibliometric analysis was performed to objectively describe the trends in published clinical research related to FRI. Methods The terms related to FRI were searched in the Web of Science database between 2000 and 2020. The characteristics of clinical research on FRI regarding the author, country, journal, institution, scientific output, top 100 most cited articles, and trend topics were analyzed using Bibliometrix and WPS Office. Results A total of 2597 records were eligible for inclusion in this bibliometric approach, with studies originating from 89 countries, including eight languages. The United States of America (USA) published the highest number of articles and citations. International collaborations were present between 72 countries, with the most active country being the USA. The most contributive institution was the University of California. The highest number of papers and citations were from the Injury-International Journal of the Care of the Injured and the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma. The top 100 most cited articles were published in 27 different journals, with the number of citations ranging between 97 and 1004. The latest trend topics were related to the diagnosis of FRI. Conclusion The present bibliometric analysis shows the research characteristics and trends of FRI from multiple perspectives. The fact that there is an increasing number of studies being published on FRI shows the agreement among scientists and clinicians that standardization with respect to this topic is very important.

Conflict of interest disclosure in orthopaedic and general surgical trauma literature

SignificanceFinancial relationships between industry and physicians are a key aspect for the advancement of surgical practice and training, but these relationships also result in a conflict of interest with respect to research. Financial payments to physicians are public within the United States in the Open Payments Database, but the rate of accurate financial disclosure of payments has not previously been studied in trauma surgery publications. ObjectiveTo determine the rate of accurate financial disclosure in major surgical trauma journals compared with the Open Payments Database. Materials and MethodsThe names of all authors publishing in The Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, Injury, and The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery between 2015 and 2018 were obtained from MEDLINE. Non-physicians, physicians outside of the United States, physicians without payments in the Open Payments Database, and physicians with payments types of only “Food and Drink” were excluded. Financial disclosure statements were obtained from the journal websites and manually compared against Open Payments Database entries the year prior to submission and during the year of submission up until 3 months prior to publication for each individual physician. Main outcomes were accuracy of disclosure published with each article, total amount of payments received (disclosure or undisclosed), surgical subspecialty of the reporting physician. Statistical comparisons were made using Chi-square testing with significance defined as p<0.05. ResultsBetween 2015 and 2018, 5070 articles were published involving 28,948 authors. 2945 authors met inclusion criteria. 490 authors accurately disclosed their financial relationships with industry (16.6%). The median value of undisclosed payments was $22,140 [IQR $6465, $77,221] which was significantly less than the medial value of disclosed payment of $66,433 [IQR $24,624, $161,886], p<0.001 Orthopaedic surgeons disclosed at a higher rate (26.3%, 479/1818) than general surgeons (4.8%, 47/971), p<0.001. ConclusionsPhysician-industry relationships are key for advancing surgical practice and providing training to physicians. These relationships are not inherently unethical, but there is consistently high inaccuracy of financial disclosure across multiple trauma surgery journals which may indicate the need for further education on financial disclosures during surgical training or active obtainment of publicly available financial disclosures by journals.

Publication Characteristics of Foot and Ankle Trauma Publications: A Review of Articles From 1997 to 2017.

BackgroundThe purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare publishing characteristics in foot and ankle trauma articles published in two subspecialty journals and two general orthopedic journals.MethodsAll trauma articles related to foot and ankle surgery published from five different time intervals over a 20-year period were collected and the following was analyzed: authorship, level of evidence, type of study, citations, and geographic region.ResultsFoot and Ankle International (FAI) had the highest percentage of last and corresponding authors that were fellowship-trained in foot and ankle. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery American and British volumes (JBJS(A) and JBJS(B), respectively) and the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma (JOT) articles had a higher percentage of last and corresponding authors that were fellowship-trained in trauma.ConclusionFoot and ankle-trained authors are currently under-represented in foot and ankle trauma literature. As the field of foot and ankle continues to grow, it is important that the experts in the field are well represented in the literature.

Assessing the level of evidence in the orthopaedic literature, 2013\u20132018: a review of 3449 articles in leading orthopaedic journals

BackgroundIn biomedical research, level of evidence (LOE) indicates the quality of a study. Recent studies evaluating orthopaedic trauma literature between 1998 and 2013 have indicated that LOE in this field has improved. The objective of this study was to determine the validity of one such study by 1) comparing our results and how they relate to more recent years of publications; and 2) assessing how our findings may be used to estimate future changes.MethodsA total of 3449 articles published from 2013 to 2018 in The Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma (JOT); Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume (JBJS-Am); and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (CORR) were evaluated for their LOE. Articles published in JBJS-Am or CORR were classified as trauma or nontrauma studies; articles published in JOT were considered trauma studies. Articles were assigned a LOE using guidance published by JBJS-Am in 2015.ResultsThe percentage of total high-level (level I or II) trauma and nontrauma articles published in JOT, JBJS-Am, and CORR decreased from 2013 to 2018 (trauma 23.1 to 19.2%, p = 0.190; nontrauma 28.8 to 24.9%, p = 0.037). JBJS-Am published the highest percentage of level-I trauma studies, and CORR published the lowest percentage of level-IV studies. JBJS-Am and CORR published higher percentages of level-I trauma studies and lower percentages of level-IV nontrauma studies than all trauma studies.ConclusionsBased on our results we cannot validate the findings of previous studies as we found the overall LOE of both trauma and nontrauma orthopaedic literature has decreased in recent years. JBJS-Am published a greater percentage of high-level studies than did JOT and CORR. Although the number and percentage of high-level studies published in JOT increased during the study period, it still lagged behind JBJS-Am and CORR.

Publication Rates of Posters From the Orthopaedic Trauma Association Annual Meeting 2011-2016: Posters Are Not Second Rate.

To determine the publication rate of posters presented at the OTA annual meeting from 2011 to 2016. All posters presented at the OTA annual meetings from 2011 to 2016 were identified from the OTA's official website and confirmed through review of the OTA official programs. This information was then used to direct a search, and if the presentation was associated with a publication, publishing information was entered into the database. From 2011 to 2016, there were a total of 875 posters with 473 associated publications (54%). The highest rate of publication was 64.1% of posters published in 2012. The posters were published at an average of 19.4 months after presentation. One hundred sixty posters were published in the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma (35%). Our research demonstrated a 54% publication rate over a 6-year period of posters presented at the OTA annual meetings. This rate is higher than other publication rates for podium presentations in other societies (eg, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and American Academy for Surgery of the Hand). This validates the quality of research presented in poster format at the OTA annual meeting.

Statistical Significance in Trauma Research: Too Unstable to Trust?

To evaluate the stability of statistical findings in the fracture care literature based on minor changes in event rates and to determine the utility of applying both the Fragility Index (FI) and Fragility Quotient (FQ) to comparative orthopaedic trauma trials. All fracture care studies from 1991 to 2013 in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery and the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma were screened. The FI was determined by altering the number of reported outcome events, a single event at time, until a reversal of statistical significance was determined. The associated FQ was determined by dividing the FI by the total sample size. Of the 4040 studies evaluated, 198 comparative studies met inclusion criteria with a reported 253 primary and 522 secondary outcome events. There were 118 randomized controlled trials and 80 retrospective comparative studies. Of the 775 total outcome events, 235 were initially reported as significant. The median FI for the entire study was only 5 with an associated FQ of 0.046. This represents just 3.8% of the total study population. The robustness of comparative trials in the orthopaedic trauma literature may not be as stable as previously thought with only a few event reversals required to alter trial significance. We therefore recommend triple reporting of a P value, FI, and FQ to aid in the evaluation and interpretation of statistical stability and quantitative significance in comparative orthopaedic trauma trials.

Effects of a proposal to alter the statistical significance threshold on previously published orthopaedic trauma randomized controlled trials

IntroductionA recent proposal suggests changing the threshold for statistical significance from a P value of .05 to .005 to minimize bias and increase reproducibility of future studies. P values less than .05 but greater than .005 would be reclassified as “suggestive”, whereas P values less than .005 would be considered significant. The present study explores how lowering the P value threshold would affect the interpretation of previously published orthopaedic trauma randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and whether outcomes from these trials would maintain statistical significance under the proposed P value threshold. MethodsAll RCTs published between January 01, 2016 and January 31, 2018 in the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, Injury, and Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery were screened by at least 2 authors. Data from included trials were extracted in blinded and duplicate fashion. All P values for primary endpoints were included from each study. ResultsWe identified 124 primary endpoints from 48 trials: 39.5% (49/124) of endpoints had a P value less than .05 and 60.5% (75/124) had a P value greater than .05. Overall, 51.0% (25/49) of statistically significant primary endpoints were less than .005, while 49.0% (24/49) would be reclassified as suggestive. ConclusionBased on our results, adopting a lower threshold of significance would heavily alter the significance of orthopaedic trauma RCTs and should be further evaluated and cautiously considered when viewing the effect such a proposal on orthopaedic practice.

Abstracts Accepted for Presentation at Orthopaedic Trauma or Arthroplasty Conferences: Which Conference Is the Best Indicator of Future Publication?

Introduction:Time and financial resources pose limitations to orthopaedic surgeons wishing to advance their orthopaedic knowledge, and surgeons frequently must choose one meeting to attend. We sought to determine whether abstracts presented at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) annual meeting or the trauma (Orthopaedic Trauma Association [OTA]) or arthroplasty (American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons [AAHKS]) subspecialty meetings, respectively, were higher yield with respect to material ultimately being published. We hypothesized that papers accepted by AAOS would demonstrate higher conversion to publication compared with OTA and AAHKS but expected abstract publication rates from OTA and AAHKS to be similar.Methods:All clinical and preclinical abstracts from the trauma and total joint arthroplasty subspecialties presented at the AAOS, OTA, and AAHKS annual meetings in 2015 were evaluated. Data collected included the current status of the publication, journal and publication date, time to publication, and country of origin (United States or international).Results:There were 516 (N = 213, AAOS; N = 303, OTA) trauma and 711 (N = 470, AAOS; N = 241 AAHKS) arthroplasty poster and podium presentations. When comparing publication rates in trauma, no significant difference was observed in overall publication rates between AAOS and OTA at 57.2% (N = 122 published) and 60.4% (N = 183 published), respectively (P = 0.54). In addition, no significant difference was observed in overall publication rates in arthroplasty between AAOS and AAHKS, with publication rates of 65.3% (N = 307 published) and 59.8% (N = 144 published), respectively (P = 0.17). Of abstracts that were published, AAHKS arthroplasty abstracts were more likely to be published in The Journal of Arthroplasty (JOA, 69.4%) compared with OTA trauma abstracts published in the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma (JOT, 33.3%), P < 0.001.Conclusion:The overall publication rates, along with publication rates to premiere subspecialty journals, is indicative of forefront research being presented at the three annual meetings. Given the comparable research quality of OTA and AAHKS abstracts, the AAOS meeting appears to provide the highest yield for surgeons with more generalized practices or practices spanning multiple subspecialties.

Minimum Clinically Important Difference: Current Trends in the Orthopaedic Literature, Part II: Lower Extremity: A Systematic Review.

The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) attempts to define the patient's experience of treatment outcomes. Efforts at calculating the MCID have yielded multiple and inconsistent MCID values. The purposes of this review were to describe the usage of the MCID in the most recent orthopaedic literature, to explain the limitations of its current uses, and to clarify the underpinnings of the MCID calculation, so as to help practitioners to understand and utilize the MCID and to guide future efforts to calculate the MCID. In Part I of this review, we sampled the orthopaedic literature in relation to the upper extremity. In this part, Part II, of the review, we will focus on the lower-extremity literature. A review was conducted of the 2014 to 2016 MCID-related publications in The Journal of Arthroplasty, The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, The American Journal of Sports Medicine, Foot & Ankle International, Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics, and Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. Only clinical science articles utilizing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were included in the analysis. A keyword search was then performed to identify articles that used the MCID. Articles were then further categorized into upper-extremity and lower-extremity publications. The MCID utilization in the selected articles was characterized and was recorded. The MCID was referenced in 129 (7.5%) of 1,709 clinical science articles that utilized PROMs: 79 (61.2%) of the 129 articles were related to the lower extremity; of these, 11 (13.9%) independently calculated the MCID values and 68 (86.1%) used previously published MCID values as a gauge of their own results. The MCID values were calculated or were considered for 31 PROMs, of which 24 were specific to the lower extremity. Eleven different methods were used to calculate the MCID. The MCID had a wide range of values for the same questionnaires, for instance, 5.8 to 31.3 points for the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). There are more than twice as many PROMs for the lower extremity (24) than for the upper extremity (11), confirming that the determination of useful MCID values is, in part, hampered by the proliferation of PROMs in the field of orthopaedics. The difference between significance and clinical importance needs to be further clarified. For instance, the common use of determining sample size with the MCID and comparing group means with the MCID implies that a significant result will also be clinically important. Further, the study of the MCID would benefit from consensus agreement on relevant terminology and the appropriate usage of the MCID determining equations. MCID is increasingly used as a measure of patients' improvement. However, MCID does not yet adequately capture the clinical importance of patients' improvement.

Comparative Analysis of Bibliometric, Authorship, and Collaboration Trends Over the Past 30-Year Publication History of the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma and Injury

In the scientific and medical field, authorship has become increasingly important for tenure and career advancement in addition to improvement in medical care. It was the purpose of this study to investigate changes in bibliometric variables, authorship, and collaboration trends in the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma (JOT) and Injury over a 30-year period. A bibliometric analysis was completed for all manuscripts meeting the inclusion criteria and published throughout 1 representative year of each decade over the past 30 years. A total of 444 and 1105 manuscripts for JOT and Injury, respectively, met the inclusion criteria. Standard statistical analyses were performed with nonparametric methods for continuous variables and Pearson χ and Cochran linear trend tests for categorical variables. A P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. There were significant increases over time in all bibliometric variables for both journals, except in the number of countries and pages in JOT. For JOT, the overall percentage of female first authors increased 2.3 times from 1987 to 2015 (P = 0.021). The overall percentage of female corresponding authors was 7.3%. For Injury, the overall percentage of female first authors increased 1.5 times (P = 0.007). The overall percentage of female corresponding authors was 13.1%. Understanding changes in publishing characteristics over time and by region is critical with the rising demands of publishing in academic medicine. JOT and Injury have showed an increase in most variables analyzed. However, female authorship in JOT is climbing at a higher rate than Injury.

Current Trends in the Management of Distal Radius Fractures.

This article discusses recent reports on distal radius fractures. The keyword "distal radius fracture" was used to query the PubMed database of the US National Library of Medicine. From the resulting list, articles published in the Journal of Hand Surgery (American Volume), the Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume), and the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma from April 2014 through December 2015 were reviewed. Related commentaries were also evaluated. Case series of fewer than 5 patients were excluded. The 65 studies and commentaries identified are categorized and summarized. [Orthopedics. 2017; 40(3):145-152.].

The Highest-Impact Combat Orthopedic and Extremity Injury Articles in the Past 70 Years: A Citation Analysis.

The objective of this study was to identify the most-cited peer-reviewed combat orthopedic and extremity injury articles published during the past 70 years. Orthopedic trauma presents ongoing challenges to both US civilian and military healthcare personnel. Improvements in combat trauma and extremity injury survival and quality of life are the result of advances in orthopedic trauma research. The Web of Science (including Science Citation Index) was searched for the most cited articles related to combat orthopedic trauma, published from 1940 to 2013. The most-cited article was by Owens et al. (Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, 2007; 137 citations). Between the 1990s and 2000s, there was a 256% increase in the number of highly cited publications. A total of 69% of the articles were on the topics of comorbid vascular trauma (25%), epidemiology (23%), or orthopedic trauma (21%). This study identifies some of the most important contributions to combat orthopedic trauma and research and the areas of greatest scientific interest to the specialty during the past seven decades and highlights key research that has contributed to the evolution of modern combat orthopedic traumatology.

Levels of Evidence in Orthopaedic Trauma Literature.

To review and critically assess trends observed regarding the levels of evidence in published articles in orthopaedic traumatology literature. The Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American, and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. All articles from the years 1998, 2003, 2008, and 2013 in The Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma (JOT) and orthopaedic trauma-related articles from The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American (JBJS-A) and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (CORR) were analyzed. Articles were categorized by type and ranked for level of evidence according to guidelines from the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Study type and standardized level of evidence were determined for each article. Articles were subcategorized as high-level evidence (I, II), moderate-level evidence (III), and low-level evidence (IV, V). During the study period, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American reduced its low-level studies from 80% to 40% (P = 0.00015), Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research decreased its low-level studies from 70% to 27%, and Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma decreased its low-level studies from 78% to 45%. Level IV and V therapeutic, prognostic, and diagnostic studies demonstrated significant decreases during the study period (P = 0.0046, P < 0.0001, P = 0.026). The percentage of high-level studies increased from 13% to 19%; however, this was not significant (P = 0.42). There was a trend showing an increase in level I and II studies for therapeutic, prognostic, and diagnostic studies (P = 0.06). There has been a statistically significant decrease in lower level of evidence studies published in the orthopaedic traumatology literature over the past 15 years.

Academics and Orthopaedic Trauma

Academics and Orthopaedic Trauma

Levels of Evidence Have Increased for Musculoskeletal Trauma Questions on the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination

The purpose of this study was to determine if the levels of evidence for primary journal articles used as references for musculoskeletal trauma questions on the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination (OITE) have increased over a 15-year period. Basic science article. Geisinger Medical Center (Danville, PA), tertiary referral center. All 329 questions in the musculoskeletal trauma content domain on the OITE from 1995 to 1997 and 2010 to 2012 were reviewed. Baseline characteristics for each question and each reference were recorded. References were categorized as a textbook, a journal review article, an instructional course lecture, or a primary journal article. For each primary journal article, the level of evidence for the article was determined in accordance with the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Levels of Evidence Guidelines. The level of evidence used for primary journal articles demonstrated a statistically significant increase from 1995 to 1997 to 2010 to 2012. Overall, 27% of primary journal articles cited on the 1995 to 1997 OITEs were level I, II, or III studies, increasing to 43% during the 2010 to 2012 period (p = 0.04). The Buckwalter classification for the OITE questions changed significantly between the 2 periods, with questions from 2010 to 2012 including more T1 questions (25% vs 39%) and fewer T3 questions (46% vs 39%, p = 0.016). The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery and the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma were the most frequently cited journals overall. The levels of evidence for primary journal articles cited on the OITE for questions within the musculoskeletal trauma content domain have increased between 1995 and 2012. Our analysis can be used as a guide to help examinees prepare for musculoskeletal trauma questions on the OITE and as an aid in core curriculum development.