Major Orthopaedic Journals Research Articles

The inclusion of sex and gender in research methodology, funding, and publication: A systematic review.

Gender inequity in access to and outcomes of orthopedic care demands research that properly analyses data based on sex and gender. Orthopedic surgeons have an obligation to mitigate gender inequity in the provision of care by addressing the sex and gender bias in orthopedic research methodology, grant funding, and publication demonstrated by this review. This study aimed to review the literature on known gender inequities in orthopedic care, as well as sex and gender bias in orthopedic research methodology, funding, and publication; and to then to outline mitigating strategies. A systematic review was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for articles published in English between 2000 and 2024. The databases searched included MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and Cochrane, and Scopus. A total of 70 studies were identified that met inclusion criteria. Women often have poorer access to care and poorer outcomes than men for many common orthopedic procedures. Sex-specific analysis reached a maximum of 34% for combined basic science, translational and clinical research in major orthopedic journals. Women were less likely than men to be study participants. Orthopedic outcome measures do not adequately account for the epidemiological factors that predominantly affect women including pregnancy and care of the (often extended) family or differences in factors such as pain and return to work or sport. The probability of sex-related reporting was higher in papers with women as first and authors last, often in journals with lower impact factors. Women orthopedic researchers received only 55.2% of the funding of men orthopedic researchers. While women's first authorship increased statistically significantly from 1995 to 2020 (6.70%-15.37%, P​<​0.001) manuscripts submitted by women were less likely to be published, and those with a woman first author demonstrated a lower citation rate. Mitigating strategies to address biases in research methodology and publication include adopting evidence-based Gender Specific Analysis (GSA) methods into the orthopedic research process, considering GSA as a prerequisite for research grants and manuscript publication, increasing the diversity of orthopedic editorial boards, and supporting the careers of women in the orthopedic academic community through a more gender equitable environment and career-long mentorship and sponsorship. There are well-documented gender inequities in orthopedic care. Addressing the identified sex and gender bias in orthopedic research methodology, funding, and publication is a public health imperative. Mitigating strategies include education and the integration of sex and gender analysis in each step of the research to publication pathway, and increasing women in academic orthopedics through mentorship, sponsorship, and more inclusive department culture and policies. IV.

Quantifying the Scope of Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Writing in Orthopaedic Medical Literature: An Analysis of Prevalence and Validation of AI-Detection Software.

The popularization of generative artificial intelligence (AI), including Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT), has raised concerns for the integrity of academic literature. This study asked the following questions: (1) Has the popularization of publicly available generative AI, such as ChatGPT, increased the prevalence of AI-generated orthopaedic literature? (2) Can AI detectors accurately identify ChatGPT-generated text? (3) Are there associations between article characteristics and the likelihood that it was AI generated? PubMed was searched across six major orthopaedic journals to identify articles received for publication after January 1, 2023. Two hundred and forty articles were randomly selected and entered into three popular AI detectors. Twenty articles published by each journal before the release of ChatGPT were randomly selected as negative control articles. 36 positive control articles (6 per journal) were created by altering 25%, 50%, and 100% of text from negative control articles using ChatGPT and were then used to validate each detector. The mean percentage of text detected as written by AI per detector was compared between pre-ChatGPT and post-ChatGPT release articles using independent t -test. Multivariate regression analysis was conducted using percentage AI-generated text per journal, article type (ie, cohort, clinical trial, review), and month of submission. One AI detector consistently and accurately identified AI-generated text in positive control articles, whereas two others showed poor sensitivity and specificity. The most accurate detector showed a modest increase in the percentage AI detected for the articles received post release of ChatGPT (+1.8%, P = 0.01). Regression analysis showed no consistent associations between likelihood of AI-generated text per journal, article type, or month of submission. As this study found an early, albeit modest, effect of generative AI on the orthopaedic literature, proper oversight will play a critical role in maintaining research integrity and accuracy. AI detectors may play a critical role in regulatory efforts, although they will require further development and standardization to the interpretation of their results.

Does patient-specific instrument or robot improve imaging and functional outcomes in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty? A bayesian analysis.

This study conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the imaging and functional outcomes of patient-specific instrument-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (P-UKA), robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (R-UKA), and conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (C-UKA). A comprehensive search was performed on five electronic databases and major orthopedic journals as of September 24, 2023. We included randomized controlled studies featuring at least two interventions of P-UKA, R-UKA, or C-UKA. Primary outcomes encompassed the deviation angle of hip-knee-ankle angle, as well as the coronal and sagittal plane alignment of femoral and tibial components. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcome measures (PROM), surgery time, revision rate, and complication rate. Bayesian framework was employed for risk ratio (RR) or mean deviation (MD) analysis, and treatment hierarchy was established based on rank probabilities. This NMA included 871 knees from 12 selected studies. In sagittal plane, R-UKA exhibited a significantly reduced deviation angle of femoral component compared to P-UKA (MD: 4.16, 95% CI: 0.21, 8.07), and of tibial component in comparison to C-UKA (MD: -2.45, 95% CI: -4.20, -0.68). Notably, the surgery time was significantly longer in R-UKA than in C-UKA (MD: 15.98, 95% CI: 3.11, 28.88). However, no significant differences were observed in other outcomes. Compared with P-UKA or C-UKA, R-UKA significantly improves the femoral and tibial component alignment in the sagittal plane, although this does not translate into discernible differences in functional outcomes. Comprehensive considerations of economic and learning costs are imperative for the judicious selection of the appropriate procedure.

A Review of Authorship Inflation and Multicenter Collaboration Trends in Orthopedic, Medical, and Surgical Journals Over the Last 60 Years.

Over the past six decades, authorship numbers in academic publications have increased significantly, a phenomenon known as authorship inflation. This study aims to analyze comparative authorship trends and the influence of multicenter collaborations across major orthopedic, medical, and surgical journals. We reviewed metadata from The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Annals of Surgery (AS), and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (JBJS) from January 1, 1960, to December 31, 2019. The number of authors per publication, the prevalence of multicenter studies, and their correlation were analyzed. Data was visualized using heat maps and box plots, and trends were statistically tested using the Jonckheere-Terpstra, Mann-Kendall, and generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs). A total of 73,062 articles were analyzed, with 1,190 articles identified as originating from multicenter studies. The number of multicenter trials was found to have increased significantly over time (p < 0.001), plateauing in NEJM but continuing to rise in JBJS and AS. There was a significant increase in authorship numbers per publication over time, across all journals (p < 0.0001). There was a significant statistical correlation (p < 0.0001) as indicated by the coefficient of determination (r2), for the association between the proportion of publications with >10 authors and the proportion of multicenter publicationsacross all three journals. Authorship inflation in academic publishing may be attributable to the rise in multicenter collaborations. The rate of increase in authorship was more pronounced in medical and surgical journals compared to orthopedic journals, reflecting differing trends across specialties. These findings highlight the evolving nature of research collaboration and authorship practices in academic publishing.

Increase in Early Onset Scoliosis Publications in Major Orthopaedic and Spine Journals: 2005-2020

Study Design: Retrospective review Purpose: To quantify trends in published research in 8 major orthopaedic and spine journals related to Early Onset Scoliosis (EOS) from 2005-2020. We also investigated publication trends in specific subtopics within EOS research. Methods: The electronic archives of 8 journals (Spine, European Spine Journal, Journal of Children’s Orthopaedics, Spine Deformity, Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics, Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics B, The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume and The Bone and Joint Journal) were queried for articles published from 2005-2020 containing search terms particular to the following subtopics of EOS research: congenital scoliosis, infantile scoliosis, thoracic insufficiency syndrome, scoliosis casting, Traditional Growing Rod, Vertical Expandable Prosthetic Titanium Rib, Magnetically Controlled Growing Rod and EOS in general. Results were screened to exclude editorials, conference papers and corrections. Included EOS articles were aggregated and analyzed with respect to journal, year of publication and subtopic. Results: From 2005-2020, a total of 32,000 publications were identified, of which 1,818 (5.7%) were qualified as EOS articles by the presence of at least one search term. The annual number of EOS articles increased from 60 in 2005 to 157 in 2020 and the annual ratio of EOS articles to total publications increased from 4.1% to 7.9%. Congenital spine-related terms matched to the greatest number of articles, while implant-related terms collectively experienced the greatest percentage increase in matching articles per year. Conclusion: The number of EOS articles published in 8 major orthopaedic and spine journals increased in both absolute and relative terms from 2005-2020. Implant-related subtopics saw the greatest increase.

Gender Trends in Authorship in 6 Major Orthopaedic Journals.

Historically, orthopaedic surgery has had low female representation, with <6% of practicing surgeons identifying as female. Although prior literature has illustrated gender disparities in first and last authorship as well as changes in gender representation over time, less attention has been paid to middle authorship. We hypothesized that trends in female authorship would reflect increasing female participation in orthopaedic surgery and orthopaedic subspecialties coinciding with an overall increase in female authorship. Bibliometric information from articles published between 2011 and 2021 in 6 orthopaedic journals was extracted with use of the Web of Science. Collected data included author order, author names, affiliation, and corresponding author address. A gender was assigned with the use of Genderize.io, which is validated software, on the basis of author first name. Statistical analysis was performed with use of an analysis of variance for each journal, and linear regression was performed to determine trends, controlling for year. Among all included orthopaedic journals, female middle authorship increased by 5 percentage points, female first authorship increased by 4 percentage points, and female last authorship increased by 1 percentage point. Over the study period, the highest rate of female middle authorship (28%) was seen in the Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics, whereas the lowest rate (16%) was seen in The Journal of Arthroplasty . We found that the 5 highest-producing female last authors were, on average, cited significantly less per publication than their male counterparts in all but 2 journals. Gender gaps exist within orthopaedic surgery as well as within its body of literature. Although this study highlights areas of growth, it also promotes further inquiry into research productivity and the availability of opportunity within orthopaedic surgery as a whole. The increase in female middle authorship overall and in each journal demonstrates momentum for future growth for women in the field of orthopaedic surgery.

Reporting quality of abstracts and inconsistencies with full text articles in pediatric orthopedic publications

Backgrounds should provide a brief yet comprehensive reporting of all components of a manuscript. Inaccurate reporting may mislead readers and impact citation practices. It was our goal to investigate the reporting quality of abstracts of interventional observational studies in three major pediatric orthopedic journals and to analyze any reporting inconsistencies between those abstracts and their corresponding full-text articles.MethodsWe selected a sample of 55 abstracts and their full-text articles published between 2018 and 2022. Included articles were primary therapeutic research investigating the results of treatments or interventions. s were scrutinized for reporting quality and inconsistencies with their full-text versions with a 22-itemized checklist. The reporting quality of titles was assessed by a 3-items categorical scale.ResultsIn 48 (87%) of articles there were abstract reporting inaccuracies related to patient demographics. The study's follow-up and complications were not reported in 21 (38%) of abstracts each. Most common inconsistencies between the abstracts and full-text articles were related to reporting of inclusion or exclusion criteria in 39 (71%) and study correlations in 27 (49%) of articles. Reporting quality of the titles was insufficient in 33 (60%) of articles.ConclusionsIn our study we found low reporting quality of abstracts and noticeable inconsistencies with full-text articles, especially regarding inclusion or exclusion criteria and study correlations. While the current sample is likely not representative of overall pediatric orthopedic literature, we recommend that authors, reviewers, and editors ensure abstracts are reported accurately, ideally following the appropriate reporting guidelines, and that they double check that there are no inconsistencies between abstracts and full text articles. To capture essential study information, journals should also consider increasing abstract word limits.

Twitter Use Among Orthopedic Surgery Journals Correlates With Increased Citation Rates.

Use of alternative online means of distribution for research is a rapidly evolving area in orthopedics. In this study, we investigate the impact of Twitter on research citation rates and the association between Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) and citation rates across major orthopedic journals. Original research articles published in a selection of 10 journals between January 2018 and December 2018 were analyzed for number and source of tweets, AAS, and number of citations. We determined the relationship between Twitter use of different sources and number of citations across all journals and within each individual journal, any statistical differences in citations and AAS for tweeted vs nontweeted articles, and the correlation between journal impact factor and average number of monthly tweets. We included 2916 articles in our study, at an average of 26 months after publication. The mean AAS was 9.7 (SD, 45.1; range, 0-1125), and mean citation rate was 6.4 (SD, 8.5; range, 0-166). Impact factor was strongly correlated with average monthly tweets (r2=0.77). Tweeted articles received 8.51 citations on average, compared with 2.56 citations for nontweeted articles (P<.05). Tweets sent by the author/department had the highest impact on future citations (P<.01). Tweets by news outlets had a smaller, positive effect on citations (P<.01). Tweets sent by Arthroscopy (P<.01) and Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics (P<.01) had high impacts compared with other journals. [Orthopedics. 2023;46(1):e38-e44.].

Uneven global and racial representation in major orthopaedic clinical trials: Trends over a decade

BackgroundThe presence of geographic and demographic disparities in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may affect the external validity of trials. While some studies have addressed racial or ethnic disparities, they have been limited to a certain region, and there is limited information about the global representation in orthopaedic research. MethodsRCTs published in major medical and orthopaedic journals from 2010 to 2019 were identified. After screening 6961 articles, 1769 trials enrolling 323,506 patients were included. The details of individual trials such as the country of origin, the proportion of women, and the proportion of different racial groups were recorded. Factors associated with reporting and representation of specific demographic groups, and annual changes were assessed. ResultsMajority of the trials were from were from United States (US) (N = 380, 21.5%). US (30.7%, N = 99,356), United Kingdom (15.7%, N = 50,691) and Canada (8.3%, N = 26,890) accounted for majority of the enrolled patients. 59.1% of the patients were women. Among US trials reporting race, 81.2% were White, and 9.9% were African American. There was no significant variation in the global distribution (p = 0.056), percentage of women (p = 0.811), or percentage of Whites (p = 0.389) over the years. ConclusionThe top three countries contributed to about 55% of the enrolled patients, whereas they contributed to only 6% of the world population. Overall, women appeared to be adequately represented in the trials, while racial minorities were underrepresented. There has not been any considerable improvement in the representation of developing regions or minorities over the last decade.

Analysis of Eastern Asia’s Contributions to Major Orthopaedic Journals in the Past 21 Years

IntroductionOver the past two decades, Asia has experienced the rise and integration of Western medicine and digital health in its field of medicine. In this study, we investigated the trends in orthopaedic publications from three Asian countries: China, Japan, and Korea.MethodsPubMed was used to measure the number of publications from China, Japan, and Korea in the past 21 years, from 1998 to 2020. The average percentage change in publications during this 21-year time period was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The average annual change in the number of publications from each country was also determined. One-way analysis of variance and two-group t-tests were utilized for statistical analyses with a p-value of <0.05 as the cut-off value for statistical significance.ResultsFrom years 1998 to 2020, there was a mean 35.5% ± 70.7% annual increase in the number of total publications from China, in comparison to a 5.1% ± 14.0% annual increase from Japan (p = 0.005) and a 27.3% ± 40.0% annual increase from Korea (p = 0.586).ConclusionFor the past two decades, there has been a strong positive trend regarding the total number of orthopaedic publications from China. This finding might be related in part to an increased integration of Western medicine and the use of digital medicine, which followed a similar trend during the time period we analyzed. Korea and Japan also exhibited a positive trend in orthopaedic publications, which may be indicative of an improving educational system and greater general support for research.

Analysis of Author Gender in the Pediatric Orthopaedic Literature from 2011 to 2020.

Orthopaedic surgery remains a male-dominated specialty. To date there has not been a focused analysis of gender in authorship within the pediatric orthopaedic literature. The electronic table of contents from 2011 to 2020 of 3 major pediatric orthopaedic journals [Journal of Children's Orthopaedics (JCO), Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics (JPO), and Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics Part B (JPO-B)] were reviewed. Publications were reviewed for the number of articles with at least 1 female author and the number of articles with women listed as first authors. These were compared over the 10-year study period, and by individual year of publication. Statistical analysis included a general linear model with factorial one-way anslysis of variance and Bonferroni post hoc testing. A total of 4097 articles were reviewed. In 2020, there was a significantly higher percentage of articles with a female author when compared with 2011 (64% to 42%, P=0.010). A female was listed as first author in significantly more publications in 2020 as compared with 2011 (23% to 10%, P=0.031). During the 10-year study period, the highest mean proportion of articles with at least 1 female author was seen in JPO (60%), with similar findings in JCO (55%). Significantly fewer articles in JPO-B contained a female author (37%, P=0.001). The highest percentage of publications with a female first author across 10 years was in JCO (22%), followed by JPO (20%). Significantly fewer articles with a female first author were found in JPO-B (9%, P=0.001). There is an increasing proportion of publications in the pediatric orthopaedic literature with female authors and female first authors from 2011 to 2020. In addition, there was a statistical difference in female authorship when comparing specific publications, which should be investigated further. Level IV.

What's New in Pediatric Orthopaedic Tumor Surgery.

Pediatric Orthopaedic Oncology is a developing subspecialty within the field of Pediatric Orthopaedics. Traditionally, the field of Orthopaedic Oncology has been focused on the skeletally mature individual, and the research tends to be all encompassing rather than truly evaluating isolated populations. The purpose of this review is to summarize the most clinically relevant literature in the field of Pediatric Orthopaedic Oncology over the last 6 years. We evaluated the PubMed database utilizing keywords for pediatric orthopaedic oncology: sarcoma, osteosarcoma, Ewing sarcoma, bone cyst. In additionally, we further broadened our search by searching for relevant articles in the contents sections of major orthopaedic surgery journals that routinely publish both pediatric and orthopaedic oncology literature. In keeping with "What's New," we selected the most clinically relevant articles published in the last 6 years from January 1, 2014 through February 2020. Basic science and systemic therapies literature was widely reviewed and the research and clinical trials most relevant to pediatric sarcoma and neoplastic processes found in the pediatric population were included. Our search yielded 60 articles that met general criteria, from which 14 were determined to be most relevant to the goals of this paper. Of the papers presented in this review, there were papers related to management of benign tumors/tumor-like conditions, bone cysts, limb salvage procedures, and amputation procedures. Ultimately included in the review were 5 studies related to limb salvage, 4 related to bone cysts, 1 related to multiple hereditary exostoses, 2 related to osteofibrous dysplasia, 1 related to chondroblastoma, and 1 discussing cementation in skeletally immature patients. They were level III, IV, and V studies. Basic science and systemic therapies literature was widely reviewed and the research and clinical trials most relevant to pediatric sarcoma and neoplastic processes found in the pediatric population were included. Our search of the basic science and systemic therapies literature yielded 19 sources were found to be pertinent to our aims and 18 of those sources were published between 2015 and 2020. There are many, varied, and creative procedures in the realm of limb salvage, though there remains a lack of high-level evidence to support some of the more novel procedures. In regards to benign bone tumors, despite a more solid base of literature, there still does not seem to be consensus as to the best treatment. In particular, there continue to be many schools of thought on the treatment of benign bone cysts. Research in the basic science arena and systemic therapies are advancing in exciting ways in regards to pediatric sarcoma. Orthopaedic oncologic research specific to the pediatric population overall continues to be impeded by low sample sizes and inadequate levels of evidence, which limits the ability of surgeons to draw definitive conclusions from the literature.

Are There Differences in Accuracy or Outcomes Scores Among Navigated, Robotic, Patient-specific Instruments or Standard Cutting Guides in TKA? A Network Meta-analysis.

Several kinds of cutting guides, including patient-specific instrumentation, navigation, standard cutting guides, accelerometer-based navigation, and robotic guidance, are available to restore a planned alignment during TKA. No previous study has simultaneously compared all of these devices; a network meta-analysis is an especially appealing method because it allows comparisons across approaches that were not compared head-to-head in individual randomized controlled trials. We performed a network meta-analysis to determine whether novel approaches to achieving implant alignment, such as patient-specific instrumentation, navigation, accelerometer-based navigation, and robotic guidance, provide any advantage over standard cutting guides in terms of: (1) hip-knee-ankle (HKA) alignment outliers greater than ± 3°, (2) outcome scores (1989 - Knee Society Score and WOMAC score) measured 6 months after surgery, or (3) femoral and tibial implant malalignment (greater than ± 3°), taken separately, in the frontal and sagittal plane, as well as other secondary outcomes including validated outcome scores 1 and 2 years after surgery. In our network meta-analysis, we included randomized controlled trials comparing the different cutting guides by using at least one of the previously specified criteria, without limitation on language or date of publication. We searched electronic databases, major orthopaedic journals, proceedings of major orthopaedic meetings, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform until October 1, 2018. This led to the inclusion of 90 randomized controlled trials involving 9389 patients (mean age 68.8 years) with 10,336 TKAs. Two reviewers independently selected trials and extracted data. The primary outcomes were the proportion patients with malalignment of the HKA angle (defined as HKA > 3° from neutral) and the Knee Society Score and WOMAC scores at 6 months postoperatively. We combined direct and indirect comparisons using a Bayesian network meta-analysis framework to assess and compare the effect of different cutting guides on outcomes. Bayesian estimates are based on the posterior distribution of an endpoint and are called credible intervals. Usually the 95% credible interval, corresponding to a posterior probability of 0.95 that the endpoint lies in the interval, is computed. Unlike the frequentist approach, the Bayesian approach does not allow the calculation of the p value. The proportion of HKA outliers was lower with navigation than with patient-specific instrumentation (risk ratio 0.46 [95% credible interval (CI) 0.34 to 0.63]) and standard cutting guides (risk ratio 0.45 [95% CI 0.37 to 0.53]); however, this corresponded to an actual difference of only 12% of patients for navigation versus 21% of patients for patient-specific instrumentation, and 12% of patients for navigation versus 25% for standard cutting guides. We found no differences for other comparisons between different cutting guides, including robotics and the accelerometer. We found no differences in the Knee Society Score or WOMAC score between the different cutting guides at 6 months. Regarding secondary outcomes, navigation reduced the risk of frontal and sagittal malalignments for femoral and tibial components compared with the standard cutting guides, but none of the other cutting guides showed superiority for the other secondary outcomes. Navigation resulted in approximately 10% fewer patients having HKA outliers of more than 3°, without any corresponding improvement in validated outcomes scores. It is unknown whether this incremental reduction in the proportion of patients who have alignment outside a window that itself has been called into question will justify the increased costs and surgical time associated with the approach. We believe that until or unless these new approaches either (1) convincingly demonstrate superior survivorship, or (2) convincingly demonstrate superior outcomes, surgeons and hospitals should not use these approaches since they add cost, have a learning curve (during which some patients may be harmed), and have the risks associated with uncertainty of novel surgical approaches. Level I, therapeutic study.

Are the Lives of Animals Well-spent in Laboratory Science Research? A Study of Orthopaedic Animal Studies in Turkey.

As in all fields of medicine, animal studies are widely performed in orthopaedics and have increased in number over time. However, it is not clear to what extent these studies provide a basis for future research or advancements in clinical science. Concerns about the reliability and translational ability of animal studies have been reported, and major orthopaedic journals and organizations are encouraging the reduction of unnecessary experiments on animals. QUESTION/PURPOSES: (1) What proportion of animal studies conducted for orthopaedic research in Turkey were never published? And of those that were published, how long did it take to publish? (2) What proportion of those studies were published in journals with an Impact Factor of 2 or more? (3) What proportion of those published papers were never cited or cited only once? (4) What was the contribution to science of an animal euthanized for orthopaedic research in Turkey? We reviewed all oral and poster presentations at the Turkish National Congress of Orthopaedics and Traumatology from 2009 to 2017 (retrieved from the archives of Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica), as well as all postgraduate theses in orthopaedics from 1991 to 2017 (retrieved from the archives of the National Thesis Center of the Council of Higher Education) to identify all orthopaedic studies that involved animals. We searched the keywords "animal studies," "experimental studies," and "orthopaedics" in these archives. We defined animal research as orthopaedic studies based on animal models. From this search and using that definition, 252 studies were identified. Of those, 4% (9) were excluded as they were thesis studies with no abstract in the archives. Thus, a total of 243 animal studies performed in Turkey were included for analysis in this retrospective study. The abstracts of these studies were examined to determine the study model (such as bone fracture models, tendon healing models, cartilage models) and number of euthanized animals. Between 1991 and 2017, 9412 vertebrate animals were euthanized for these studies. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and ORCID to determine whether these papers were subsequently published, in which journal, and how long after the initial presentation publication occurred. The Web of Science 2019 database was used to determine the Impact Factor of the journals, the total citation count of each study, and the mean annual citation for each study (citations per year). For purposes of this analysis, we divided journals into those with an Impact Factor of 2 or more, 4 or more, and those with an Impact Factor below 2. The mean annual citation per euthanized animal (citations per animal per year) was calculated to determine the contribution of a euthanized animal to science. A total of 42% (101 of 243) of the animal studies in Turkey were never published. For all published studies, the mean time to publication was 2.2 ± 2.6 years (95% CI 1.7 to 2.6). The proportion of studies published in orthopaedic journals with an Impact Factor of 2 or more was 14% (34 of 243). Among the 142 published papers, 38% (54) were either never cited or were cited only once, and the mean citations per year was 1.1 ± 1.7 (95% CI 0.7 to 1.3). The mean citations per animal/year among the 142 published studies was 0.03 ± 0.04 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.04). In the 243 theses and national congress presentations, 9412 animals were euthanized. Based on the low percentage of papers using animals that were euthanized and the very low proportion of studies published in higher-Impact Factor journals or garnering more than a single citation, in aggregate, little seems to have been gained from the loss of animal life. Future studies should try to replicate or refute our results in other countries. Orthopaedic researchers should try to reduce their use of unnecessary animal studies, for example, by reporting on the use of the "3Rs" (replacement, reduction, and refinement) in the development of an animal study design, as well as through following universal guidelines so that a study might have a clinical impact. Researchers should not conduct an animal study until they are convinced that the expected results are quite likely to deliver substantial benefit to people or to advance science in a meaningful way; although this seems intuitive, our results suggest that this may not be taking place. Ethics committees in Turkey should consider more detailed questioning before approving animal studies. If our results are replicated elsewhere, then a broader look at how these approvals are conducted should be performed.

Assessing variability and uncertainty in orthopedic randomized controlled trials

Background and purpose — Low statistical power remains endemic in clinical medicine including orthopedics and manifests as high uncertainty and wide confidence intervals (CI). We evaluated the reporting and correspondence between power calculation and observed data on key parameters of variability and uncertainty in orthopedic randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Material and methods — RCTs with 1:1 allocation published in 8 major orthopedic journals between 2016 and 2017 with one continuous primary outcome were included in the review. The components of power calculation and observed standard deviation (SD), mean difference (MD), and confidence interval (CI) of MD between groups were assessed for primary outcome.Results — 160 RCTs were included, of which 93 (58%) and 138 (86%) studies reported the estimated SD and MD in the power calculation, respectively. The median ratio of the estimated SD and SDs observed in the data was 1.0 (IQR –0.76 to 1.32) for 69 (43%) studies. Only 31 of 138 studies reported the CI of MD in primary outcome. In 42% of the negative studies, the estimated MD was included in the CI of the observed MD.Interpretation — The key parameters of data variability, both in power analyses and in final study results, were poorly reported. Low power in orthopedics may result from too high an estimated effect size due to an overoptimistic estimate of MD between study groups. In almost half of the studies, overlap of the CI of the observed MD and estimated MD suggested that the reported results of these studies were inconclusive.

Revisiting the Sample Size and Statistical Power of Randomized Controlled Trials in Orthopaedics After 2 Decades.

A study published in 2001 reported that sample sizes in the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in major orthopaedic journals in 1997 were too small, resulting in low power to detect reasonable effect sizes. Low power is the fundamental reason for the poor reproducibility of research findings and serves to erode a cornerstone of the scientific method. The aim of this study was to ascertain whether improvements have been made in orthopaedic research during the past 2 decades. The electronic table of contents from the 2016 and 2017 volumes of 7 major orthopaedic journals were searched issue by issue in chronological order to identify possible RCTs. A posteriori (after-the-fact) power to detect small, medium, and large effect sizes, defined by the Cohen d value, were calculated from the sample sizes reported in the studies. The power to detect effect sizes associated with the most commonly used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) was also calculated. Finally, the use of a priori power analysis in the included studies was assessed. In total, 233 studies were included in the final analyses. None of the negative studies had sufficient power (≥0.80) to detect a small effect size. Only between 15.0% and 32.1% of the negative studies had adequate power to detect a medium effect size. When categorized by anatomic region, 0% to 52.6% had adequate power to detect an effect size corresponding to the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). An a priori power analysis was employed in 196 (84%) of the 233 studies. However, the power analysis could not be replicated in 46% of the studies that used a mean comparison. Although small improvements in orthopaedic RCTs have occurred during the past 2 decades, many RCTs are still underpowered: the sample sizes are still too small to have adequate power to detect what would be deemed clinically relevant.

The Evolving Impact of COVID-19 on Medical Student Orthopedic Education: Perspectives From Medical Students in Different Phases of the Curriculum.

Introduction:The world-wide lockdown caused by Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has upended the trajectories of lives everywhere. The medical profession has been on the front lines of this rapidly developing situation, which in turn has called for unprecedented changes in the medical school curriculum. These changes have severe implications for medical students interested in applying to competitive surgical specialties like orthopedics.Methods:As medical students in 3 different class years pursuing orthopedic surgery, we provide our perspectives on the impact that COVID-19 has had on medical student orthopedic education.Results:With the removal of away rotations and a shift to virtual interviews, rising fourth year medical students are arguably the most impacted as they prepare for the orthopedic residency application process. Third year students, who are in the exploratory phase of choosing a specialty, also face uncertainties in the shift to a “new” clerkship experience that may (1) be of shorter duration, (2) implement shifts to limit overcrowding of clinical space, and (3) increase the use of telehealth over direct patient contact.Discussion:The COVID-19 pandemic has altered the course of medical students’ orthopedic education in unprecedented ways. We believe the following suggestions may be helpful for students seeking alternative, supplemental ways of learning: (1) read up on major orthopedic journals, (2) reach out to orthopedic surgeons in areas of interest, (3) reach out to program directors/medical clerkship directors/program coordinators for opportunities to attend their educational curriculum virtually, (4) attend online lectures and hospital grand rounds, and (5) practice suturing technique with a practice kit.Conclusions:While the medical education landscape remains uncertain amid the evolving conditions of COVID-19, as medical students we strive to learn from this pandemic and respond to future unforeseen challenges with resilience, dedication, and compassion: all qualities we admire in orthopedic surgeons.

The Usefulness of Meta-Analyses to Hip and Knee Surgeons.

Comprehensive systematic reviews of results from homogenous or heterogeneous clinical trials, meta-analyses are used to summarize and to interpret studies. Proponents believe that their use can increase study power and improve precision results. Critics emphasize that heterogeneity between studies and bias of individual studies compromise the value of results. The methodology of meta-analyses has improved over time, utilizing statistical analysis to reduce bias and examining heterogeneity. With an increasing trend of meta-analyses in orthopaedic literature, this study aimed to investigate quality and clinical utility of meta-analyses for total knee arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty. A systematic review of total knee arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty meta-analyses in 3 major orthopaedic journals from January 2000 to August 2017 was performed. Three authors independently reviewed eligible meta-analyses. A quality assessment was conducted using the Oxman-Guyatt Index. Reporting quality was assessed using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). Two high-volume, fellowship-trained, attending surgeons specializing in total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty independently, in a blinded fashion, reviewed 24 of the highest-scored meta-analyses. There were 114 studies meeting eligibility criteria, 25 published from 2000 to 2009 and 89 published from 2010 to 2017, a 3.6-fold increase. The mean Oxman-Guyatt Index score was 3.89 points, with 12 high-quality studies, 87 moderate-quality studies, and 15 low-quality studies. The mean PRISMA score for all meta-analyses was 22.2 points, with 79% classified as low to moderate. Only 23 studies listed the Level of Evidence, and 8 were Level-I studies and 9 were Level-II studies. Studies with >15 randomized controlled trials were associated with higher PRISMA and Oxman-Guyatt Index scores. In 12 articles, we were unable to decipher the types of studies included. Only 39.4% of studies showed the risk of bias. Of the 24 studies identified as high quality per the PRISMA statement, 71% were determined to be either clinically unimportant or inconclusive. The number of total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty meta-analyses has markedly increased over the past decades. The majority of published meta-analyses from 3 major orthopaedic journals were not performed in accordance with established PRISMA guidelines. Many published meta-analyses are low to moderate quality, and clinicians should cautiously draw conclusions from poorly executed meta-analyses.

The Popularity of Outcome Measures Used in the Foot and Ankle Literature.

Background. Outcome measures are frequently employed in clinical studies to determine the efficacy of orthopaedic surgical procedures. However, substantial variability exists among the outcome instruments utilized in foot and ankle (F&A) literature. The purpose of this study is to determine the number of outcome measures reported in F&A literature recently published in major orthopaedic journals and the association between study characteristics and the use of particular outcome measurement categories. Methods. All manuscripts published in 6 major orthopaedic journals between 2013-2017 reporting at least one clinical outcome measure were collected. For each manuscript, the journal, title, authors, country/region of origin, level of evidence, topic, and anatomic location were recorded. Outcome measures were characterized as generic, F&A specific, and disease specific. Poisson regression with robust error variance was used to test for association between study characteristics and outcome measure categories. Results. A total of 541 F&A articles were included with fifty-two different outcome measures reported. The most popular tool was the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Score (AOFAS) (56.9%). Generic outcome measures were used in 331 (61.1%) studies, while 440 (81.3%) studies used F&A specific measures and 64 (11.8%) used disease-specific measures. The use of generic and disease-specific outcome measures was associated with a higher level of evidence (p < 0.001). Conclusion. AA substantial variety of outcome measures are employed among recent published studies, with many studies utilizing non-validated measures. Reporting a combination of validated and focused outcome measures is necessary to improve the quality and generalizability of published studies in foot and ankle literature. Levels of Evidence: Level II: Systematic review.

Welcome to 2019!!

We have wonderful news to begin 2019: the impact factor (IF) for the Journal of Orthopaedic Research has increased from 2.6 to 3.4–a 30% rise! This places the JOR as the #1 Orthopaedic research journal and #8 of 87 journals classified as Orthopaedic. The clear reason for this increase in IF is the increase in citations to articles in our Journal. Therefore, it is incumbent on the JOR to publish the very best and most relevant and interesting scientific studies in the world of Orthopaedics. We hope that you will direct your attention to the JOR Table of Contents (www.ors.org), the ORS Connect Newsletter presenting the Editor's picks, highly cited papers and special announcements from the JOR, or go online to the Journal itself (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/loi/1554527x). A big thank you to our Wiley partners, Mia Ricci, Executive Editor, Elizabeth Brenner, Managing Editor and Shana Meyer, Production Editor, the Orthopaedic Research Society, Brenda Frederick, Executive Director and Amber Blake, editor of ORS Connect, and, most importantly, the hard working and brilliant Associate Editors, Matthew Allen, Bruce Beynnon, Stuart Goodman, Clark Hung, James Kang, Robin Queen, Clare Yellowley. Preprint servers are internet posting sights that allow authors to make public full-length versions of their complete manuscripts that have not yet passed peer review. Preprint servers offer the benefits of durability, speed of posting, and easy access by the public. They also offer other potential advantages including the ability for authors to establish precedent, to receive feedback on the work from other scientists and to disseminate results without barriers. These servers are supported by important funding bodies such as the National Institutes of Health and the Wellcome Trust.11 Leopold, SS, Haddad, FS, Sandell, LJ, Swiontkowski, M. 2019. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, THe Bone and Joint Journal, the Journal of Orthopaedic Research, and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery will not accept clinical research manuscripts previously posted to preprint servers. J. Ortho. Res. 37(1): The Journal of Orthoapedic Research has a policy in place to support the use of preprint servers and this policy will remain in place for all laboratory and basic science research. However, in coordination with other major Orthopaedic journals, the JOR will no longer accept clinical studies utilizing human subjects that have been published on medical preprint servers.1 The rationale for this decision is the potential for these pre-publications to cause harm, primarily to the public. As described in detail in the Editorial by Dr. Leopold, the preprint servers may be perceived by some (and used by less scrupulous investigators) as evidence even though the studies have not gone through peer review: The public may not be able to discern an unreviewed preprint from a seminal article in a leading journal. Secondly, preprint servers may lead to 2 competing, and perhaps even conflicting, versions of the ”same” content being available online at the same time, which can cause confusion and potentially grave harm. Thus, to protect the patient, these journals will not accept clinical submissions that are posted to pre-print servers. Linda J. Sandell, Editor in Chief, JOR