Orthopaedic Journals Research Articles

Clinical evaluation of marketed and non-marketed orthodontic products: are researchers now ahead of the times? A meta-epidemiological study

BackgroundThe advertisement and adoption of untested orthodontic products is common. This study aimed to provide an update regarding the prevalence of clinical trials in orthodontics evaluating commercially marketed products. Associations between marketed/non-marketed products and study characteristics such as direction of effect, declaration of conflict of interest and industry sponsorship were evaluated. In addition, within the marketed products associations between direction of effect and study characteristics were explored.Material and methodsElectronic searching of a single database (Medline via PubMed) was undertaken to identify Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published over a 5-year period (1st January 2017 to 31st December 2021). Descriptive statistics and associations between trial characteristics were explored.Results196 RCTs were analysed. RCTs were frequently published in Angle Orthodontist (18.4%), American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (14.8%) and European Journal of Orthodontics (13.3%). 65.3% (128/196) of trials assessed marketed products after their introduction. The majority of trials assessed interventions to improve treatment efficiency (33.7%). Growth modification appliances were typically analysed in non-marketed compared to marketed products. An association between the type of product (marketed vs non-marketed) and both the declaration of conflict of interest and industry sponsorship was detected. For individual RCTs assessing marketed products either a positive effect (45.3%) or equivalence between interventions or between intervention and untreated control (47.7%) was evident. In 27% of these trials either no conflict of interest or industry funding was not clearly declared. Within the marketed products, no association between the direction of the effect and conflict of interest or funding was detected.ConclusionsThe analysis of marketed orthodontic products after their introduction is still common practice. To reduce research waste, collaboration prior to the licensing and marketing of orthodontic products between researchers, industry and manufacturers is recommended.

Journal metrics of the top-ranked Orthopaedic, Medical, and Surgical journals - A cross-sectional, comparative study.

In academic publishing, research metrics play a crucial role in assessing the scientific impact and performance of the published literature, as well as of the journals in which they are published. Several journal-level metrics (JLM) such as the h-index of the analysed journals, total citations, total documents, citable documents, references and external citations per document are considered crucial indicators of the importance and reputation of the journals. We hypothesize that journals in the field of Medicine receive more citations than those in Surgical journals like Orthopaedic surgery, and hence have better JLM. This study aims to to assess and compare the JLM of Medical and Surgical journals between two time zones 2017-2019 vs. 2020-2022, i.e., pre and post-COVID-19 pandemic period. A cross-sectional bibliometric analysis of the top-ranked Orthopaedic, Medical, and Surgical journals was undertaken based on traditional JLM, using the SCImago database from 2017 to 2022. Our analysis focused on identifying trends in the h-index of the analysed journals, total citations, total documents, citable documents, references and external citations per document. Overall Medical journals were found to have higher JLM than the Surgical and Orthopaedic journals. The h-index of Surgical journals, Medical journals and Orthopaedic journals were comparable between the two periods (pre and -post-COVID-19 pandemic); Total Cites (3years), total documents (2017), total documents (3years), total references, and citable documents (3years) of Surgical journals, Medical journals and Orthopaedic journals were significantly higher in the period 2020-2022. There has been a steady increase in the number of publications from post COVID-19 period. Medical journals have higher JLM than Surgical and Orthopaedic journals. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (Am), Annals of Surgery and Diabetes Care were the most published journals in Orthopaedics, General Surgery and Medicine-related topics respectively.

Bibliometric evaluation of negative publications from orthopedics and traumatology from the ten most influential journals of 2009–2010 and 2019–2020: A comparative study with the “Orthopedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research” journal, using the same analysis of submitted and accepted articles

BackgroundThere is a paucity of data in the literature regarding negative articles concerning surgery in orthopedics and trauma. Knowledge pertaining to treatments or techniques which confer a beneficial effect remains important, as does knowledge regarding those which have a null or pejorative effect. Thus, this study was carried out on negative articles in order to: (1) determine their proportion in the ten predominant journals concerning orthopedic and trauma surgery; (2) assess variability in their publication rate depending on the journal and the year, and compare their citation rate to that of positive articles; (3) specify whether a positive article was more likely to be cited compared to a negative article; (4) carry out the same bibliometric analysis with the “Orthopedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research (OTSR)” journal, and detect possible selection bias for negative articles during the review. HypothesisThere are fewer negative articles than positive articles in the literature relating to orthopedic and trauma surgery. Material and methodThe study was carried out using the ten orthopedic and trauma surgery journals with the highest impact factors for the year 2021. Two periods were compared, 2009–2010 and 2019–2020. Among the 17,812 publications obtained, 11,962 publications were retained to carry out the analysis (technical notes, meta-analyses, editorials and letters to the editor were all excluded). An analysis using the same method was carried out on the 3,727 articles submitted to OTSR from 2015 to 2021, which made it possible to compare the rejected articles to the accepted articles. ResultsNegative articles represented 11% (1,342/12,023) of the literature relating to orthopedic and trauma surgery. There were differences in the rate of publication of negative articles depending on the journals (from 4.04% to 17.14%) (p<0.0001). The negative article publication rate did not change between the two periods studied: 534/4963 articles (10.76%) in 2009–2010 versus 802/6999 (11.46%) in 2019–2020 (p=0.23). Positive articles were not cited more often than negative ones: no significant difference between the Category Normalized Citation Impact (CNCI) classes (respectively for classes 0;1[/[1;2[/≥ 2 with 45.66% 28.22% and 26.12% for negative articles versus 44.90% 27.46% and 27.64% for positive articles [p=0.4]) and the Top10% (with 18.86% for negative articles versus 20.10% for positive ones [p=0.28]). The OTSR journal had a rate of negative articles of 9.46% which was within the average range of the journals studied. A selection bias (p<0.02) for negative articles during the review of the OTSR journal was identified with fewer negative articles accepted (115/1216 [9.46%]) than positive articles (164/1330 [12.33%]). DiscussionThe publication of negative articles varies according to the journals and although it is modest, at only 11%, it is essential because it allows us not to repeat errors but also not to bias the carrying out of meta-analyses, and among other things to avoid useless studies. Level of evidenceIII; case control study from the literature.

The correlation between altmetric score and traditionalmeasures of article impact for studies pertaining to spine trauma.

It is becoming increasingly common for researchers to share scientific literature via social media. Traditional bibliometrics have long been utilized to measure a study's academic impact, but they fail to capture the impact generated through social media sharing. Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) is a weighted count of all the online attention garnered by a study, and it is currently unclear whether a relationship with traditional bibliometrics exists. We identified the five highest-rated spine-specific and five highest-rated general orthopedic journals by Scopus CiteScore 2020. We then identified all the spine trauma studies across a 5-year span (2016-2020) within these journals and compared AAS with traditional bibliometrics using Independent t-tests and Pearson's correlational analyses. No statistically significant relationships were identified between AAS and traditional bibliometrics for articles pertaining to spine trauma: Level of Evidence (R = - 0.02, p = 0.34), H-Index Primary Author (R = < - 0.01, p = 0.50), H-Index Senior Author (R = - 0.04, p = 0.24), and Number of Citations (R = 0.01, p = 0.40). The top five articles by AAS include those pertaining to motorcycle injuries (AAS = 687), orthosis in thoracolumbar fractures (AAS = 199), golfing injuries (AAS = 166), smartphone-based teleradiology (AAS = 41), and auto racing injuries (AAS = 39). The lack of overlap between these types of metrics suggests that AAS or similar alternative metrics should be used to measure an article's social impact. The social impact of an article should likewise be a factor in determining an article's overall impact along with its academic impact as measured by bibliometrics.

Diversity Within the Field of Orthopedic Sports Medicine: A Systematic Review.

Orthopedic surgery is among the least diverse specialties in medicine. This systematic review analyzes gender, racial, and ethnic diversity within orthopedic sports medicine and aims to raise awareness and provide guidance for future strategies that support underrepresented minorities in medicine (URMs) and women in joining the orthopedic sports medicine workforce. We hypothesize that at all tiers of training, there is a lack of gender, racial, and ethnic parity in academic rank, leadership positions, and research productivity. A search of all published literature in the English language from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus databases, between January 1, 2010, and August 18, 2023, was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Included studies presented demographics regarding diversity within orthopedic sports medicine and provided trends in applicants, attendings, leadership, and/or research. Bias was assessed using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) study checklist. Thirteen studies published between 2016 and 2023 with STROBE scores 15.5 to 21.5 (70.5% to 97.7%) met criteria, and pertinent data were extracted. The percent of female orthopedic sports medicine surgeons from 2010 to 2019 increased from 5% (n = 138) to 6% (n = 206) with a compound annual growth rate of 0.2% (r2 = 0.97; p < 0.001). Females and URMs are underrepresented at the highest levels of orthopedic sports medicine leadership including department chair (female: 0% [n = 0]), division chief (female: 4% [n = 4]; URM: 3% [n = 3]), and fellowship director (female: 3.3% [n = 3]; URM: 4.4% [n = 4]). Studies from prominent orthopedic sports medicine journals (American Journal of Sports Medicine, Arthroscopy, Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, and Sports Health) show a 12.1% increase in female involvement in orthopedic sports medicine research from 1972 to 2018; however, this increase captures 59.3% (n = 2,953) females with degrees other than an MD. Although increasingly more females and underrepresented minorities are joining orthopedic sports medicine, the rate of diversification remains slow and current involvement in leadership and research is minimal. Targeted efforts aimed at increasing research opportunities and inspiring interest through mentorship for URMs and females in orthopedics is essential to drive change toward parity. Level IV. Systematic Review. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

A Practical Guide to Selecting Foot and Ankle Journals for Publication

Category: Other Introduction/Purpose: It is often difficult for early career investigators to identify the ideal journal readership for foot and ankle research without knowledge of each journal’s culture and article preferences. Bibliometric analyses have shown the popularity of certain topics can vary widely between similar journals. However, in the foot and ankle literature, there is very little information available regarding the publication preferences of common journals. The goal of this project was to provide a practical table with publishing trends to help investigators identify one or more journals most suitable for a given manuscript. Methods: We examined 43 journals, including both general orthopedic journals and foot and ankle-specific publications. We utilized the National Library of Medicine’s MEDLINE database for general article information, and Web of Science’s (WOS) Journal Citation Report for citation counts. Journals were only included for analysis if they published a minimum of 50 foot and ankle (FA) articles in the past five years, and were indexed in both MEDLINE and WOS. Variables such as publishing nationality, number of authors, and article type were collected using MEDLINE article metadata. Keyword lists were generated by our author team for each topic, and keywords were then searched to calculate the percentage of articles categorized under that topic. To measure the impact factor of a journal, we calculated a 5-year “impact factor” following modified WOS guidelines (total citations in 2020 for articles published 2015-2019 / total publications from 2015-2019). Results: 29 journals met our inclusion criteria for analysis (67%), of which 6 specialized in foot and ankle (Table 1). The popularity of certain article topics varies widely between journals. For example, while the Journal of Foot and Ankle Research publishes more than twice as many sports articles than any other FA publication (25%), it publishes five times less arthroscopy publications (2%). Similarly, we also find notable differences in the type of article published by journals – while only 1% of the total articles published by FAI are case reports, the Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery published 30% case reports the past five years. We also found the distribution of American first authors can vary widely – ranging from 95% to 0% in different journals. Conclusion: This data set is aimed to provide a practical tool for early investigators to select ideal journals that would be appropriate for their work. Metrics like nationality may help authors intentionally reach out to a more diverse international audience, or an American readership, when appropriate. Likewise, targeting manuscripts that are a topic of interest to journals can save time in the publication process that is spent in initial review. While this data set relies exclusively on publicly available metadata from MEDLINE and WOS, we believe it offers an encouraging start to better understand the foot and ankle publishing landscape.

Comparing Orthopaedic Randomized Control Trials Published in High-Impact Medical and Orthopaedic Journals.

Orthopaedic studies published in high-impact medical journals are often believed to have a high prevalence of negative or neutral results and possess methodological characteristics that may bias toward nonsurgical treatments. The purpose of this study was to compare study characteristics, methodologic quality, exposure, and outcome direction among orthopaedic randomized control trials (RCTs) published in high-impact medical and orthopaedic journals and to identify study attributes associated with greater impact. RCTs published between January 2010 and December 2020 in the five medical journals and 10 orthopaedic journals with the highest 5-year impact factors were analyzed. Inclusion criteria were RCTs reporting on orthopaedic surgical intervention compared with nonsurgical or less-invasive surgical procedures. Study characteristics, methodologic quality (Jadad scale), outcomes, and altmetric data were collected. Primary outcomes were categorized as positive (favoring surgical/more-extensive surgery), negative (favoring nonsurgical/less-extensive surgery), or neutral. One hundred twenty-eight RCTs were analyzed; 26 from medical and 102 from orthopaedic journals. Studies published in medical journals included more authors ( P < 0.001), larger sample sizes ( P < 0.001), more institutions ( P < 0.001), and more often received funding ( P < 0.001). The average Jadad scale did not significantly differ between journals ( P = 0.14). The direction of the primary study outcome did not differ between journals ( P = 0.22). Average AAS and annual citation rates were higher in RCTs published in medical journals ( P < 0.001). Publication in a medical journal was the only covariate associated with higher annual citation rates ( P < 0.001) and AAS ( P < 0.001) on multivariable analyses. High-impact medical journals do not publish orthopaedic RCTs with negative or neutral findings at a rate that significantly differs from orthopaedic journals. However, the higher impact and digital coverage of the studies published in medical journals may disproportionally influence the practices of nonorthopaedic providers. Raising awareness of critical findings published in orthopaedic journals may be particularly important for improving healthcare policies and orthopaedic referral patterns for musculoskeletal problems.

Racial/Ethnic and Gender Diversity of Orthopaedic Journal Editorial Boards.

In the current era of evidence-based medicine, scientific publications play a crucial role in guiding patient care. While the lack of diversity among orthopaedic surgeons has been well documented, little is known about the diversity of orthopaedic journal editorial boards. The purpose of this study was to assess the racial/ethnic and gender diversity of U.S. orthopaedic journal editorial boards. The editorial boards of 13 orthopaedic journals were examined, including 10 subspecialty and 3 general orthopaedic journals. Race/ethnicity and gender were determined for each editorial board member. The representation observed on orthopaedic journal editorial boards was compared with representation at other phases of the orthopaedic pipeline, as well as within the various subspecialty fields of orthopaedics. Logistic regression and t tests were used to evaluate these comparisons. We identified 876 editorial board members of the 13 journals; 14.0% were Asian, 1.9% were Black, 1.9% were Hispanic, 2.4% were multiracial/other, and 79.7% were White. Racial/ethnic representation was similar across the subspecialty fields of orthopaedics (p > 0.05). The representation of women on orthopaedic editorial boards was 7.9%, with differences in gender diversity observed across subspecialty fields (p < 0.05). Among journals in the subspecialty fields of spine and trauma, female editorial board representation was lower than expected, even after taking into account the representation of women in these subspecialty fields (2.0% versus 9.0% [p = 0.002] and 3.8% versus 10.0% [p = 0.03], respectively). In this study of 13 subspecialty and general orthopaedic journals, the representation of racial/ethnic minorities and women on editorial boards was similar to their representation in academic orthopaedics. However, these values remain low in comparison with the population of patients treated by orthopaedic surgeons. Given the importance of scientific publications in the current era of evidence-based medicine, orthopaedic journals should continue working to diversify the membership of their editorial boards.

The use of causal language and inferences in observational shoulder arthroplasty database studies.

Over the last few decades, several databases and clinical registries have been used to generate studies for orthopedic surgery research including shoulder arthroplasty. Observational database studies present data that are best used to provide information regarding associations between variables but is unable to prove causation. Yet, there remains a tendency for authors to use causal language and conclusive statements in published shoulder arthroplasty literature using such databases. We systematically identified administrative database and registry studies on shoulder arthroplasty in 5 orthopedic journals from January 2020 to December 2021. Papers were independently graded by 2 reviewers for the presence, absence, or inconsistent use of causal language throughout the publication. χ2 analyses were conducted to determine the relationship between causality language and article characteristics including the journal of publication. There were 65 eligible articles. According to the reviewers, 67.7% of titles and abstracts were either consistently causal or inconsistently causal in language and inference. On reviewing the full text, 69.2% were found to contain some degree of causal language (38.5% consistently causal, 30.8% inconsistently causal). There were no statistically significant associations between the journal and title and abstract final grading (P=.863) or the journal and full-text grading (P=.726). The use of causal language remains highly prevalent in observational database studies related to shoulder arthroplasty. Understanding the limitations of observational database studies is paramount for accurate interpretation of these publications.

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.

Scientific publications on orthopedic surgery from three major East Asian countries (2012-2021).

East Asia is the most dynamic region in the world and includes three major countries: Japan, South Korea and China. Due to rapid economic growth, orthopedics research in East Asia has achieved great advances during the past 10 years. However, the current status of orthopedic research in Japan, South Korea and China is still unclear. To understand the current status of orthopedic research in Japan, South Korea, and China. Journals listed in the ''Orthopedics'' category of Science Citation Index Expanded subject categories were included. The PubMed and Web of Knowledge electronic databases were searched to identify scientific publications from the selected journals written by researchers from Japan, South Korea and China. A systematic analysis was conducted to analyze orthopedic research articles published in the three countries based on the number of articles, study design, impact factors (IFs) and citations. Furthermore, we also ranked the top 10 countries worldwide with the highest publications in the past 10 years. Additionally, we ranked the top 10 countries with the highest number of publications in the world in the past 10 years. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 20.0 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, United States), and statistical results are given in Tables and Figures. The Kruskal-Wallis test and the Mann-Whitney test were used to detect differences between countries. The tendency regarding the number of articles was analyzed by curvilinear regression. A two-tailed P < 0.05 was considered significant. From 2012-2021, a total of 144518 articles were published in the 86 selected orthopedic journals. During this period, the number of worldwide published orthopedic articles has shown an annual increasing trend. A total of 27164 orthopedic research articles were published by Japan, South Korea and China during the past 10 years; 44.32% were from China, 32.98% were from Japan, and 22.70% were from South Korea. From 2012 to 2021, the annual number of articles markedly increased in each of the three countries. Over time, the worldwide share of articles increased substantially in South Korea (3.37% to 6.53%, P < 0.001) and China (5.29% to 9.61%, P < 0.001). However, the worldwide share of articles significantly decreased in Japan (5.22% to 3.80%, P < 0.001). The annual total IFs of articles from China were well above those of articles from Japan and South Korea (36597.69 vs 27244.48 vs 20657.83, P < 0.05). There was no significant difference among the articles in the top 10 high-IF orthopedics journals published from those three countries [South Korea (800) > China (787) > Japan (646), P > 0.05]. Over the past 10 years, China's scientific publications in orthopedic journals have shown an increasing trend. Considering the relative scale of the populations, Japan and South Korea have outpaced China with respect to quality.

Publishing on Topical Subjects in Total Joint Arthroplasty Is Associated With Increased Social Media Attention

BackgroundSocial media platforms are often used for research dissemination and collaboration. Given the increased prevalence of online-only publications, understanding what drives research dissemination is important. Here, we analyzed factors associated with increased social media attention among peer-reviewed publications in total knee arthroplasty, total hip arthroplasty, and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. MethodsWe analyzed publications about total knee arthroplasty, total hip arthroplasty, or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty from 2010 to 2022 using a national database. We analyzed a weighted count of social media mentions, using negative binomial regressions adjusting for days since publication. Publications on “hot topics” in arthroplasty were examined including navigation/robotics, COVID-19, race/ethnicity, body mass index, and reimbursement. There were 9,542 publications included, 4,216 (44%) were open access (OA), 338 (3.5%) included navigation, 32 (0.34%) discussed race/ethnicity, 20 (0.2%) discussed COVID-19, 3,840 (40%) were randomized studies, 30 (0.3%) discussed reimbursement, and 2,867 (30%) were in top-10 orthopaedic journals. ResultsFactors associated with higher weighted score included studies about COVID-19 (50 versus 6.0, P < .001), race/ethnicity (15.8 versus 6.0, P < .001), OA status (6.3 versus 5.8, P = .001), and randomized studies (6.5 versus 5.7, P < .001). Studies from top-10 journals had a lower score (5.8 versus 6.2, P = .025), as did studies about body mass index (3.4 versus 6.1, P = .001). Studies about navigation and reimbursement did not have significantly different scores. ConclusionsStudies on COVID-19, race/ethnicity, randomized studies, and OA publication were associated with increased social media while those in top-10 orthopaedic journals had lower scores. Level of EvidenceLevel IV, Prognostic Study.

Business and publication model of surgical journals: a bibliometric analysis

Background: The research community is increasingly recognizing the significance of understanding journal business models and their influence on the dissemination and readership of scholarly literature. This has sparked discussions on publisher payment models, exemplified by the recent termination of the subscription contract between the University of California and Elsevier. Methods: Scopus was used as the primary database to extract the list of surgery journals and other variables related to journal metrics. SCImago Journal Ranking (SJR) was used to extract information about the journals such as name and type of publisher, language and location model of the journal and publication model. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 26. Results: More than half of surgical journals were published by university publishers (54.2%). Similarly more than half of the journals are of European origin (53%). About 1/3 of the surgical journals employ open access publication model. We obserevd a greater number of orthopedic subspeciality journals (19%). SJR was higher for university and commercial type of publishers. Conclusion: A small number of multinational commercial corporations dominate the publication of surgery journals, leading to significant centralization. Despite the majority of surgery journals being open access, their impact is similar to that of subscription-based journals.

The fragility of statistical findings in distal biceps tendon repairs: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

The purpose of this present study was to perform a fragility analysis to assess the robustness of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the distal biceps tendon repairs. We hypothesize that the dichotomous outcomes will be statistically fragile, and higher fragility will exist among statistically significant outcomes comparable to other orthopedic specialties. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), randomized controlled trials from 4 orthopedic journals indexed on PubMed from 2000 to 2022 reporting dichotomous measures relating to distal biceps tendon repairs were included. The fragility index (FI) of each outcome was calculated through the reversal of a single outcome event until significance was reversed. The fragility quotient (FQ) was calculated by dividing each fragility index by study sample size. The interquartile range (IQR) was also calculated for the FI and FQ. Of the 1038 articles screened, 7 RCTs containing 24 dichotomous outcomes were included for analysis. The fragility index and fragility quotient of all outcomes was 6.5 (IQR 4-9) and 0.077 (IQR 0.031-0.123), respectively. However, statistically significant outcomes had a fragility index and fragility quotient of 2 (IQR 2-7) and 0.036 (IQR 0.025-0.091), respectively. The average number of patients lost to follow-up was 2.7 patients, with 28.6% of the included studies reporting loss to follow-up (LTF) greater than or equal to 6.5. The literature surrounding distal biceps tendon repair may not be as stable as previously thought and presents a similar fragility index to other orthopedic subspecialties. We therefore recommend triple reporting the P value, fragility index, and fragility quotient to aid in the interpretation of clinical findings reported in biceps tendon repair literature.

Altmetric analysis of the most mentioned articles online in the orthopaedic literature

Social media has become a valuable tool for the distribution of scientific content. This investigation examined the most mentioned articles in orthopaedics and identified factors concurrent with greater dissemination. Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), which measures the online attention of an article, was examined for 88,683 publications in the top 50 orthopaedic journals by 2021 impact factor. Comparative and correlational analyses were completed. Overall, average AAS and citation count of the 100 most mentioned articles were 606.7 (SD ± 272.0) and 67.55 (SD ± 98.01), respectively. These articles had primarily male first authors (75%), were produced predominantly in the United States (60%), concerned the subspecialty of sports medicine (28%), and were cross-sectional analyses (22%). There were significant differences in AAS between publications (p < 0.05) by the degree of collaboration and the type of article. Such insights can guide authors when considering avenues to increase the impact of their research.

Artificial Intelligence in Orthopaedic Surgery: Can a Large Language Model "Write" a Believable Orthopaedic Journal Article?

➢ Natural language processing with large language models is a subdivision of artificial intelligence (AI) that extracts meaning from text with use of linguistic rules, statistics, and machine learning to generate appropriate text responses. Its utilization in medicine and in the field of orthopaedic surgery is rapidly growing.➢ Large language models can be utilized in generating scientific manuscript texts of a publishable quality; however, they suffer from AI hallucinations, in which untruths or half-truths are stated with misleading confidence. Their use raises considerable concerns regarding the potential for research misconduct and for hallucinations to insert misinformation into the clinical literature.➢ Current editorial processes are insufficient for identifying the involvement of large language models in manuscripts. Academic publishing must adapt to encourage safe use of these tools by establishing clear guidelines for their use, which should be adopted across the orthopaedic literature, and by implementing additional steps in the editorial screening process to identify the use of these tools in submitted manuscripts.

Orthopaedic Surgeons Should Consider Online and E-publication Resources for the Most Current Evidence-Based Medicine Following the COVID-19 Pandemic

To compare the time to publication of accepted manuscripts and content in orthopaedic sports medicine journals during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic. A convenience sample of articles published in January, May, and September during the years 2019-2021 was taken from Arthroscopy, American Journal of Sports Medicine (AJSM), and Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy (KSSTA). The duration between the aspects of the article publication process was compared between journals and years. Overall, 826 journal articles were included. Arthroscopy demonstrated no significant differences in the time from manuscript submission to journal publication from 2019 to 2021, a significant decrease in time from acceptance to e-Pub (140 vs 74 vs 16 days; P < .001), but an increase from e-Pub to journal publication (23 vs 74 vs 130 days; P < .001). In AJSM, there was an overall increase in time from submission to journal publication significant between 2019 and 2021 (P= .05) and 2020 and 2021 (P= .001). KSSTA demonstrated the longest timelines in 2020. There was a trend toward a greater number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Changes in various aspects of the time to publication and journal content occurred in orthopaedic sports medicine journals in the years surrounding the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Although it is not possible to know whether these delays are caused by journal or author-related factors, orthopaedic surgeons should be aware of the possible delay in time to publication and consider online and e-publication resources for the most current evidence-based medicine, while journals may take this information into account to consider ways of improving the publication process and when determining journal content. It is important to understand the impact the COVID-19 pandemic had on the publications which orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons rely on for clinical knowledge and the practice of evidence-based medicine.

Positive Correlation Between Social Media Utilization by Orthopaedic Journals and Impact Factor.

Social media use has exploded in popularity over the past decade with over 1.5 billion users on Facebook and 320 million users on Twitter. The aim of this study was to analyze the use of social media by orthopaedic journals and determine whether a relationship exists between social media followers and journal impact factor. The Clarivate Analytics Impact Factor tool was used to identify all orthopaedic journals with a 2022 impact factor of greater than 1.5. We then conducted a query on Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook to determine which programs had pages on each platform. Seventeen journals were included across all orthopaedic subspecialties. Of the 17 journals, 14 (82.4%) had a Facebook page, eight (47%) had an Instagram page, 15 (88.2%) had a Twitter account, and 8 (47%) had a LinkedIn profile. When compiling the number of followers by social media platform, Twitter had the most (177,543), followed by Facebook (149,388), Instagram (81,739), and LinkedIn (77,459). We found a significant correlation between the number of social media followers and journal impact factor (Pearson correlation coefficient [PCC] = 0.67; P = 0.003). When analyzing each social media platform independently, we found a significant correlation between the number of Facebook and Twitter followers and journal impact factor (PCC = 0.54; P = 0.02 and PCC = 0.80; P < 0.001, respectively). We have shown a notable association between the number of social media followers and a journal's impact factor. With the increasing shift toward online distribution, orthopaedic journals may use our data when evaluating their social media strategy to maintain and potentially increase their exposure and potentially their impact factor.

The Significance of Orthopedic Journals in Advancing the Orthopedic Society

In orthopedic surgery, publishing research findings is of utmost importance, regardless of the practitioners’ geographical location or economic status. While the significance of research publication is widely recognized in developed countries, its value for orthopedic surgeons in developing countries is equally vital. Orthopedic journals play a crucial role in the progression of the orthopedic society by providing a platform for disseminating research, sharing clinical experiences, and promoting evidence-based practice. Understanding the value of the platform, Nepal Orthopedic Association established its journal way back in 2010. However, the Nepal Orthopedic Association Journal (NOAJ) could not gather the momentum as it was expected. There were several reasons behind the irregular publication of NOAJ in the past one of them was not enough submissions to the journal. It is not that orthopedic surgeons in Nepal did no research; instead, they chose to submit to other journals. This editorial aims to highlight the critical importance of orthopedic journals and their profound impact on the growth and development of the orthopedic field. Through a comprehensive analysis of relevant literature and research, we underscore the key reasons why orthopedic journals are indispensable for the advancement of the orthopedic society.

Twenty years of clear aligner therapy: a bibliometric analysis (2002-2022)

Abstract Introduction Clear aligner (CA) therapy has become popular worldwide but there is little research in the area from the perspective of bibliometrics. The present study aimed to identify the most impactful studies on CA over its 20 years of publishing since 2002. Methods The Web of Science database was used to retrieve study records on CA for the period between 2002 and 2022. Two authors manually screened the related studies. CiteSpace was used to analyse the country and institutional co-operation, keywords and citations with the strongest ‘burst’. Results The number of CA publications has increased and a total of 613 studies were included in the current analysis. The American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics was the leading publishing journal reporting 79 published CA articles and 1627 total citations. Italy had the most significant productivity in this field (142/613, 23.16%). The United States of America was the leading country with the highest international collaboration. Based on the results of keyword analysis, orthodontic treatment, digital orthodontics, superimposition, and apical root resorption were previous research emphases. Conclusions The present analysis indicates that the treatment outcomes of CA therapy is the focus of current studies and provides developments for future research. The results provide an increased and comprehensive understanding of the state of the art of CA treatment.