Orthopaedic Surgery Journals Research Articles

JournalADE: Creation and validation of a novel program for automated data extraction (ADE) to assess authorship gender representation

Background: Analyses of gender in academic authorship are key to characterizing representation in surgical fields, but current methods of manual data collection are time-consuming and error prone. The purpose of this study was to design a program to automatically extract publication data and verify the accuracy of this program in comparison to manually-collected data in a pilot study of three orthopaedic surgery journals. Methods: Publications from three orthopaedic subspecialty journals between January 2019 and June 2021 were identified via PubMed search. For each publication, online publication date, journal issue month, first author name, and senior author name were collected from PubMed listings by hand and programmatically in a Python script (JournalADE). Gender was determined using Gender API. Results: The percent of publications for which manually- and program-collected online publication dates were within 14 days of each other was above 95% for all journals. There was 98.3% (95% CI=97.84-98.76%) agreement for online publication date, with a mean difference of 6.43 (SD 0.87) days. Journal issue month agreement was 99.6% (95% CI=99.37-99.83%). Agreement for first author gender was 97.33% (95% CI=96.75-97.91%) and for senior author gender was 96.77% (95% CI=96.14-97.4%). Estimated labor time for manual collection was 100 hr, compared to 15 min for JournalADE. Conclusions: When comparing the JournalADE- and manually-collected data, rates of agreement were high at a fraction of the time. This supports the efficacy of JournalADE and sets the stage for its use in future studies of gender in authorship.

Increasing Use of Promotional Language in Orthopaedic Surgery Abstracts-An Analysis of 112,916 Abstracts 1985 to 2020.

Increasing use of "hype" language (eg, language overstating research impact) has been documented in the scientific community. Evaluating language in abstracts is important because readers may use abstracts to extrapolate findings to entire publications. Our purpose was to assess the frequency of hype language within orthopaedic surgery. One hundred thirty-nine hype adjectives were previously identified using a linguistics approach. All publicly available abstracts from 18 orthopaedic surgery journals between 1985 and 2020 were obtained, and hype adjectives were tabulated. Change in frequency of these adjectives was calculated. A total of 112,916 abstracts were identified. 67.0% (948/1414) of abstracts in 1985 contained hype adjectives, compared with 92.5% (5287/5714) in 2020. The average number of hype adjectives per abstract increased by 136% (1.1 to 2.6). Of the 139 adjectives, 87 (62.5%) increased in frequency and 40 (28.7%) decreased in frequency while 12 (9%) were not used. The hype adjectives with the largest absolute increases in frequency were quality (+324wpm), significant (+320wpm), systematic (+246wpm), top (+239wpm), and international (+201wpm). The five hype adjectives with the largest relative increases in frequency were novel (+10500%), international (+2850%), urgent (+2600%), robust (+2300%), and emerging (+1400%). Promotional language is increasing in orthopaedic surgery abstracts. Authors, editors, and reviewers should seek to minimize the usage of nonobjective language.

The Top 100 Cited Articles on Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: A Bibliometric Analysis.

Bibliometric analysis. Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) has emerged as an effective surgical intervention for degenerative cervical disc disease with potential advantages over traditional cervical fusion. This bibliometric analysis aimed to assess the current state of research on CDA by analyzing the relevant literature using bibliometric indicators. Web of Science Core Collection. A comprehensive search was conducted using the Web of Science database, for articles related to CDA published in the last 19 years. The top 100 articles were reviewed using bibliometric analysis. Publication trends, citation patterns, authorship, and collaboration networks were analyzed using VOSviewer and the Bibliometrix package in RStudio. The results revealed a significant increase in the number of publications related to CDA over the past 2 decades, with most of the articles being published in orthopedic and spine surgery journals. The most frequently cited articles were related to clinical outcomes, complications, and biomechanical studies of CDA. Co-authorship analysis identified influential authors and collaborative networks, highlighting the multidisciplinary nature of CDA research involving neurosurgeons, orthopedic surgeons, and engineers. Overall, this bibliometric analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of research on CDA, highlighting the key research themes, influential authors, and collaborative networks in the field. These findings can serve as a guide for researchers, clinicians, and policymakers to identify knowledge gaps, research trends, and future directions in the field of CDA.

Trends in Osteopathic Authorship in Orthopedic Publications and Its Impact on Adult Reconstruction Match Rates

BackgroundDoctors of osteopathy (D.O.) have historically been underrepresented in the orthopedic literature. As adult reconstruction (AR) continues to rank among the most competitive orthopedic fellowships, participation in research likely serves a key role for successfully matching. This study sought to identify trends in D.O. orthopedic publications and assess for correlations between these trends and osteopathic AR match results. MethodsThe top 10 orthopedic surgery journals based on impact factor were selected for analysis. Articles published between 2010 and 2021 were screened to assess for publications with a D.O. author, as well as authorship position. A total of 29,499 articles were available for final analysis. Data from the San Francisco Residency and Fellowship Match Services were also reviewed to evaluate the number of osteopathic applicants and their match rates during the same study period. Trends in D.O. publications and osteopathic AR match rates were then assessed for any correlations. ResultsFrom 2010 to 2021, there was a significant increase in orthopedic and arthroplasty-related publications with a D.O. author (P < .0001), as well as D.O. first (P = .0006) and senior authorship positions (P = .009). Osteopathic match rate significantly increased during the study period (P = .003). There was a strong correlation between the increase in osteopathic match rate and arthroplasty-related publications with a D.O. author (r = 0.76). ConclusionsFrom 2010 to 2021, there was an upward trend of osteopathic orthopedic publications. This increase is strongly correlated with an increase in osteopathic AR match rate. Our findings suggest that authorship in publications may play a key role in successfully matching into an AR fellowship.

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.

Characterizing the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the orthopaedic surgery literature

While the novel Coronavirus 2019 disease’s (COVID-19) impact on the practice of orthopaedics has been readily apparent, the effects of COVID-19 on the orthopaedic literature has not been studied. The objective of this paper is to analyze the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on peer-reviewed articles published in the orthopaedic surgery literature. Using the Journal Citation Reports, twenty orthopaedic surgery journals with the highest impact factor in 2019 were selected and articles within those journals were sorted by mention of COVID-19. The Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) and citation count were collected and compared for COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19 related articles using the Mann-Whitney U test. Furthermore, within COVID-19 related articles, AAS and citation count were compared using Kruskal-Wallis test between sub specialty of orthopaedics, type of article, study type, and quarter of publication. The average AAS of COVID-19 articles was significantly higher than non-COVID articles (15 vs. 6, p=0.019). Within COVID-19 articles, those pertaining to spine and trauma had a significantly lower AAS than those pertaining to orthopaedics as a whole (20 &amp; 6 vs 51, p&amp;#60;0.001). The average number of citations accrued by COVID-19 articles was significantly higher than non-COVID-19 articles (8 vs. 1, p&amp;#60;0.001). Original COVID-19 articles received significantly more citations than editorial articles (10 vs. 5, p&amp;#60;0.001), as well as those published in the second quarter of 2020 compared to those published later (p&amp;#60;0.001). Orthopaedic articles related to COVID-19 demonstrated a greater influence, dissemination, and impact than articles not related to COVID-19 as demonstrated by AAS and citations accrued.

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.].

Impact of Large Database Studies on Orthopedic Surgery Literature: Are We Advancing the Field?

Background: While database studies have become more prevalent in the literature, there is concern over their value. In addition, the questions they are suitable to answer are limited. Questions/Purposes: We sought to determine the incidence of database studies in the orthopedic literature and in each subspecialty. In addition, we wanted to assess the impact of database studies on the literature by determining whether citations and Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS) varied by study type (studies using internal or external databases and those not using databases). Methods: We searched PubMed for articles published in impactful orthopedic surgery journals in the year 2018. All articles were discoverable on the Altmetric explorer portal database. Impact was determined by journal impact factor. Study design, subspecialty, number of citations, and AAS were obtained. Univariable analyses were conducted between study type, demographic variables, and the outcome of either citation count or AAS. Multivariable analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of the primary outcomes. Subgroup analyses were performed to differentiate the impact of external and internal database studies compared with non-database studies. Results: A total of 2684 total articles were eligible for inclusion. Of these, 366 studies (13.6%) were database studies. Hip and knee articles had the greatest incidence of database studies. Database studies had significantly more citations (5.9 vs 4.0) and significantly higher AAS (12.8 vs 11.3) compared with non-database studies. External database studies had significantly more citations (6.7 vs 4.8) and significantly higher AAS (14.0 vs 10.7) than internal database studies. Internal database studies had higher traditional citation counts but similar AAS to non-database studies. Conclusions: In 2018, database studies in well-reputed orthopedic journals had a greater number of citations but similar AAS compared with non-database studies. Further studies are warranted.

The Quality of Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery Literature over the Last Decade.

To describe the changes in the quality of the Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (OTOHNS) literature over the last decade, and compare it to other surgical-based fields. Based on impact factors, the top eight clinical U.S. OTOHNS journals were selected, and articles were analyzed from 2020 (Oto 2020) and compared to 2010 (Oto 2010). This was done similarly for Neurosurgery, Orthopedic, Ophthalmology, and General Surgery journals in 2020 (non-Oto). To limit bias and account for random variability, the first 10 research articles from each journal in each group were included. Data regarding the study type, level of evidence, use of confidence intervals, and funding source were collected. Based on an a priori power analysis, 160 articles were analyzed for Oto 2010 and Oto 2020. Compared to Oto 2020, Oto 2010 had more level 1 and 2 evidence (12 vs. 4; p=0.032) and less reporting of confidence intervals (10 vs. 32; p < 0.001). Comparing the top 160 articles from 2020 from Non-Oto and OTOHNS (Oto), Non-Oto had more level 1 and 2 evidence (19 vs. 6; p=0.0047), more randomized controlled trials (8 vs. 1; p=0.016), and less reporting of confidence intervals (42 vs. 58; p=0.009). High quality studies remain relatively scarce in the OTOHNS literature. Although reporting of confidence intervals has improved over the last decade, aggregate levels of evidence and extramurally funded studies lag behind other surgical-based fields. Better study design will provide stronger evidence basis, in hopes of improving clinical care. N/A Laryngoscope, 133:1853-1856, 2023.

Time to publication for orthopaedic surgery peer-reviewed journals: A cross-sectional bibliometric analysis

BackgroundThe dissemination of research and evidence-based medicine is critical to advancing science and improving clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the timing and associated factors of the publication process for the most influential orthopaedic surgery research journals. MethodsAfter analyzing 25 orthopaedic surgery journals with the highest impact factors, 14 journals provided the necessary information for data analysis. A minimum of three consecutive issues per journal from 2021 were collected for review. Within each issue, all articles were included except for reviews, commentaries, replies, letters to the editor, and invited articles. The publication times for received to accepted (RA), received to published in press (RP1), and received to published in print (RP2) were retrieved and compared. Journal impact factor, specialty, and article level of evidence were recorded. ResultsA total of 1040 articles were included with a mean number of 74.3 ± 38 (range, 35–182) articles analyzed per journal. The mean impact factor for the 14 journals was 3.6 ± 1 (range, 2.5–5.8). The overall median duration of time for RA, RP1, and RP2 were 119 (IQR, 78–165) days, 157 (IQR, 102–216) days, and 291 (IQR, 243–378) days across all 14 journals, respectively. Journal of Arthroplasty demonstrated the shortest median duration of time for RA and RP1, while International Orthopaedics demonstrated the shortest median duration of time for RP2. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine demonstrated the longest median duration of time for RA and RP2, while the American Journal of Sports Medicine demonstrated the longest median duration of time for RP1. Level three studies, which included retrospective case-control and cohort study designs, demonstrated the shortest publication times, while sports medicine journals demonstrated the longest publication times for all periods. ConclusionThere was substantial variation in publication times across orthopaedic surgery journals which may impact accessibility to clinical insights.

Statistical Assumptions in Orthopaedic Literature: Are Study Findings at Risk?

BackgroundAs orthopaedic surgery becomes more evidence-based, the need for rigorous research has increased. This results in more complex studies that employ more sophisticated statistical analysis, often some form of regression. These statistical techniques require the data to meet certain assumptions for the findings to be considered valid. The purpose of this study is to determine the common regression techniques employed in the orthopaedic surgery literature, and demonstrate how often the assumptions of regression analyses are met and reported.MethodsStudies published in the Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (JBJS) in 2017 and 2018 were reviewed. Commentaries, editorials, and systematic reviews were excluded. The statistical analyses performed in each study were documented. When regression analyses were utilized, the article was reviewed for evidence that the necessary assumptions underlying the statistical methodology were assessed and met.ResultsFrom the 470 studies that were reviewed, the most common statistical test reported was the independent-samples t-test (n=215, 45.7%). Also, 201 studies (42.8%) implemented some form of regression analysis. The most common regression was a logistic regression (n= 106). None of the 201 studies using regression analysis reported meeting all of the necessary assumptions to appropriately use a regression test.ConclusionMany recent studies published in JBJS depended on regression analyses to reach their conclusions, but none fully reported the necessary assumptions of these tests. Orthopaedic surgery journals should be more transparent in reporting the methodology of statistical tests, and readers must beware of possible gaps in statistical methodology and critically evaluate the studies' findings.

Chronicling the effect of COVID-19 on orthopedic literature

BackgroundThe novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has had a significant impact on orthopedic surgery practice, but there has been little investigation of the effects of COVID-19 on the orthopedic surgery literature. Additionally, because orthopedic research plays a vital role in physician education, changes to the characteristics and content of published literature can have lasting impacts on future teaching and learning. This paper represents the first known analysis of the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on peer-reviewed articles published in orthopedic surgery journals. MethodsThe 20 orthopedic journals with the highest impact factors in 2019, according to the Journal Citation Reports, were included in this study. Using PubMed and COVID-19 related keywords as well as manual screening, a final count of 199 articles were assessed for this study and subsequently sorted by country of origin, orthopedic subspecialty, article type, and general theme. Kruskal Wallis and Pearson's Chi-squared tests were used to analyze continuous and categorical variables, respectively. ResultsFourteen journals published articles relating to COVID-19, representing 26 countries with the United States (37%) and United Kingdom (13%) publishing the greatest proportion of all COVID-19 articles. Sixty percent of publications discussed COVID-19's impact on the overall field of orthopedic surgery, with the remainder focusing on specific subspecialties. Forty-seven percent of publications were original research articles while 46% were editorials or commentaries. The median time to publication for all COVID-19 related articles was 24.5 days, compared to the 129 days reported for orthopedic journals prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (p < 0.001). In the first 100 articles published, 49% (n = 49) originated exclusively from United States institutions, whereas only 25% (n = 25) of the next ninety-nine articles had US-only institutions (p < 0.001). ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the characteristics, content, and time to publication of the orthopedic surgery literature. The data and ideas presented in this paper should help streamline future, formal analysis on the lasting implications of COVID-19 on orthopedic surgery practice, teaching, and learning.

Clinical Trial Registry Use in Orthopaedic Surgery Systematic Reviews.

Results from systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which have the highest level of evidence (Level I), often drive clinical decision-making and health policy. Often, unpublished trial data are omitted from systematic reviews, raising concerns about the extent of the reliability and validity of results that have been drawn from systematic reviews. We aimed to determine the extent to which systematic review authors include searches of clinical trial registries for unpublished data when conducting systematic reviews in orthopaedic surgery. Systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses were gathered from the top 5 orthopaedic surgery journals based on the h5-index from Google Scholar Metrics. Systematic reviews that had been published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, which requires the inclusion of a clinical trial registry search, served as controls. For the primary outcome, each systematic review from the top 5 orthopaedic journals was screened to determine whether the authors of each study searched for unpublished data in clinical trial registries. We then compared the rate of registry searches with those in the control group. For the secondary analysis, a search of ClinicalTrials.gov was performed for unpublished trial data for 100 randomized systematic reviews. All 38 of the Cochrane systematic reviews (100%) included clinical trial registry searches, while the top 5 orthopaedic journals had only 31 of 480 studies (6.5%) that looked at clinical trial registries. The secondary analysis yielded 59 of 100 systematic review articles (59.0%) that could have included unpublished clinical trial data from ≥1 studies to their sample. Systematic reviews that have been published in the top orthopaedic surgery journals seldom included a search for unpublished clinical trial data. The exclusion of clinical trial registry searches potentially contributes to publication bias within the orthopaedic literature. Moving forward, systematic review authors should include clinical trial registry searches for unpublished clinical trial data to provide the most accurate representation of the available evidence for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Intervention Reporting of Published Trials Is Insufficient in Orthopaedic Surgery Journals: Application of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication Checklist

PurposeOutcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been shown to influence clinical decision making. Thus, the quality and reliability of these outcomes are essential for both patients and medical care providers. To date, no study has assessed the quality of intervention reporting of RCTs in orthopaedics. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of intervention reporting of published RCTs in the field of orthopaedics using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist.MethodsIn this cross-sectional analysis, we applied the TIDieR checklist to assess the quality of intervention reporting in orthopaedic RCTs. Additionally, we evaluated the TIDieR checklist’s influence on intervention reporting by comparing overall adherence to checklist items in trials published before the TIDieR checklist’s release versus trials published after its release. Finally, we assessed whether certain factors were associated with the quality of intervention reporting.ResultsFrom a random sample of 300 publications in orthopaedic journals, 175 parallel-arm and cluster RCTs were identified. The overall rate of adherence to TIDieR items was 58.4%. Only 31.4% of orthopaedic RCTs adhered to at least 6 of the 12 TIDieR checklist items, whereas 0% adhered to all 12 items. We found no significant improvement in the quality of intervention reporting in studies published after the TIDieR checklist’s release compared with studies published before its release (P = .97). Additionally, preregistered trials were associated with more complete intervention reporting.ConclusionsOur results suggest suboptimal reporting of orthopaedic RCT interventions. In addition, the TIDieR checklist’s intended effect—to better the quality of RCT intervention reporting—appears to have fallen short of its goal.Clinical RelevanceBecause outcomes of RCTs are used to guide clinical decision making, it is essential that orthopaedic surgeons and clinical practice guideline panels are equipped with high-quality published research. Increasing the accuracy of intervention reporting may lead to more accurate clinical application. Thus, adoption of more stringent reporting of trial interventions by researchers, authors, and journal editors may improve the quality of orthopaedic research, as well as improve patient outcomes.

Patient and Public Involvement Within Orthopaedic Research: A Systematic Review.

We performed a systematic review of patient and public involvement in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the field of orthopaedic surgery. We assessed the prevalence, extent, and quality of patient and public involvement (PPI) in current academic orthopaedic practice. A literature search of the Cochrane, MEDLINE, and Embase databases was performed; we identified RCTs that were published between 2013 and 2020 in the 10 orthopaedic surgery journals with the highest impact factors. Inclusion of studies was based on set criteria, and they were analyzed for their validity. The results were assessed for the rate and the quality of PPI reporting. The Wright and Foster guidelines and the GRIPP2-SF (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public-2 short form) checklist were used to assess PPI reporting. This review was reported in line with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. An initial 2,107 results were identified. After the screening process, 475 full-text articles were identified and reviewed. Two papers that described PPI were included in this review. One paper used PPI to inform the research question, the choice of primary outcome, the oversight of the study schedule, and the dissemination of the results. The second article used PPI to design the study protocol. Both articles poorly reported the impact of PPI on the research. To our knowledge, this systematic review is the first to describe the prevalence, extent, and quality of PPI reporting in orthopaedic RCTs. Barriers to adequate PPI reporting are multifactorial and stem from a lack of systematic uptake of PPI guidelines and a lack of compulsory PPI reporting from publishing bodies. PPI can improve the quality of clinical trials by focusing on the clinical questions and outcomes that are most important to patients. This article assesses the prevalence of PPI reporting in orthopaedic RCTs.

Average Level Of Evidence Of Papers Published In Six Orthopedic Journals

Background&#x0D; An assessment of the average level of evidence (LOE) of clinical research papers in peer reviewed orthopedic surgery journals has not previously been published. In this paper we report on the average LOE of papers published in six of the top English language orthopedic surgery journals.&#x0D; &#x0D; Methods&#x0D; Six well established orthopedic journals were identified by using the Google Scholar H5 Journal Index. We selected 6 of the top ten journals identified by the Index. The six journals that were evaluated for this project were as follows: The American Journal Of Sports Medicine (AJSM); Clinical Orthopedics and Related Research (CORR); Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (JBJS); Knee Surgery, Sports, Traumatology, Arthroscopy (KSSTA); Journal of Arthroscopy (Arthros.); and the Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery (JSES). Thirteen consecutive monthly issues (July, 2018 - July, 2019) of each journal were evaluated for the LOE of each clinical paper. The assigned LOE was used if published, or the level of evidence was assigned by the senior author (DAB) if one was not listed. For each journal, the overall mean LOE along with the variance and standard deviation was calculated with all confidence intervals set at 95%. Summary data was statistically analyzed to provide an overall mean LOE for the 6 journals evaluated.&#x0D; &#x0D; Results &#x0D; For AJSM, we evaluated 246 clinical research articles that had an average LOE of 2.96 +/- 0.16. For CORR, we evaluated 155 papers that had an average LOE of 2.83 +/- 0.19. For JBJS, we evaluated 164 papers that had an average LOE of 3.04 +/- 0.13. For KSSTA, we evaluated 402 papers that had an average LOE of 3.05 +/- 0.16. For Arthros. we evaluated 226 papers that had an average LOE of 3.19 +/- 0.10. For JSES, we evaluated 237 papers that had an average LOE of 3.25 +/- 0.13.&#x0D; In summary, for the 1425 clinical research papers published in 98 issues of 6 of the top orthopedic journals, we found the average Level Of Evidence to be 3.05 +/- 0.16. &#x0D; &#x0D; Conclusions&#x0D; The goal of scientific study design is to prove or disprove a hypothesis while minimizing bias and errors. The gold standard for therapeutic studies has been a double blind, randomized controlled trial (RCT). However, it is not possible or feasible for every clinical study to have a blinded RCT design. Additionally, clinically relevant and actionable data can come from studies that are not RCTs. In a medical discipline like orthopedics many interventions are invasive, making controlled trials or blinded trials unethical or technically not practical. Our analysis of over 1400 peer reviewed publications in one year in 6 of the top English language orthopedic journals reveals that the average level of evidence deemed worthy of publication is level 3. In terms of the most common study design, the average published clinical study in these orthopedic journals was a case-control study.

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.

Factors Associated with Low and High Article Citations in Four Prominent Orthopaedic Surgery Journals

Research is a cornerstone for the advancement of clinical practice and guidelines across all medical and surgical fields. To achieve significant contribution to the field, research must be circulated, read, and understood. The purpose of this paper is to investigate which factors are associated with higher and lower citation rates in orthopaedic surgery literature. A query was performed to identify all of the primary research articles published between 1998 and 2008 in four prominent orthopaedics journals. From there, the 50 most highly and lowly cited articles were identified and analyzed for various factors that distinguished the highly cited group from the lowly cited group. Various statistical tests were used depending on the type of variable being evaluated. After data compilation and statistical analysis, 16 statistically significant factors were apparent that differed between the two groups. Seven non-statistically significant factors were also identified. This study illustrates that certain statistically significant factors influence the citation rates of papers in orthopaedic surgery literature. If utilized appropriately, these factors could lead to increased consumption and circulation of future orthopaedic surgery literature.

Evaluation of publication delays in the orthopedic surgery manuscript review process from 2010 to 2015

A continued growth in the volume of scientific literature may strain the practice of peer review possibly leading to delays in publication. While this appears true anecdotally, exact statistics are lacking. The study goal was to quantify delays in publication in the field of orthopaedic surgery. Eight orthopedic surgery journals with available publication dates between January 2010 and December 2015 were included. Main outcomes were (1) acceptance delay (time from submission to acceptance) and (2) publication delay (time from acceptance to publication). Temporal trends for both outcomes were assessed graphically while simple linear regression was applied to assess statistical significance. 12,811 manuscripts were included that released both acceptance and publication delays. From 2010 to 2015, the median overall acceptance delay decreased from 168 (interquartile range [IQR] 115–225) to 113 (IQR 62–176) days. Similarly, there was a decrease in publication delay from 55 (IQR 26–83) days in 2010 to 16 (IQR 9–54) days in 2015; both trends p < 0.0001. Per unit increase in impact factor, there was a 19.1% (95% CI 16.1, 22.2%) increase in acceptance delay and a 15.8% (95% CI 13.5, 17.9%) decrease in publication delay. In contrast to the hypothesis, there was a decrease in delays of the peer review process in the orthopaedic surgery literature. These data are encouraging in light of the timely availability of evidence to a wide audience.

Citation Analysis of Articles about Hand Surgery Published in Orthopaedic and Hand Surgery Journals.

To date, little is known about the characteristics of highly cited studies in hand surgery compared with other orthopaedic subspecialties. We aimed to assess the position of hand surgery within the orthopedic surgery literature. We conducted a bibliographic analysis using the Web of Science database to review 1,568 articles published between January 2012 and December 2012 in 4 relevant general orthopedic and 2 hand surgery journals. We used the number of citations within 3 years of publication to measure the impact of each paper. To analyze prognostic factors using logistic regression analysis, we extracted data on orthopedic subspecialty, published journal, location of authorship, and type of study for all articles. For clinical studies, we also recorded details on study design and sample size. Of eligible hand surgery articles (n = 307), the majority (62%) were case reports/series. Only 19% were comparative studies, comprising a significantly smaller proportion of comparative studies from other subspecialties in general orthopedic journals. Systematic reviews/meta-analyses generated a significantly higher number of average citations, whereas educational reviews were consistently cited less frequently than other study types (14.9 and 6.1 average citations, respectively). Being published in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American volume, having authorship in North America or Europe and Australia, focusing on subspecialties like hip & knee, sports, or shoulder, utilizing a comparative or randomized clinical trial study design, and having a larger sample size increased the odds of receiving more citations. Clinical studies related to hand surgery published in general orthopedic journals are most often of lower quality study design. Having a larger sample size or using a comparative study or randomized clinical trial design can improve the quality of study and may ultimately increase the impact factor of hand surgery journals.