Aims. This systematic review places a recently completed multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT), UK FROST, in the context of existing randomized evidence for the management of primary frozen shoulder. UK FROST compared the effectiveness of pre-specified physiotherapy techniques with a steroid injection (PTSI), manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA) with a steroid injection, and arthroscopic capsular release (ACR). This review updates a 2012 review focusing on the effectiveness of MUA, ACR, hydrodilatation, and PTSI. Methods. MEDLINE, Embase, PEDro, Science Citation Index, Clinicaltrials.gov, CENTRAL, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry were searched up to December 2018. Reference lists of included studies were screened. No language restrictions applied. Eligible studies were RCTs comparing the effectiveness of MUA, ACR, PTSI, and hydrodilatation against each other, or supportive care or no treatment, for the management of primary frozen shoulder. Results. Nine RCTs were included. The primary outcome of patient-reported shoulder function at long-term follow-up (> 6 months and ≤ 12 months) was reported for five treatment comparisons across four studies. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were: ACR versus MUA: 0.21 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.42), ACR versus supportive care: -0.13 (95% CI -1.10 to 0.83), and ACR versus PTSI: 0.33 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.59) and 0.25 (95% CI -0.34 to 0.85), all favouring ACR; MUA versus supportive care: 0 (95% CI -0.44 to 0.44) not favouring either; and MUA versus PTSI: 0.12 (95% CI -0.14 to 0.37) favouring MUA. None of these differences met the threshold of clinical significance agreed for the UK FROST and most confidence intervals included zero. Conclusion. The findings from a recent multicentre RCT provided the strongest evidence that, when compared with each other, neither PTSI, MUA, nor ACR are clinically superior. Evidence from smaller RCTs did not change this conclusion. The effectiveness of hydrodilatation based on four RCTs was inconclusive and there remains an evidence gap. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(9):773–784

Spondylolisthesis is common recognized spine pathology. A lot of studies targeted spondylolisthesis in the recent years, few of which have made a major influential impact on the clinical practice. To the extent our knowledge this is the first study to highlight and analyze the top 100 cited articles on spondylolisthesis through a systematic search strategy used previously in published studies in different medical specialty. The aim of this study is to identify the most cited studies on spondylolisthesis and report their impact in spine field. Thomson Reuters Web of Science-Science Citation Index Expanded was searched using title-specific search “spondylolisthesis”. All studies published in English language between 1900 and 2019 were included with no restrictions. The top 100 cited articles were identified using “Times cited” arranging articles from high to low according to citation count. Further analysis was made to obtain the following items: Article title, author's name and specialty, country of origin, institution, journal of publication, year of publication, citations number, study design. The citation count of the top 100 articles ranged from 69 to 584. All published between 1950 – 2016. Among 20 journals, Spine had the highest number of articles 47, with citation number of 5964 out of 13644. Second ranked was Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery with 16 articles and a total citation of 3187. In respect to the primary author's specialty, Orthopedic surgeons contributed to the majority of top 100 list with 82 articles, Neurosurgery was the second specialty with 10 articles. United states had produced more than half of the list by 59 articles. England was the second country with 7 articles. Surgical management of lumbar spondylolisthesis was the most common discussed topic. This article identifies the top 100 influential papers on spondylolisthesis and recognizes an important aspect of knowledge evolution served by leading researchers as they guide today's clinical decision making in spondylolisthesis

Purpose and Background: Despite widespread clinical belief, a previous systematic review found insufficient evidence to substantiate fear avoidance beliefs (FAB) as a risk factor for long-term problems in low back pain. This updated review explores whether there is stronger evidence supporting the role of fear avoidance in early stages of low back pain as a predictor of outcome. In addition, this evidence was examined in reference to current models and knowledge about fear avoidance. Methods and Results: A systematic literature search for all prospective inception cohorts of low back pain that included psychological factors at baseline between 2000 and 2003 was made. We searched MEDLINE, psychINFO, AMED, CINAHL, Social Science Citation Index, Science Citation Index databases. Included studies had early recruitment of up to three weeks since onset of back pain and an absence of back pain in the previous three months. These studies were coded according to criteria adapted from Pincus et al (2002) blindly by two researchers. A sample of these was coded by a third blinded reviewer. An independent statistician performed statistical conversion of reported results to effect sizes. Out of the six included studies, four included valid and reliable measures of fear avoidance. There was only weak evidence implicating fear avoidance as a predictor of disadvantageous outcome. Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the basic concept of fear avoidance as a risk factor for poor outcomes in low back pain. Experimental studies indicate that those with high FAB benefit from targeted intervention. To explain this we propose a model of FAB containing two distinct groups

Joint arthroplasty is a common surgical procedure, with over 185,000 primary hip and knee arthroplasties performed in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in 2014. After total hip or knee arthroplasty, about 1% of patients develop deep prosthetic joint infection (PJI), which usually requires further major operations to clear the infection. Although PJI affects only a small percentage of patients it is one of the most devastating complications associated with this procedure. Research evidence has focussed on clinical effectiveness of revision surgery while there has been less focus on the impact on patients and support needs. Using a systematic review approach, the aim of this study was to assess support needs and evaluate what interventions are routinely offered to support patients undergoing treatment for PJI following hip or knee arthroplasty. We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cinahl, Social Science Citation Index, and The Cochrane Library from 1980 to February 15, 2015 for observational (prospective cohort, nested case-control, case-control, and retrospective cohort) studies, qualitative studies, and clinical trials that report on the support needs and interventions for patients being treated for PJI or other major adverse occurrences following joint arthroplasty. Data were extracted by two independent investigators and consensus reached with involvement of a third. Of 4,161 potentially relevant citations, we identified one case-control, one prospective cohort and two qualitative studies for inclusion in the synthesis. Patients report that PJI and treatment had a profoundly negative impact affecting physical, emotional, social and economic aspects of their lives. No study evaluated support interventions for PJI or other major adverse occurrences following hip and knee arthroplasty. The interpretation of study results is limited by variation in study design, outcome measures and the small number of relevant eligible studies. Findings show that patients undergoing treatment for PJI have extensive physical, psychological, social and economic support needs. Our review highlights a lack of evidence about support strategies for patients undergoing treatment for PJI and other adverse occurrences. There is a need to design, implement and evaluate interventions to support these patients

Background. Author credibility and creativity is often gauged by the number of scientific papers published, with the frequency of citations for particular articles reflecting the impact of published data on the area of practice. Aims. The objective of this study was to identify and analyse the qualities of the top one hundred cited articles in Orthopaedic surgery. Methods. We used the database of the Science Citation Index of the Institute for Scientific Information (1945-1995) in addition to Scopus, Medline and Pubmed search engines. Results. 1490 articles were cited in excess of 100 times with the top 100 being subjected for further analysis. The 100 articles discussed were published between 1945 and 2005. The mean number of citations per articles was 446.5 (range 334 - 1786). The majority of published articles originated in the United States (68) with the United Kingdom and Canada closely behind (12 and 5 respectively). The 100 articles were published in 7 Orthopaedic journals led by the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery American edition (JBJS Am) (n=55) followed by Spine (n=16), Clinical Orthopaedic Related Research (n=14), JBJS Britain (n=7), Journal of Orthopaedic Research (n=5), Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavia (n=2) and Foot and Ankle International (n=1). 80 of the most cited articles reported clinical experiences, 7 were clinical review articles and 13 dealt with basic science. 34 persons authored greater than one top citing article. Conclusion. Analysis of the most cited Orthopaedic papers allows us a unique insight into the qualities, characteristics and clinical innovations, required for a paper to attain the ‘classic’ status. Based on these findings to be well cited such a contribution should be published in the English Language in a high impact journal and originate in North America or the United Kingdom

Introduction. Surgeons, commissioners and patients are increasingly seeking more in depth details on outcomes of total ankle replacement (TAR). We set out to perform a detailed and up to date meta-analysis of the outcomes of TAR, with a focus on PROMS. Methods. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Science Citation Index databases using the terms “total”; “ankle”; “arthroplasty” or “replacement” to April 2012. We included all languages; series with greater than 20 TAR; minimum 2 years follow-up. We excluded papers on revisions; prostheses no longer marketed; and kin studies. We worked with the Cochrane Collaboration to adopt their methodology including the creation of a risk profile assessing all forms of bias. Results. Of 1841 papers identified, 51 remained for analysis, with a pool of 6719 patients. The mean patient age was 59.3(17–95) and mean BMI was 28.8(19.4–44). 53% of patients were male. The most common indication was posttraumatic osteoarthritis. The majority of the studies were level IV and more than half the studies had several forms of bias. Intraoperative complication rate was 9%, with medial malleolar fracture (4.4%) being the most common. The pooled mean pre-op VAS was 7.6 which improved to 1.5 at 4–5 years. The mean pre-op AOFAS was 39.7, improving to 79.9 for up-to 10 years. Range-of-motion increased after TAR from 22.8° preoperatively to 33.6° postoperatively. Radiographic abnormalities were found in 22% of cases with a mean follow up of 53 months, of which 7.9% were re-operated upon. Gait velocity, cadence, stride length and power all improve following TAR. Survival at 8–10 years was 89.4%, with a cumulative failure rate of 1.9%. Conclusion. This is the most comprehensive meta-analysis carried out on TAR to date. TAR provides patients with an increased range of motion and improvement postoperative PROMS maintained up to 10 years

Aim: To measure the quality of five major scientific meetings by assessing the publication rate of papers presented and recording their citation index. Material and Methods: Abstracts of podium presentations at the meetings of the Scoliosis Research Society, International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine, British Scoliosis Society, BritSpine and Eurospine were included. We performed a Medline search to identify publications from the abstract. We calculated the time from meeting to publication and recorded the citation rate of the articles. Results: Of 396 abstracts, 182 were published in peer-review journals – a publication rate of 46%. The publication rates of the five meetings (SRS, BSS, ISSLS, Eurospine, Britspine) were 69%, 53%, 51%, 38%, 24% respectively. Most publications were in “Spine” (55%), then European Spine Journal (11%). The median citation rate of the papers from the SRS, ISSLS, BSS, Eurospine, Britspine meetings was 3, 3, 3, 2, and 1 respectively. The average time to publication was 16 months. Discussion & Conclusions: Podium presentation is a valuable means for the dissemination of research findings. However, a paper in a peer-reviewed journal is subjected to greater scrutiny, and is perhaps a better indicator of the work’s merit. The average rate of publication in medicine following presentation is 45%. 1. Spinal meetings are within this range. Although the quality of the scientific work is not the only factor to determine publication, and nor is the quality of the presentations the only factor to assess in evaluating a meeting, the rate of publication and citation rate provide an indicator of the quality and scientific level of meetings

Aim: To measure the quality of five major scientific meetings by assessing the publication rate of papers presented and recording their citation index. Material and Methods: Abstracts of podium presentations at the meetings of the Scoliosis Research Society, International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine, British Scoliosis Society, BritSpine and Eurospine were included. We performed a Medline search to identify publications from the abstract. We calculated the time from meeting to publication and recorded the citation rate of the articles. Results: Of 396 abstracts, 182 were published in peer-review journals – a publication rate of 46%. The publication rates of the five meetings (SRS, BSS, ISSLS, Eurospine, Britspine) were 69%, 53%, 51%, 38%, 24% respectively. Most publications were in “Spine” (55%), then European Spine Journal (11%). The median citation rate of the papers from the SRS, ISSLS, BSS, Eurospine, Britspine meetings was 3, 3, 3, 2, and 1 respectively. The average time to publication was 16 months. Discussion & Conclusions: Podium presentation is a valuable means for the dissemination of research findings. However, a paper in a peer-reviewed journal is subjected to greater scrutiny, and is perhaps a better indicator of the work’s merit. The average rate of publication in medicine following presentation is 45%. 1. Spinal meetings are within this range. Although the quality of the scientific work is not the only factor to determine publication, and nor is the quality of the presentations the only factor to assess in evaluating a meeting, the rate of publication and citation rate provide an indicator of the quality and scientific level of meetings

The recommended surgical treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) of the shoulder remains controversial. Recent published and presented trials evaluating hemiarthroplasty (HA) vs total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) have been underpowered to detect a clinically relevant difference between the treatments. A meta-analysis was carried out using methodology as described by the Cochrane Collaboration. Comprehensive search strategy was used including Medline, Science Citation Index, a review of references of relevant papers and abstracts of recent orthopaedic meetings. All articles were reviewed in a blinded fashion to select qualified articles based on population, intervention, outcome and methodological rigor. 4 RCT’s were identified. One was excluded due to selection bias introduced by the timing of randomization. The data of the 3 remaining trials was combined for analysis. In each trial multiple tools were used to assess patient outcome however, the UCLA score was the only one consistent to all 3 studies. The results demonstrated a statistically significant difference in change scores from baseline to 1 year (TSA 15.6; HA 11.2, p=0.012) in favour of the total shoulder arthroplasty group. This meta analysis demonstrated that in this selected group of patients, (primary osteoarthritis with intact rotator cuff and without excessive glenoid erosion), total shoulder arthroplasty provided a more predictable improvement in pain and function than hemiarthroplasty at 2 years

Background: Chronic low back pain is the most common complaint of the working age population. Controversy exists regarding the benefit of surgical fusion of the spine for the treatment of chronic low back pain. We performed a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials to investigate the effectiveness of surgical fusion for chronic low back pain compared to non-surgical intervention. Methods: Several electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Science Citation Index and Cochrane registry of clinical trials) were searched from 1966 to October 2005. Two authors independently extracted data on study characteristics and methodological quality and the number of patients with early complications from surgery. The random-effect meta-analysis comparison was based on the mean difference in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) change from baseline to follow-up of patients undergoing surgical versus non-surgical treatment. Between-study heterogeneity was analyzed by means of I2. Results: Four studies of 58 articles identified in the search were eligible with a total of 740 patients. One of the studies recruited patients with adult isthmic spondy-lolisthesis, whereas the other studies recruited patients with a history of chronic low back pain of at least 1 year duration. Surgical treatment involved posterolateral fusion with or without instrumentation or flexible stabilisation. Non-surgical treatment involved exercise programs with or without cognitive therapy. The follow-up period ranged from 1 to 2 years. The pooled mean difference in ODI between the surgical and non-surgical groups was statistically in favour of surgery (mean difference of ODI: 3.90; 95% confidence interval: 0.17–7.62; p=0.04; I2=21.4%). Surgical treatment was associated with a 13% pooled rate of early complication (95% confidence interval: 6–20%, I2=66.9%). Conclusion: Surgical fusion for chronic low back pain favoured an improvement in the ODI compared to non-surgical intervention. This difference in ODI is of minimal clinical importance. Furthermore, surgery was associated with a significant risk of complications. Therefore, the cumulative evidence at present does not support routine surgical fusion for the treatment of chronic low back pain

In 2006, approximately 1.3 million peer-reviewed scientific articles were published, aided by a large rise in the number of available scientific journals from 16 000 in 2001 to 23 750 by 2006. Is this evidence of an explosion in scientific knowledge or just the accumulation of wasteful publications and junk science? Data show that only 45% of the articles published in the 4500 top scientific journals are cited within the first five years of publication, a figure that is dropping steadily. Only 42% receive more than one citation. For better or for worse, “Publish or Perish” appears here to stay as the number of published papers becomes the basis for selection to academic positions, for tenure and promotions, a criterion for the awarding of grants and also the source of funding for salaries. The high pressure to publish has, however, ushered in an era where scientists are increasingly conducting and publishing data from research performed with ‘questionable research practices’ or even committing outright fraud. The few cases which are reported will in fact be the tip of an iceberg and the scientific community needs to be vigilant against this corruption of science.