Aims. To develop a multidisciplinary health research agenda (HRA) utilizing expertise from various disciplines to identify and prioritize evidence uncertainties in orthopaedics, thereby reducing research waste. Methods. We employed a novel, structured framework to develop a HRA. We started by systematically collecting all evidence uncertainties from stakeholders with an interest in orthopaedic care, categorizing them into 13 sub-themes defined by the Dutch Orthopaedic Association (NOV). Subsequently, a modified two-phased Delphi study (two rounds per phase), adhering to the Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies (CREDES) guideline, was conducted. In Phase 1, board members assessed the collected evidence uncertainties on a three-point Likert scale to confirm knowledge gaps. In Phase 2, diverse stakeholders, including orthopaedic surgeons, rated the confirmed knowledge gaps on a seven-point Likert scale. Panel members rated one self-selected sub-theme and two randomly assigned sub-themes. The results from Phase 2 were ranked based on the overall average score for each uncertainty. Finally, a focus group discussion with patient associations’ representatives identified their top-ranked uncertainty from a predefined consensus process, leading to the final HRA. An advisory board, the Federation of Medical Specialists, and the NOV research coordinator oversaw the process. Results. Of the 687 collected evidence uncertainties, 160 (zero to 33 per theme) were confirmed by 41 panel members (three to five per theme). In Phase 2, 124 panel members prioritized 41 evidence uncertainties (zero to five per theme). The focus group members identified 12 key evidence uncertainties leading to the final HRA. The remaining 29 evidence uncertainties will be addressed after research on the HRA’s prioritized evidence uncertainty is completed. Conclusion. Our framework resulted in a multidisciplinary HRA, enabling an inclusive approach to consensus-building among healthcare professionals and patients on future research priorities within orthopaedic care. We anticipate this innovative framework will enhance inclusivity and transparency, leading to broader acceptance and optimized resource allocation, ultimately reducing research waste. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2025;6(2):206–214

Aims

This study sought to estimate the clinical outcomes and describe the nationwide variation in practice, as part of the feasibility workup for a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended randomized clinical trial to determine the optimal treatment of torus fractures of the distal radius in children.

Aims

The aim of the British Association for Surgery of the Knee (BASK) Meniscal Consensus Project was to develop an evidence-based treatment guideline for patients with meniscal lesions of the knee.