The peer review process for the evaluation of
manuscripts for publication needs to be better understood by the
orthopaedic community. Improving the degree of transparency surrounding
the review process and educating orthopaedic surgeons on how to
improve their manuscripts for submission will help improve both
the review procedure and resultant feedback, with an increase in
the quality of the subsequent publications. This article seeks to clarify
the peer review process and suggest simple ways in which the quality
of submissions can be improved to maximise publication success. Cite this article:
To report the outcomes of patients with a fracture of the distal tibia who were treated with intramedullary nail versus locking plate in the five years after participating in the Fixation of Distal Tibia fracture (FixDT) trial. The FixDT trial reported the results for 321 patients randomized to nail or locking plate fixation in the first 12 months after their injury. In this follow-up study, we report the results of 170 of the original participants who agreed to be followed up until five years. Participants reported their Disability Rating Index (DRI) and health-related quality of life (EuroQol five-dimension three-level questionnaire) annually by self-reported questionnaire. Further surgical interventions related to the fracture were also recorded.Aims
Methods
Lower limb fractures are common in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and represent a significant burden to the existing orthopaedic surgical infrastructure. In high income country (HIC) settings, internal fixation is the standard of care due to its superior outcomes. In LMICs, external fixation is often the surgical treatment of choice due to limited supplies, cost considerations, and its perceived lower complication rate. The aim of this systematic review protocol is identifying differences in rates of infection, nonunion, and malunion of extra-articular femoral and tibial shaft fractures in LMICs treated with either internal or external fixation. This systematic review protocol describes a broad search of multiple databases to identify eligible papers. Studies must be published after 2000, include at least five patients, patients must be aged > 16 years or treated as skeletally mature, and the paper must describe a fracture of interest and at least one of our primary outcomes of interest. We did not place restrictions on language or journal. All abstracts and full texts will be screened and extracted by two independent reviewers. Risk of bias and quality of evidence will be analyzed using standardized appraisal tools. A random-effects meta-analysis followed by a subgroup analysis will be performed, given the anticipated heterogeneity among studies, if sufficient data are available.Aims
Methods
The evidence base within trauma and orthopaedics has traditionally favoured quantitative research methodologies. Qualitative research can provide unique insights which illuminate patient experiences and perceptions of care. Qualitative methods reveal the subjective narratives of patients that are not captured by quantitative data, providing a more comprehensive understanding of patient-centred care. The aim of this study is to quantify the level of qualitative research within the orthopaedic literature. A bibliometric search of journals’ online archives and multiple databases was undertaken in March 2024, to identify articles using qualitative research methods in the top 12 trauma and orthopaedic journals based on the 2023 impact factor and SCImago rating. The bibliometric search was conducted and reported in accordance with the preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO).Aims
Methods
Despite the fact that research fraud and misconduct are under scrutiny in the field of orthopaedic research, little systematic work has been done to uncover and characterise the underlying reasons for academic retractions in this field. The purpose of this study was to determine the rate of retractions and identify the reasons for retracted publications in the orthopaedic literature. Two reviewers independently searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (1995 to current) using MeSH keyword headings and the ‘retracted’ filter. We also searched an independent website that reports and archives retracted scientific publications (Objectives
Methods
By and large, physicians and surgeons trust what they read, even if they take authors’ conclusions with a pinch of salt. There is a world of difference between being cautious about the implications of what you read and being defrauded by dishonest researchers. Fraud and scientific research are incompatible bedfellows and yet are an unhappy part of our research existence. All subspecialties are to blame and orthopaedics is no exception.
Osteoarthritis is extremely common and many different causes for it have been described. One such cause is abnormal morphology of the affected joint, the hip being a good example of this. For those joints with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) or developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH), a link with subsequent osteoarthritis seems clear. However, far from being abnormal, these variants may be explained by evolution, certainly so for FAI, and may actually be normal rather than representing deformity or disease. The animal equivalent of FAI is coxa recta, commonly found in species that run and jump. It is rarely found in animals that climb and swim. In contrast are the animals with coxa rotunda, a perfectly spherical femoral head, and more in keeping with the coxa profunda of mankind. This article describes the evolutionary process of the human hip and its link to FAI and DDH. Do we need to worry after all?
