Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 6 of 6
Results per page:
Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 5, Issue 6 | Pages 263 - 268
1 Jun 2016
Yan J MacDonald A Baisi L Evaniew N Bhandari M Ghert M

Objectives. 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. Methods. 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 (. www.retractionwatch.com. ). Two reviewers independently extracted data including reason for retraction, study type, journal impact factor, and country of origin. Results. One hundred and ten retracted studies were included for data extraction. The retracted studies were published in journals with impact factors ranging from 0.000 (discontinued journals) to 13.262. In the 20-year search window, only 25 papers were retracted in the first ten years, with the remaining 85 papers retracted in the most recent decade. The most common reasons for retraction were fraudulent data (29), plagiarism (25) and duplicate publication (20). Retracted articles have been cited up to 165 times (median 6; interquartile range 2 to 19). Conclusion. The rate of retractions in the orthopaedic literature is increasing, with the majority of retractions attributed to academic misconduct and fraud. Orthopaedic retractions originate from numerous journals and countries, indicating that misconduct issues are widespread. The results of this study highlight the need to address academic integrity when training the next generation of orthopaedic investigators. Cite this article: J. Yan, A. MacDonald, L-P. Baisi, N. Evaniew, M. Bhandari, M. Ghert. Retractions in orthopaedic research: A systematic review. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:263–268. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.56.BJR-2016-0047


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 9, Issue 8 | Pages 531 - 533
1 Aug 2020
Magan AA Plastow R Haddad FS


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 6, Issue 10 | Pages 590 - 599
1 Oct 2017
Jefferson L Brealey S Handoll H Keding A Kottam L Sbizzera I Rangan A

Objectives

To explore whether orthopaedic surgeons have adopted the Proximal Fracture of the Humerus: Evaluation by Randomisation (PROFHER) trial results routinely into clinical practice.

Methods

A questionnaire was piloted with six orthopaedic surgeons using a ‘think aloud’ process. The final questionnaire contained 29 items and was distributed online to surgeon members of the British Orthopaedic Association and British Elbow and Shoulder Society. Descriptive statistics summarised the sample characteristics and fracture treatment of respondents overall, and grouped them by whether they changed practice based on PROFHER trial findings. Free-text responses were analysed qualitatively for emerging themes using Framework Analysis principles.


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 6, Issue 8 | Pages 514 - 521
1 Aug 2017
Mannering N Young T Spelman T Choong PF

Objectives

Whilst gait speed is variable between healthy and injured adults, the extent to which speed alone alters the 3D in vivo knee kinematics has not been fully described. The purpose of this prospective study was to understand better the spatiotemporal and 3D knee kinematic changes induced by slow compared with normal self-selected walking speeds within young healthy adults.

Methods

A total of 26 men and 25 women (18 to 35 years old) participated in this study. Participants walked on a treadmill with the KneeKG system at a slow imposed speed (2 km/hr) for three trials, then at a self-selected comfortable walking speed for another three trials. Paired t-tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, Mann-Whitney U tests and Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients were conducted using Stata/IC 14 to compare kinematics of slow versus self-selected walking speed.


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 3, Issue 4 | Pages 35 - 38
1 Aug 2014
Hammerberg EM


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 2, Issue 11 | Pages 245 - 247
1 Nov 2013
Sprowson AP Rankin KS McNamara I Costa ML Rangan A

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: Bone Joint Res 2013;2:245–7.