Background. This survey was conducted to gain information about how surgeons use scientific literature and how this is influenced by their knowledge of evidence-based medicine. The results were compared to a survey conducted 10 years previously. Where appropriate, the same questions as in the 2003 survey were used. Methods. We administered a voluntary questionnaire to participants at the AO Foundation courses in Davos, Switzerland, in December 2013. We surveyed, amongst other topics, the surgeons’ levels of education in Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM), how they implement EBM in daily practice and their publication record. Results. A total of 330 surgeons completed the 27 question survey. 49% (159/322) had learned about EBM in medical school. However, 69% (110/159) of those with EBM education had taken only one semester or less on the subject. 54% of participants (170/317) correctly identified a definition of EBM in surgery. This compares to 45% in the 2003 survey (130/288 respondents) of a subset who said they have previously heard of evidence-based orthopaedic surgery. When it came to applying EBM in their daily work, 45% of respondents (143/320) claim to always practice it (2003 figure: 28%, 113/404), while 26% (84/320) only use EBM for difficult or controversial cases (2003 figure: 26%, 104/404). 27% (88/323) have never published a manuscript as an author or co-author (2003 figure: 14%, 121/453), 53% (170/323) have been involved in 1–10 publications (2003 figure: 59%, 269/453), and 20% (65/323) have published more than 10 times (2003 figure: 27%, 63/453). Conclusions. While at face value there appears to be a greater understanding and utilisation of EBM among AO course participants who completed the 2013 survey compared to the 2003 study, several outcomes do not show any great variation in the intervening decade. Level of Evidence. professional survey

Objectives

Evidence -based medicine (EBM) is designed to inform clinical decision-making within all medical specialties, including orthopaedic surgery. We recently published a pilot survey of the Canadian Orthopaedic Association (COA) membership and demonstrated that the adoption of EBM principles is variable among Canadian orthopaedic surgeons. The objective of this study was to conduct a broader international survey of orthopaedic surgeons to identify characteristics of research studies perceived as being most influential in informing clinical decision-making.

Summary Statement. With increasing emphasis on evidence-based medicine in healthcare, there is global increase in proportion of Level-1 and -2 articles in PUBMED. This study shows the trend of orthopaedic publications from different countries in comparison to other specialties. Introduction. New medical knowledge is expected to improve health through change in existing practices. Articles need to convince readers of the validity of conclusions in order to bring about a change in practice. The last few decades have witnessed an increasing interest in critical appraisal of research aimed at assessing the ‘quality’ of evidence, a trend towards ‘Evidence Based Medicine’. Whether orthopaedic publications are also becoming more evidence-based has hitherto not been reported. This study aimed to compare the trend of publications originating from orthopaedic services versus other specialties, across different countries, with respect to major categories of levels of evidence. Methods. PUBMED was used to collect data on yearly publication of articles, categorised by country, specialty (from author address) and article category (Guideline, Review, Case Report, Comparative Study, Clinical Trial and Meta-Analysis). Results. PUBMED shows 20,572,125 articles published between 1900 and 2010. Of these, 64% were published within the quarter century 1986–2010. Publication type was specified in 25% of articles, of which 8% were review articles, 7% each were case reports and comparative studies while 3% were clinical trials. The top ten countries from which articles originated were US, UK, Japan, Germany, France, Canada, Italy, Australia, Netherlands and Sweden. Comparing the decade of 1990s with 2000s, the number of meta-analyses showed greatest increase from Australia, Japan, Germany, UK and Italy (9.5x-6.1x). When comparing types of articles between the beginning and end of the quarter century, the proportion of clinical trials increased by 2x, guidelines by 5x and meta-analyses/systematic reviews by 28x. There were 121,859 articles from orthopaedic departments/institutes (0.6% of all articles). There was a consistent increase in the proportion of orthopaedic publications from 0.5% to 1.1% over the quarter century; this 231% increase was lower than vascular, cardiothoracic and paediatric surgery but greater than urology, neurosurgery, otolaryngology and obstetrics/gynecology. Among the different types of publications, in orthopaedics the greatest increase between the decades of 1990s and 2000s was in meta-analyses (8.5x) followed by guidelines (5.4x). This increase in number of meta-analyses was higher than other surgical specialties except cardiothoracic and vascular surgery, both of which showed a 13x increase. Among the meta-analyses from surgical specialties, the proportion from orthopaedics and vascular surgery was increasing consistently, with the former now contributing to 13% of all meta-analyses. In comparison, increase in number of clinical trials has been relatively modest for orthopaedics (2.4x), being lower than vascular surgery (3.3x), plastic surgery (2.8x) and neurosurgery (2.6x). Dicussion/Conclusion. The proportion of clinical trials and guidelines was increasing in a linear fashion in the last 25 years, while the proportion of meta-analyses/systematic reviews was increasing logarithmically. Among European countries, Germany, UK and Italy contributed to the highest number of meta-analyses. Publications from orthopaedic departments showed an overall intermediate rate of increase, but meta-analyses/systematic reviews showed a consistently higher increase compared to other surgical specialties. This analysis shows the trend of orthopaedic evidence in published literature and may be used as a guide to future country-specific research directions in the discipline of orthopaedics

Summary. Our meta-analysis showed that pooled mean blood loss during spinal tumour surgeries was 2180 ml. Standardised methods of calculating and reporting intra-operative blood loss are needed as it would be beneficial in the pre-operative planning of blood replenishment during surgery. Introduction. The vertebral column is the commonest site of bony metastasis, accounting for 18,000 new cases in North America yearly. Patients with spinal metastasis are often elderly, have compromised cardiovascular status, poor physiological reserve and altered immune status, all of which render them more susceptible to the complications of intra-operative blood loss and associated transfusion. Currently no consensus exists regarding the expected volume of blood lost during metastatic spine tumour surgery with various papers quoting anywhere between 1L to 6L. Knowledge of the expected blood loss prior to surgery however is important as it facilitates pre-operative planning, intra- and post-operative management of fluid balance and blood transfusion. We conducted a meta-analysis of published literature on spine tumour surgery to answer the question: “What is the expected blood loss in major spinal tumour surgery for metastatic spinal disease?”. Methods. A comprehensive online search of the English literature using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed. We included articles published from 31 January 1992 until 31 January 2012. This initial online search yielded 98 relevant articles. Two senior investigators independently reviewed all abstracts. The full text of articles that were deemed eligible for further consideration obtained and reviewed. Eighty five articles were excluded at this stage, largely due to lack of clear blood loss data, leaving 13 eligible articles. A hand search of the reference lists of relevant articles yielded 5 more articles. A total of 18 articles were included in the final meta-analysis of blood loss data. Disagreements regarding eligibility of articles for analysis were resolved by consensus. Selected articles for final analysis were independently graded according to the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) Levels of Evidence. We evaluated the possibility of publication bias by obtaining a funnel plot (created by plotting the sample size against the effect estimate). The Egger's regression asymmetry test was used to assess the existence of publication bias. Results. Eighteen selected articles had a total of 785 patients who had undergone major spine tumour surgery for metastatic spinal disorders. The pooled estimate of the blood loss occurring during spinal tumour surgeries was calculated to be 2180ml (95%CI: 1805–2554ml). Apart from two studies which reported significant mean blood loss of more than 5500 ml, the resulting funnel plot suggested absence of publication bias. This was confirmed by Egger's test which did not show any small-study effects (p=0.119). However, there was strong evidence of heterogeneity between studies with I2=90% (p<0.001). Conclusions. The expected blood loss of a patient undergoing major surgery for spinal tumour constitutes more than a third of the circulating blood volume in a typical cancer patient with significantly impaired physiological reserve. Moreover, cases of catastrophic blood loss exceeding 5L exist in almost every series evaluated in this paper, with some reaching as much as 17–18L. Blood loss is a significant problem during spine tumour surgery and concerted effort is needed to address it

Objectives

We aimed first to summarise minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) after total hip (THR) or knee replacement (TKR) in health-related quality of life (HRQoL), measured using the Short-Form 36 (SF-36). Secondly, we aimed to improve the precision of MCID estimates by means of meta-analysis.