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

Summary Statement. The mechanism of spinal cord injury varies across the human population and this may be important for the development of effective therapies. Therefore, detailed understanding of how variables such as impact velocity and depth affect cord tissue damage is important. Introduction. Studies have shown an independent effect of impact velocity and depth on injury severity, thereby suggesting importance of the interaction between the two for spinal cord injury. This work examines both the individual and interactive effects of impact velocity and impact depth on demyelination, tissue sparing, and behavioural outcomes in the rat cervical spinal cord. It also aims to understand the contribution of the energy applied during impact, not only the impact factors. Decoupling the effects of these two impact parameters will help to describe the injury mechanism. Maximum principal strain has also been shown to be useful as a predictor for neural tissue damage in vivo and in finite element (FE) models. A better understanding of this relationship with experimental results may help to elucidate the mechanics of spinal cord injury. Methods. In this study, 54 male Sprague-Dawley rats were given a contusion spinal cord injury at impact speeds of 8 mm/s, 80 mm/s, or 800 mm/s with depths of 0.9 mm or 1.5 mm. Animals recovered for 7 days followed by behavioural assessment and examination of the spinal cord tissue for demyelination and tissue sparing at 1 mm intervals, ±3 mm rostrocaudally to the epicentre. In parallel, a previously developed finite element model of the rat spinal cord was used to examine the resulting maximum principal strains in the spinal cord for correlations with histological and mechanical impact data. Results and discussion. Impact depth was a consistent factor in predicting axonal damage, tissue sparing, and the resulting behavioural deficit. Increased impact velocity resulted in significantly higher impact energies and measureable tissue damage at the 1.5 mm impact depth, but not at the 0.9 mm impact depth and is best displayed by the percentage of axon damage at the injury epicentre. Linear correlation analysis with FEA strain showed significant (p≪0.001) correlations with axonal damage in the ventral (R2=0.86) and lateral (R2=0.74) regions of the spinal cord and with white matter (R2=0.90) and grey matter (R2=0.76) sparing. Discussion and Conclusion. The difference in injury severity to velocity at different impact depths identifies the existence of threshold interactions between the two impact factors. Beyond this point incremental increases in either velocity or depth are more likely to result in significantly increased impact energy and thus tissue damage and functional impairment. The relationship between the impact depth and velocity of injury demonstrated a more rate sensitive response to spinal cord tissue damage at the deep (1.5 mm) impact depth than at the shallow (0.9 mm) impact depth. Impact velocity also became quickly less significant than impact depth in determining tissue damage further from the epicentre. Furthermore, the results shown by this work extend the research identifying significant correlations between maximum principal strain and neurological tissue damage

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.

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.