Using inaccurate quotations can propagate misleading information, which might affect the management of patients. The aim of this study was to determine the predictors of quotation inaccuracy in the peer-reviewed orthopaedic literature related to the scaphoid. We randomly selected 100 papers from ten orthopaedic journals. All references were retrieved in full text when available or otherwise excluded. Two observers independently rated all quotations from the selected papers by comparing the claims made by the authors with the data and expressed opinions of the reference source. A statistical analysis determined which article-related factors were predictors of quotation inaccuracy. The mean total inaccuracy rate of the 3840 verified quotes was 7.6%. There was no correlation between the rate of inaccuracy and the impact factor of the journal. Multivariable analysis identified the journal and the type of study (clinical, biomechanical, methodological, case report or review) as important predictors of the total quotation inaccuracy rate.

We concluded that inaccurate quotations in the peer-reviewed orthopaedic literature related to the scaphoid were common and slightly more so for certain journals and certain study types. Authors, reviewers and editorial staff play an important role in reducing this inaccuracy.

Background. As the number of studies in the literature is increasing, orthopaedic surgeons rely heavily on meta-analyses as their primary source of scientific evidence. The objectives of this review were to assess the scientific quality and number of published meta-analyses on orthopaedic-related topics over time. Methods. We conducted, in duplicate and independently, a systematic review of published meta-analyses in orthopaedics in the years 2005 and 2008 and compared them with a previous systematic review of meta-analyses from 1969-1999. A search of electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR)) was performed to identify meta-analyses published in 2005 and 2008. We searched bibliographies and contacted content experts to identify additional relevant studies. Two investigators used the Oxman and Guyatt Index to assess the quality of the studies and abstracted relevant data. Results. We included 45 and 44 meta-analyses from 2005 and 2008, respectively. While the number of meta-analyses increased five-fold from 1999 to 2008, the mean quality score did not change significantly over time (p=0.067). A significantly lower proportion of meta-analyses had methodological flaws (56% in 2005 and 68% in 2008) compared to meta-analyses published prior to 2000 (88%) (p=0.006). In 2005 and 2008, respectively 18% and 30% of meta-analyses had major to extensive flaws in their methodology. Studies from 2008 with positive conclusions did not use and report appropriate criteria for the validity assessment as often as those reporting negative results. The use of random-effects and fixed-effects models as pooling methods became more popular toward 2008. Conclusion. Although methodological quality of orthopaedic meta-analyses has increased in the past 20 years, a substantial proportion displays major to extensive methodological flaws. As the number of published meta-analyses is increasing, a routine checklist for scientific quality should be used in the peer-review process to ensure methodological standards for publication

Aims

The aims of this study were to describe the demographic, socioeconomic, and educational factors associated with core surgical trainees (CSTs) who apply to and receive offers for higher surgical training (ST3) posts in Trauma & Orthopaedics (T&O).