Low back pain (LBP) is the main cause of disability worldwide and is primarily triggered by intervertebral disc degeneration (IDD). Although several treatment options exist, no therapeutic tool has demonstrated to halt the progressive course of IDD. Therefore, several clinical trials are being conducted to investigate different strategies to regenerate the intervertebral disc, with numerous studies not reaching completion nor being published. The aim of this study was to analyze the publication status of clinical trials on novel regenerative treatments for IDD by funding source and identify critical obstacles preventing their conclusion. Prospective clinical trials investigating regenerative treatments for IDD and registered on . ClinicalTrials.gov. were included. Primary outcomes were publication status and investigational treatment funding. Fisher's exact test was utilized to test the association for categorical variables between groups. 25 clinical trials were identified. Among these, only 6 (24%) have been published. The most common source of funding was university (52%), followed by industry (36%) and private companies (12%). Investigational treatments included autologous (56%) or allogeneic (12%) products alone or in combination with a carrier or delivery system (32%). The latter were more likely utilized in industry or privately funded studies (Fig. 1, p=0.0112). No significant difference was found in terms of funding regarding the publication status of included trials (Table 1, p=0.9104). Most clinical trials investigating regenerative approaches for the treatment of IDD were never completed nor published. This is likely due to multiple factors, including difficult enrollment, high dropout rate, and publication bias. 3. More accurate design and technical support from stakeholders and clinical research organization (CROs) may likely increase the quality of future clinical trials in the field. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly

Introduction. The productivity of trainees, consultants and institutions is frequently judged by the quantity of articles published in medical journals. While personnel may change, an institution should pride itself on its publication record. The aim of the study was to assess the publication history of Irish orthopaedic units over the last 5 years, and to identify patterns of publication. Methods. Using the same criteria used to differentiate candidates applying for the specialist registrar posts, we performed an extensive Pub Med search of each consultant affiliated with each orthopaedic unit in the country for the last 5 years (2004-2008) to assess the number of publications by each respective consultant and unit. Only the most senior publishing orthopaedic consultant, and the specific institution cited received credit for each paper. Publications were classified by individuals, institutions, publication type and impact factor. Results. 239 papers were published from 22 orthopaedic units over the 5 years, in 69 different journals. 56 consultants had at least one senior author publication, 7 consultants had more than ten publications. Teaching hospitals and units affiliated with research laboratories performed well. Some smaller units perform well when the average papers-per-consultant ratio is applied. Impact factors of the journals targeted varied considerably and reveals in interesting duality among authors when opting for profile or prestige. Conclusions. This audit provides an insight into the volume, quantity and quality of publications produced by Irish orthopaedic units over the last 5 years. With the current difficulties with regards to funding research, both consultants and orthopaedic units need to be more brand-conscious when submitting papers for publication

Introduction: Publication rate from orthopedic conferences is reported to be as high as 58% (AAHKS). However, national orthopedic meeting, is a stage where many local papers are presented that do not necessary have an interest to the broad orthopedic forums and thus are not published. We conducted this study to examine the publication rate of papers presented in the National Orthopaedic Association meetings after 5 and 10 years. Materials and Methods: We reviewed abstract books of National Orthopaedic Association meetings in the year 2003 and years 1998–1999. All invited and plenary lectures were excluded. Pubmed search was performed using authors’ names to find similar publications. The similarity was then rechecked by another author. The specific orthopedic subspeciality was noted; in some cases the same presentation could be classified in two different subspecialities. Results: 160 works were presented in the years 1998–1999 and 36 of them were published (22.5%). In 2003 27 out of 105 presented works were published (25.7%). In different subspecialities, the publication rate was 48% for pediatric orthopedics, 45% for foot and ankle, 33% for hand, 29% for shoulder and elbow, 27% for basic research, 22% for spine, 21% for trauma, 19% for oncology, 18% for hip and knee and 10% for sports medicine. 14 published papers (22%) were from international institutions. Six papers were published before the presentation at the meeting (two at each year). Conclusion: The publication rate of papers presented at the National Orthopedic Association meetings is around 24% and most are published at the first five years. However, many of these published papers are not from international institutions. More effort should be put both in better selection of presentations and in supporting young researchers for bringing their work to publication

Introduction: Outcome reporting following THR constitute a significant proportion of orthopaedic publications. Publication bias in the form of underreporting of studies showing non satisfactory or negative results is a well recognised problem in other specialities. We tried to find out the magnitude of this problem in orthopaedics publications dealing with THR. Method and materials: We reviewed all publications on THR in the year 2004 in three general orthopaedic journals namely JBJS (BR), JBJS (Am), CORR. Of the 1034 original articles published in these three journals more than 400 articles were concerned with total hip replacement. Results and Discussion: In this study we found only 6% of the published articles were showing non significant or negative results. This raises concerns about evidence based approach in THR and the need for preventive measures like registering all clinical trials and change in the attitude of editorial board

Purpose: Our aim of this study was to find out the abstract to publication ratio (APR) in peer-reviewed indexed journals of abstracts presented at BASK annual meetings. We also wanted to identify the publishing journals and to look at the amount of time taken for publication. Methods: We obtained permission from BASK executive committee and retrieved all presentations (podium & poster) over six year period (2000–2005). An extensive PubMed database search was performed to determine whether or not the abstract had been published as a full paper up to the beginning of Nov 2008. Results: A total of 294 abstracts identified, 114 of them were published as 101 full-text articles in 21 different journals. ‘The Knee’ Journal was the most popular destination with 47 publications (41.2%) followed by JBJS (British) with 28 publications (24.5%). The overall abstract to publication ratio (APR) at BASK annual meetings was 38.77%. The mean duration between presentations to publication was 3.96 yrs (range 0 to 7.2 yrs, median 3.4 yrs). Conclusion: On bench marking the APR ratio at BASK presentations, it is comparable with those of BOA (33.1%), other BOA affiliated societies (26–50%) and medical specialties (32–66%). Abstract to publication ratio (APR) is considered as a measure of the quality of scientific meetings and our results indicates the higher credentials of BASK meetings. It is very difficult to exactly determine the reason for abstracts failing to indexed publications; it is arguable that some of these projects did not meet the scientific scrutiny of the peer-review process required for full publication. We recommend authors to submit the full manuscript of paper after acceptance of their abstracts for the BASK meeting as done in AAOS meeting in order to encourage them to complete their manuscript before presentation

Considerable debate exists regarding which agent(s) should be preferred for venous thromboembolism (VTE) chemical prophylaxis following joint replacement. We assessed the practice of surgeons regarding VTE chemical prophylaxis for primary THR and TKR, pre and post issuing of updated NICE guidance in 2018. A survey, circulated through the British Hip Society and regional trainee networks/collaboratives, was completed by 306 UK surgeons at 187 units. VTE chemical prophylaxis prescribing patterns for surgeons carrying out primary THR (n=258) and TKR (n=253) in low-risk patients were assessed post publication of 2018 NICE recommendations. Prescribing patterns before and after the NICE publication were subsequently explored. Questions were also asked about surgeon equipoise for participation in future RCTs. Following the new guidance, 34% (n=87) used low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) alone, 33% (n=85) aspirin (commonly preceded by LMWH), and 31% (n=81) direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs: with/without preceding LMWH) for THR. For TKR, 42% (n=105) used aspirin (usually monotherapy), 31% (n=78) LMWH alone, and 27% (n=68) DOAC (with/without preceding LMWH). NICE guidance changed the practice of 34% of hip and 41% of knee surgeons, with significantly increased use of aspirin preceded by LMWH for THR (before=25% vs. after=73%;p<0.001), and aspirin for TKR (before=18% vs. after=84%;p<0.001). Significantly more regimens were NICE guidance compliant after the 2018 update for THR (before=85.7% vs. after=92.6%;p=0.011) and TKR (before=87.0% vs. after=98.8%;p<0.001). Support from surgeons for future RCTs was dependent on the clinical question, ranging from 48% participation in trials (effectiveness of aspirin vs. a DOAC) to 79% (effectiveness of 14 days LMWH vs. 28 days LMWH). Over one-third of surveyed surgeons changed their VTE chemical prophylaxis in response to 2018 NICE recommendations, with more THR and TKR surgeons now compliant with latest NICE guidance. The major change in practice was an increased use of aspirin for VTE chemical prophylaxis. Furthermore, there is an appetite amongst UK surgeons for participating in future RCTs, with a trial comparing standard versus extended duration LMWH likely feasible in current practice

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

Introduction: Clinical follow-up studies are sample based, in contrast to arthroplasty register data, which refer to the entire population treated. Aim of this study is to assess the differences in revision rate to quantify bias-factors in published literature. Materials and Methods: A structured literature review of Medline-listed peer reviewed journals on examples has been performed concerning implants with sufficient material in both data sources available. Products with inferior outcome were subsumed in a subgroup. Results: The number of cases presented in peer reviewed journals are relatively low in general and show a high variability. The average revision rate in peer reviewed literature is significantly lower than in arthroplasty register data-sets. Studies published by the inventor of an implant tend to show superior outcome compared to independent publications and Arthroplasty Register data. Factors of 4 to more than 10 have been found, which has a significant impact for the results of Metaanalyses. When an implant is taken from the market or replaced by a successor there is a significant decrease in publications, which limits the detection of failure mechanisms such as PE wear or insufficient locking mechanisms. The final statement made about the product under investigation seem to follow a certain mainstream. Discussion and Conclusion: Arthroplasty Register datasets are superior to Metaanalyses of peer reviewed literature concerning revision rate and the detection of failure mechanisms. Combined reviews could reduce bias factors and thereby raise the quality of reports

Duplicate publication in orthopaedic journals may further an author’s academic career but this is at the cost of both scientific integrity and knowledge. Multiple publications of the same work increase the workload of editorial boards, misguide the reader and affect the process of meta-analysis. We found that of 343 ‘original’ articles published in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery in 1999, 26 (7.6%) had some degree of redundancy. The prevalence of duplicate publications in the orthopaedic literature appears to be less than that in other surgical specialties but it is still a matter of concern. It is the author’s responsibility to notify the editor of any duality when submitting a paper for publication

Aim: To measure the quality of five major scientific meetings by assessing the publication rate of papers presented and recording their citation index. Material and Methods: Abstracts of podium presentations at the meetings of the Scoliosis Research Society, International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine, British Scoliosis Society, BritSpine and Eurospine were included. We performed a Medline search to identify publications from the abstract. We calculated the time from meeting to publication and recorded the citation rate of the articles. Results: Of 396 abstracts, 182 were published in peer-review journals – a publication rate of 46%. The publication rates of the five meetings (SRS, BSS, ISSLS, Eurospine, Britspine) were 69%, 53%, 51%, 38%, 24% respectively. Most publications were in “Spine” (55%), then European Spine Journal (11%). The median citation rate of the papers from the SRS, ISSLS, BSS, Eurospine, Britspine meetings was 3, 3, 3, 2, and 1 respectively. The average time to publication was 16 months. Discussion & Conclusions: Podium presentation is a valuable means for the dissemination of research findings. However, a paper in a peer-reviewed journal is subjected to greater scrutiny, and is perhaps a better indicator of the work’s merit. The average rate of publication in medicine following presentation is 45%. 1. Spinal meetings are within this range. Although the quality of the scientific work is not the only factor to determine publication, and nor is the quality of the presentations the only factor to assess in evaluating a meeting, the rate of publication and citation rate provide an indicator of the quality and scientific level of meetings

Aim: To measure the quality of five major scientific meetings by assessing the publication rate of papers presented and recording their citation index. Material and Methods: Abstracts of podium presentations at the meetings of the Scoliosis Research Society, International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine, British Scoliosis Society, BritSpine and Eurospine were included. We performed a Medline search to identify publications from the abstract. We calculated the time from meeting to publication and recorded the citation rate of the articles. Results: Of 396 abstracts, 182 were published in peer-review journals – a publication rate of 46%. The publication rates of the five meetings (SRS, BSS, ISSLS, Eurospine, Britspine) were 69%, 53%, 51%, 38%, 24% respectively. Most publications were in “Spine” (55%), then European Spine Journal (11%). The median citation rate of the papers from the SRS, ISSLS, BSS, Eurospine, Britspine meetings was 3, 3, 3, 2, and 1 respectively. The average time to publication was 16 months. Discussion & Conclusions: Podium presentation is a valuable means for the dissemination of research findings. However, a paper in a peer-reviewed journal is subjected to greater scrutiny, and is perhaps a better indicator of the work’s merit. The average rate of publication in medicine following presentation is 45%. 1. Spinal meetings are within this range. Although the quality of the scientific work is not the only factor to determine publication, and nor is the quality of the presentations the only factor to assess in evaluating a meeting, the rate of publication and citation rate provide an indicator of the quality and scientific level of meetings

Independent reviewers performed systematic reviews of the abstracts presented at the annual meeting of the ISSLS and the CSS. Papers employing blinded or independent review of outcome were the strongest predictor of publication and papers employing this had an adjusted odds ratio of 4.7 for being published compared to those papers that did not. Other significant factors include use of an experimental design, statistically positive result, and basic science research. To identify factors associated with eventual peer-reviewed publication in spinal research presented at national and international meetings. This review has highlighted factors that are associated with eventual peer-reviewed publication. It will also present comparisons between the International Society for Study of the Lumbar Spine (ISSLS) and the Canadian Spine Society (CSS). Independent reviewers performed systematic reviews of the abstracts presented at the annual meeting of the ISSLS and the CSS. All abstracts reviewed were categorized into type of research and aspects of research quality were identified. A medline database, blinded to the results of the review, was performed to identify abstracts that went onto peer-reviewed publication. Univariate and multivariate analyses reviewed that blinding, use of an experimental design, basic science or biomechanical research, and a statistically significant positive result were significant predictors of eventual publication. Papers employing blinded or independent review of outcome were the strongest predictor of publication and papers employing this had an adjusted odds ratio of 4.7 for being published compared to those papers that did not. Other significant factors include use of an experimental design, statistically positive result, and basic science research. Overall, 23% of ISSLS’ abstracts were published within one year and 67% within two years. In contrast, 6% and 13% of CSS abstracts were published within one and two years respectively

Background. Presentations at national meetings provide an important forum to relay research findings in all areas of Orthopaedic surgery. Orthopaedic surgical trainees are encouraged throughout the training process to participate, present and ultimately publish their research. Indeed the well known mantra ‘Publish or Perish’ signifies the pressure trainees are sometimes placed under in order to achieve professional success. The number of original published papers is often the yardstick by which professional appointments are made. We aimed to determine the overall publication rates of presentations from the 2001 and 2002 Irish Orthopaedic Association meetings and to determine whether publication rates differed among other national Orthopaedic meetings and amongst the subspecialties. Methods. A comprehensive literature review was conducted using the proceedings of the 2002 & 2003 IOA meetings using Pubmed and Medline. Time to publication, orthopaedic subspecialty and journal was analysed. Rates were compared to other similar studies documenting rates of publication in the AAOS and data compared using Pearsons chi square test. Results. In 2002 and 2003 there were 63 and 49 presentations respectively. The overall publication rate was 26.98% for 2003 and 24.4% for 2002. All 29 presentations were published in a selection of 20 journals, the most common being the JBJS (Br) and Injury. The most published topics were Basic Science (n=12) followed by Hip/Knee Arthroplasty (n=5). Seventy eight percent of published papers were published within 2 years of presentation. Other recent papers report a presentation to publishing presentation of 36% to 66%. Conclusions. The rate of publication from presentation in Irish Orthopaedics is poor by international standards (p<0.05). As many presented studies will not pass peer review examination the IOA meeting should not be used as the sole guide to clinical practice

The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) published the guidelines on the selection of prostheses for primary hip replacement in 2000. They supported the use of cemented hip prostheses to the exclusion of uncemented and hybrid implants. The information from the Trent (and Wales) Regional Arthroplasty Study has been examined to identify retrospectively the types of hip prostheses used between 1990 and 2005, and to assess the impact that the guidelines have had on orthopaedic practice. The results show that the publication of the NICE guidelines has had little impact on clinical practice, with the use of uncemented prostheses increasing from 6.7% (137) in 2001 to 19.2% (632) in 2005. The use of hybrid prostheses has more than doubled from 8.8% (181) to 22% (722) of all hips implanted in the same period. The recommendations made by NICE are not being followed, which calls into question their value