Aims. The evidence base within trauma and orthopaedics has traditionally favoured quantitative research methodologies. Qualitative research can provide unique insights which illuminate patient experiences and perceptions of care. Qualitative methods reveal the subjective narratives of patients that are not captured by quantitative data, providing a more comprehensive understanding of patient-centred care. The aim of this study is to quantify the level of qualitative research within the orthopaedic literature. Methods. A bibliometric search of journals’ online archives and multiple databases was undertaken in March 2024, to identify articles using qualitative research methods in the top 12 trauma and orthopaedic journals based on the 2023 impact factor and SCImago rating. The bibliometric search was conducted and reported in accordance with the preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO). Results. Of the 7,201 papers reviewed, 136 included qualitative methods (0.1%). There was no significant difference between the journals, apart from Bone & Joint Open, which included 21 studies using qualitative methods, equalling 4% of its published articles. Conclusion. This study demonstrates that there is a very low number of qualitative research papers published within trauma and orthopaedic journals. Given the increasing focus on patient outcomes and improving the patient experience, it may be argued that there is a requirement to support both quantitative and qualitative approaches to orthopaedic research. Combining qualitative and quantitative methods may effectively address the complex and personal aspects of patients’ care, ensuring that outcomes align with patient values and enhance overall care quality

A commonly misunderstood principle in medical literature is statistical significance. Often, statistically non-significant or negative results are thought to be evidence for equivalence; mistakenly validating treatment modalities and putting patients at risk. This study examines the prevalence of misinterpretation of negative results of superiority trials in orthopaedic literature and outlines the need for a non-inferiority or equivalence research design. Four orthopaedic journals – Journal of Paediatric Orthopaedics A, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery American Volume, Journal of Arthroplasty and Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery – were hand searched to identify all randomised control trials (RCTs) published within the time periods 2002–2003, 2007–2008 and 2012–2013. The identified RCTs were read and classified by study methodology, results obtained, and interpretation of results. A total of 237 RCTs were identified. When analysing the primary outcomes, 117 (49.4%) studies yielded negative results and 120 (50.8%) yielded positive results. Out of the 237 articles, 231 (97.5%) used superiority methodology and 6 (2.5%) used non-inferiority or equivalence methodology. Of the 231 studies that used superiority methodology, 115 (49.8%) obtained negative results; and 45 (39.1%) of those misinterpreted the negative results for equivalence. While no statistical differences were seen, there was an upward trend in utilising non-inferiority and equivalence methodologies over time. Given the frequency of misinterpreted negative results, there is an evident need for a more appropriate research methodology that shows equivalence of treatment methods. A non-inferiority or equivalence study design can address orthopaedic clinical dilemmas more suitably when trying to show one treatment is no worse or is equal to another treatment. Regarding orthopaedic treatment modalities as equivalent when studies show negative statistical results can be detrimental to patients and their clinical outcomes. A non-inferiority methodology can be used to accurately depict no difference between treatment methods rather than attempting to show one treatment method as superior

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has recently identified musculoskeletal care as a major global health issue in the developing world. However, little is known about the quality and trends of orthopaedic research in resource-poor settings. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review of orthopaedic research in low-income countries (LIC). The primary objective was to determine the quality and publication parameters of studies performed in LIC. Secondary objectives sought to provide recommendations for successful strategies to implement research endeavors in LIC. A systematic review of the literature was performed by searching MEDLINE (1966-November 2014), EMBASE and the Cochrane Library to identify peer-reviewed orthopaedic research conducted in LICs. The PRISMA guidelines for performing a systematic review were followed. LIC were defined by the WHO and by the World Bank as countries with gross national income per capita equal or less than 1045US$. Inclusion criteria were (1) studies performed in a LIC, (2) conducted on patients afflicted by an orthopaedic condition, and (3) evaluated either an orthopaedic intervention or outcome. The Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) were used to objectively rate the overall methodological quality of each study. Additional data collected from these studies included the publication year, journal demographics, orthopaedic subspecialty and authors' country of origin. A total of 1,809 articles were screened and 277 studies met our inclusion criteria. Eighty-eight percent of studies conducted in LIC were of lower quality evidence according to the GRADE score and consisted mostly of small case series or case reports. Bangladesh and Nepal were the only two LIC with national journals and produced the highest level of research evidence. Foreign researchers produced over 70% of the studies with no collaboration with local LIC researchers. The most common subspecialties were trauma (42%) and paediatrics (14%). The 3 most frequent countries where the research originated were the United States (42%), United Kingdom (11%), and Canada (8%). The 3 most common locations where research was conducted were Haiti (18%), Afghanistan (14%), and Malawi (7%). The majority of orthopaedic studies conducted in LIC were of lower quality and performed by foreign researchers with little local collaboration. In order to promote the development of global orthopaedic surgery and research in LIC, we recommend (1) improving the collaboration between researchers in developed and LIC, (2) promoting the teaching of higher-quality and more rigorous research methodology through shared partnerships, (3) improving the capacity of orthopaedic research in developing nations through national peer-reviewed journals, and (4) dedicated subsections in international orthopaedic journals to global healthcare research

Bone non-union following fracture is a major cause of morbidity in combat casualties. The various clinical treatments used to prevent or treat non-union remain of limited efficacy. Research therefore continues in pre-clinical animal models in an attempt to identify an effective clinical treatment. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate emerging pre-clinical therapies in order to rationalise priorities for translational research. The methodological protocol of this study was registered with the Collaborative Approach to Meta Analysis and Review of Animal Data from Experimental Studies (CAMARADES) and published. The review identified 3251 animal studies, 851 of which fulfilled the criteria for inclusion as detailed in the protocol. Of these, 702 of the studies described therapies that had progressed to clinical trials and were therefore excluded. The remaining 149 papers described eighteen categories of therapy that represent novel therapies yet to translate to clinical trials. These studies used a range of animal models, with heterogeneity that precluded formal synthesis and meta-analysis. This study provides a systematic evaluation of novel therapies with potential to prevent or treat non-union. It also represents a novel application of an emerging epidemiological technique to address a key priority in Combat Casualty Care research

The optimal method of fixation for primary total hip replacements (THR), particularly fixation with or without the use of cement is still controversial. In a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing cemented versus uncemented THRS available in the published literature, we found that there is no significant difference between cemented and uncemented THRs in terms implant survival as measured by the revision rate. Better short-term clinical outcome, particularly an improved pain score can be obtained with cemented fixation. However, the results are unclear for the long-term clinical and functional outcome between the two groups. No difference was evident in the mortality and the post operative complication rate. On the other hand, the Radiographic findings were variable and do not seem to correlate with clinical findings as differences in the surgical technique and prosthesis design might be associated with the incidence of osteolysis. We concluded in our review that Cemented THR is similar if not superior to uncemented THR, and provides better short term clinical outcomes. Further research, improved methodology and longer follow up are necessary to better define specific subgroups of patients in whom the relative benefits of cemented and uncemented implant fixation can be clearly demonstrated