header advert
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 96-B, Issue SUPP_11 | Pages 31 - 31
1 Jul 2014
Ahmad T
Full Access

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


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 2 | Pages 283 - 288
1 Feb 2015
Gupta S Maclean M Anderson JG MacGregor SJ Meek RMD Grant MH

High-intensity narrow-spectrum (HINS) light is a novel violet-blue light inactivation technology which kills bacteria through a photodynamic process, and has been shown to have bactericidal activity against a wide range of species. Specimens from patients with infected hip and knee arthroplasties were collected over a one-year period (1 May 2009 to 30 April 2010). A range of these microbial isolates were tested for sensitivity to HINS-light. During testing, suspensions of the pathogens were exposed to increasing doses of HINS-light (of 123mW/cm2 irradiance). Non-light exposed control samples were also used. The samples were then plated onto agar plates and incubated at 37°C for 24 hours before enumeration. Complete inactivation (greater than 4-log10 reduction) was achieved for all of the isolates. The typical inactivation curve showed a slow initial reaction followed by a rapid period of inactivation. The doses of HINS-light required ranged between 118 and 2214 J/cm2. Gram-positive bacteria were generally found to be more susceptible than Gram-negative.

As HINS-light uses visible wavelengths, it can be safely used in the presence of patients and staff. This unique feature could lead to its possible use in the prevention of infection during surgery and post-operative dressing changes.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:283–8.