Aims

The aim of the Scaphoid Waist Internal Fixation for Fractures Trial (SWIFFT) was to determine the optimal treatment for adults with a bicortical undisplaced or minimally displaced fracture of the waist of the scaphoid, comparing early surgical fixation with initial cast immobilization, with immediate fixation being offered to patients with nonunion.

Aims

Acromial fractures following reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) have a wide range of incidences in reported case series. This study evaluates their incidence following RSA by systematically reviewing the current literature.

Aims. Our purpose was to determine the quality of current randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in hand surgery using standardised metrics. Materials and Methods. Based on five-year mean impact factors, we selected the six journals that routinely publish studies of upper extremity surgery. Using a journal-specific search query, 62 RCTs met our inclusion criteria. Then three blinded reviewers used the Jadad and revised Coleman Methodology Score (RCMS) to assess the quality of the manuscripts. Results. Based on the Jadad scale, 28 studies were of high quality and 34 were of low quality. Methodological deficiencies in poorly scoring trials included the absence of rate of enrolment, no power analysis, no description of withdrawal or dropout, and a failure to use validated outcomes assessments with an independent investigator. Conclusion. A large number of RCTs in hand, wrist, and elbow surgery were of suboptimal quality when judged against the RCMS and Jadad scales. Even with a high level of evidence, study design and execution of RCTs should be critically assessed. Methodological deficiencies may introduce bias and lead to statistically underpowered studies. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:94–9

The maintenance of quality and integrity in clinical and basic science research depends upon peer review. This process has stood the test of time and has evolved to meet increasing work loads, and ways of detecting fraud in the scientific community. However, in the 21st century, the emphasis on evidence-based medicine and good science has placed pressure on the ways in which the peer review system is used by most journals.

This paper reviews the peer review system and the problems it faces in the digital age, and proposes possible solutions.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:436–41.

We evaluated the top 13 journals in trauma and orthopaedics by impact factor and looked at the longer-term effect regarding citations of their papers. All 4951 papers published in these journals during 2007 and 2008 were reviewed and categorised by their type, subspecialty and super-specialty. All citations indexed through Google Scholar were reviewed to establish the rate of citation per paper at two, four and five years post-publication. The top five journals published a total of 1986 papers. Only three (0.15%) were on operative orthopaedic surgery and none were on trauma. Most (n = 1084, 54.5%) were about experimental basic science. Surgical papers had a lower rate of citation (2.18) at two years than basic science or clinical medical papers (4.68). However, by four years the rates were similar (26.57 for surgery, 30.35 for basic science/medical), which suggests that there is a considerable time lag before clinical surgical research has an impact. We conclude that high impact journals do not address clinical research in surgery and when they do, there is a delay before such papers are cited. We suggest that a rate of citation at five years post-publication might be a more appropriate indicator of importance for papers in our specialty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:414–19

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

There is no unified national training system for orthopaedic surgeons in China. With such rapid progress in many aspects of life in China, there is an imminent need for improvement in the training of orthopaedic specialists. Since 2003 the orthopaedic community in Hong Kong has been working in collaboration with their colleagues in mainland China to develop a training system for orthopaedic surgery. We adopted the system from the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (RCSEd), setting up a trial centre in the Beijing Jishuitan hospital in 2006, with trainers and trainees attaining the standards set by RCSEd and the Hong Kong College of Orthopaedic Surgeons (HKCOS). This trial is ongoing, with the success of two trainees who passed the exit examination in 2010 and became the first Chinese orthopaedic surgeons with a joint fellowship of both the RCSEd and the HKCOS. Following this inaugural success, we are confident that China will develop a training system for orthopaedic surgeons to a consistently high international standard.

The poor reporting and use of statistical methods in orthopaedic papers has been widely discussed by both clinicians and statisticians. A detailed review of research published in general orthopaedic journals was undertaken to assess the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting. A representative sample of 100 papers was assessed for compliance to CONSORT and STROBE guidelines and the quality of the statistical reporting was assessed using a validated questionnaire. Overall compliance with CONSORT and STROBE guidelines in our study was 59% and 58% respectively, with very few papers fulfilling all criteria. In 37% of papers patient numbers were inadequately reported; 20% of papers introduced new statistical methods in the ‘results’ section not previously reported in the ‘methods’ section, and 23% of papers reported no measurement of error with the main outcome measure. Taken together, these issues indicate a general lack of statistical rigour and are consistent with similar reviews undertaken in a number of other scientific and clinical research disciplines. It is imperative that the orthopaedic research community strives to improve the quality of reporting; a failure to do so could seriously limit the development of future research.

The credibility and creativity of an author may be gauged by the number of scientific papers he or she has published, as well as the frequency of citations of a particular paper reflecting the impact of the data on the area of practice. The object of this study was to identify and analyse the qualities of the top 100 cited papers in orthopaedic surgery. The database of the Science Citation Index of the Institute for Scientific Information (1945 to 2008) was used. A total of 1490 papers were cited more than 100 times, with the top 100 being subjected to further analysis. The majority originated in the United States, followed by the United Kingdom. The top 100 papers were published in seven specific orthopaedic journals.

Analysis of the most-cited orthopaedic papers allows us a unique insight into the qualitites, characteristics and clinical innovations required for a paper to attain ‘classic’ status.

The application and interpretation of the impact factor of a journal is fraught with problems, some of which are explored in this editorial