header advert
Results 151 - 200 of 239
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 8 | Pages 1009 - 1010
1 Aug 2016
Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 8 | Pages 1011 - 1013
1 Aug 2016
Masters JPM Nanchahal J Costa ML


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 7 | Pages 865 - 866
1 Jul 2016
Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 6 | Pages 721 - 722
1 Jun 2016
Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 5 | Pages 577 - 578
1 May 2016
Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 4 | Pages 435 - 436
1 Apr 2016
McNally MA


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 4 | Pages 433 - 434
1 Apr 2016
Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 3 | Pages 289 - 290
1 Mar 2016
Haddad FS George DA


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 2 | Pages 145 - 146
1 Feb 2016
Haddad FS Zagra L


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 2 | Pages 147 - 151
1 Feb 2016
Haddad FS McLawhorn AS

Health economic evaluations potentially provide valuable information to clinicians, health care administrators, and policy makers regarding the financial implications of decisions about the care of patients. The highest quality research should be used to inform decisions that have direct impact on the access to care and the outcome of treatment. However, economic analyses are often complex and use research methods which are relatively unfamiliar to clinicians. Furthermore, health economic data have substantial national, regional, and institutional variability, which can limit the external validity of the results of a study. Therefore, minimum guidelines that aim to standardise the quality and transparency of reporting health economic research have been developed, and instruments are available to assist in the assessment of its quality and the interpretation of results.

The purpose of this editorial is to discuss the principal types of health economic studies, to review the most common instruments for judging the quality of these studies and to describe current reporting guidelines. Recommendations for the submission of these types of studies to The Bone & Joint Journal are provided.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:147–51.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 1 | Pages 3 - 5
1 Jan 2016
Birch N


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 1 | Pages 1 - 2
1 Jan 2016
Haddad FS Manktelow ARJ Skinner JA


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 12 | Pages 1589 - 1590
1 Dec 2015
Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 11 | Pages 1445 - 1446
1 Nov 2015
Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 10_Supple_A | Pages 1 - 2
1 Oct 2015
Thienpont E Haddad FS Argenson JN


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 10 | Pages 1301 - 1302
1 Oct 2015
Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 9 | Pages 1157 - 1158
1 Sep 2015
Parvizi J Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 8 | Pages 1013 - 1014
1 Aug 2015
Haddad FS



The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 7 | Pages 871 - 874
1 Jul 2015
Breakwell LM Cole AA Birch N Heywood C

The effective capture of outcome measures in the healthcare setting can be traced back to Florence Nightingale’s investigation of the in-patient mortality of soldiers wounded in the Crimean war in the 1850s.

Only relatively recently has the formalised collection of outcomes data into Registries been recognised as valuable in itself.

With the advent of surgeon league tables and a move towards value based health care, individuals are being driven to collect, store and interpret data.

Following the success of the National Joint Registry, the British Association of Spine Surgeons instituted the British Spine Registry. Since its launch in 2012, over 650 users representing the whole surgical team have registered and during this time, more than 27 000 patients have been entered onto the database.

There has been significant publicity regarding the collection of outcome measures after surgery, including patient-reported scores. Over 12 000 forms have been directly entered by patients themselves, with many more entered by the surgical teams.

Questions abound: who should have access to the data produced by the Registry and how should they use it? How should the results be reported and in what forum?

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:871–4.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 7 | Pages 869 - 870
1 Jul 2015
Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 6 | Pages 721 - 722
1 Jun 2015
Haddad FS Waddell J


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 5 | Pages 578 - 581
1 May 2015
Rolfson O Malchau H

The limitations and benefits of patient-reported outcome measures, in defining the merits of arthroplasty surgery, are discussed.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:578–81.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 5 | Pages 577 - 577
1 May 2015
Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 4 | Pages 433 - 433
1 Apr 2015
Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 3 | Pages 291 - 291
1 Mar 2015
Luk KD Fung BK


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 3 | Pages 289 - 290
1 Mar 2015
Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 2 | Pages 145 - 146
1 Feb 2015
Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 1 | Pages 1 - 2
1 Jan 2015
Haddad FS McCaskie AW

Trauma and Orthopaedic care has been through a rapid evolution over the past few decades. This Editorial discusses some of the advances.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1–2.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 96-B, Issue 12 | Pages 1575 - 1577
1 Dec 2014
Perry DC Parsons N Costa ML

The extent and depth of routine health care data are growing at an ever-increasing rate, forming huge repositories of information. These repositories can answer a vast array of questions. However, an understanding of the purpose of the dataset used and the quality of the data collected are paramount to determine the reliability of the result obtained.

This Editorial describes the importance of adherence to sound methodological principles in the reporting and publication of research using ‘big’ data, with a suggested reporting framework for future Bone & Joint Journal submissions.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1575–7.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 96-B, Issue 12 | Pages 1573 - 1574
1 Dec 2014
Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 96-B, Issue 11 | Pages 1429 - 1430
1 Nov 2014
Wilton TJ


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 96-B, Issue 10 | Pages 1285 - 1286
1 Oct 2014
Dunbar MJ Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 96-B, Issue 9 | Pages 1141 - 1142
1 Sep 2014
Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 96-B, Issue 8 | Pages 1000 - 1001
1 Aug 2014
Griffin XL Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 96-B, Issue 8 | Pages 997 - 999
1 Aug 2014
Stahel PF Mauffrey C

We explore the limitations of complete reliance on evidence-based medicine which can be diminished by confounding issues and sampling bias. Other strategies which may be reasonably invoked are discussed.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B:997–9.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 96-B, Issue 7 | Pages 853 - 854
1 Jul 2014
Parsons N Griffin XL Stengel D Carey Smith R Perry DC Costa ML

The Bone & Joint Journal provides the latest evidence to guide the clinical practice of orthopaedic surgeons. The benefits of one intervention compared with another are presented using outcome measures; some may be specific to a limb or joint and some are more general health-related quality of life measures. Readers will be familiar with many of these outcome measures and will be able to judge the relative benefits of different interventions when measured using the same outcome tool; for example, different treatments for pain in the knee measured using a particular knee score. But, how should readers compare outcomes between different clinical areas using different outcome measures? This article explores the use of standardised effect sizes.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:853–4.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 96-B, Issue 7 | Pages 855 - 856
1 Jul 2014
Haddad FS Oussedik S


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 96-B, Issue 6 | Pages 709 - 710
1 Jun 2014
Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 96-B, Issue 6 | Pages 711 - 712
1 Jun 2014
Duncan CP


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 96-B, Issue 5 | Pages 565 - 566
1 May 2014
Limb D

Continuing professional development (CPD) refers to the ongoing participation in activities that keep a doctor up to date and fit to practise once they have completed formal training. It is something that most will do naturally to serve their patients and to enable them to run a safe and profitable practice. Increasingly, regulators are formalising the requirements for evidence of CPD, often as part of a process of revalidation or relicensing.

This paper reviews how orthopaedic journals can be used as part of the process of continuing professional development.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:565–6.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 96-B, Issue 5 | Pages 567 - 568
1 May 2014
K. Graham H Narayanan UG


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 96-B, Issue 4 | Pages 433 - 435
1 Apr 2014
Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 96-B, Issue 3 | Pages 289 - 290
1 Mar 2014
Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 96-B, Issue 2 | Pages 145 - 146
1 Feb 2014
Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 96-B, Issue 1 | Pages 1 - 2
1 Jan 2014
Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 96-B, Issue 1 | Pages 3 - 4
1 Jan 2014
Barrack RL


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 95-B, Issue 12 | Pages 1585 - 1586
1 Dec 2013
Konan S Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 95-B, Issue 11 | Pages 1441 - 1442
1 Nov 2013
Morgan-Jones R Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 95-B, Issue 11 | Pages 1443 - 1444
1 Nov 2013
Griffin XL Parsons N Carey Smith R Stengel D Costa ML

The importance for observing the intention-to-treat approach in clinical studies is explained.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1443–4.