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 Department of Health and the Public Health Laboratory Service established the Nosocomial Infection National Surveillance Scheme in order to standardise the collection of information about infections acquired in hospital in the United Kingdom and provide national data with which hospitals could measure their own performance. The definition of superficial incisional infection (skin and subcutaneous tissue), set by the Center for Disease Control (CDC), should meet at least one of the defined criteria which would confirm the diagnosis and determine the need for specific treatment. We have assessed the interobserver reliability of the criteria for superficial incisional infection set by the CDC in our current practice. The incisional site of 50 patients who had an elective primary arthroplasty of the hip or knee was evaluated independently by two orthopaedic clinical research fellows and two orthopaedic ward sisters for the presence or absence of surgical-site infection. Interobserver reliability was assessed by comparison of the criteria for wound infection used by the four observers using kappa reliability coefficients. Our study demonstrated that some of the components of the current CDC criteria were unreliable and we recommend their revision

We reviewed all 717 manuscripts published in the 1997 issues of the British and American volumes of the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery and in Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, from which 33 randomised, controlled trials were identified. The results and sample sizes were used to calculate the statistical power of the study to distinguish small (0.2 of standard deviation), medium (0.5 of standard deviation), and large (0.8 of standard deviation) effect sizes. Of the 33 manuscripts analysed, only three studies (9%) described calculations of sample size. To perform post-hoc power assessments and estimations of deficiencies of sample size, the standard effect sizes of Cohen (small, medium and large) were calculated. Of the 25 studies which reported negative results, none had adequate power (β < 0.2) to detect a small effect size and 12 (48%) lacked the power necessary to detect a large effect size. Of the 25 studies which did not have an adequate size of sample to detect small differences, the average used was only 10% of the required number. Our findings suggest that randomised, controlled trials in clinical orthopaedic research utilise sample sizes which are too small to ensure statistical significance for what may be clinically important results

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.