Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(6):590–592.

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

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