Duplicate publication in orthopaedic journals may further an author’s academic career but this is at the cost of both scientific integrity and knowledge. Multiple publications of the same work increase the workload of editorial boards, misguide the reader and affect the process of meta-analysis. We found that of 343 ‘original’ articles published in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery in 1999, 26 (7.6%) had some degree of redundancy. The prevalence of duplicate publications in the orthopaedic literature appears to be less than that in other surgical specialties but it is still a matter of concern. It is the author’s responsibility to notify the editor of any duality when submitting a paper for publication

Over a 13-year period we studied all patients who underwent major hip and knee surgery and were diagnosed with objectively confirmed symptomatic venous thromboembolism, either deep venous thrombosis or non-fatal pulmonary embolism, within six months after surgery. Low-molecular-weight heparin had been given while the patients were in hospital.

There were 5607 patients. The cumulative incidence of symptomatic venous thromboembolism was 2.7% (150 of 5607), of which 1.1% had developed pulmonary embolism, 1.5% had deep venous thrombosis and 0.6% had both. Patients presented with deep venous thrombosis at a median of 24 days and pulmonary embolism at 17 days after surgery for hip fracture. After total hip replacement, deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism occurred at a median of 21 and 34 days respectively. After total knee replacement, the median time to the presentation of deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism was 20 and 12 days respectively. The cumulative risk of venous thromboembolism lasted for up to three months after hip surgery and for one month after total knee replacement. Venous thromboembolism was diagnosed after discharge from hospital in 70% of patients who developed this complication.

Despite hospital-based thromboprophylaxis, most cases of clinical venous thromboembolism occur after discharge and at different times according to the operation performed.

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

The contemporary practice of orthopaedic surgery requires an evidence-based approach to support all medical and surgical interventions. In this essay, the author expresses a forthright, personal and somewhat prejudiced appeal to retain the legitimacy of clinical decision making in conditions that are rare, contain multiple variables, have a solution that generally works or has an unpredictable course.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1002–4.

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.

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.