Aims. To identify unanswered questions about the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation and delivery of care of first-time soft-tissue knee injuries (ligament injuries, patella dislocations, meniscal injuries, and articular cartilage) in children (aged 12 years and older) and adults. Methods. The James Lind Alliance (JLA) methodology for Priority Setting Partnerships was followed. An initial survey invited patients and healthcare professionals from the UK to submit any uncertainties regarding soft-tissue knee injury prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation and delivery of care. Over 1,000 questions were received. From these, 74 questions (identifying common concerns) were formulated and checked against the best available evidence. An interim survey was then conducted and 27 questions were taken forward to the final workshop, held in January 2023, where they were discussed, ranked, and scored in multiple rounds of prioritization. This was conducted by healthcare professionals, patients, and carers. Results. The top ten included questions regarding prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation. The number one question was, ‘How urgently do soft-tissue knee injuries need to be treated for the best outcome?’. This reflects the concerns of patients, carers, and the wider multidisciplinary team. Conclusion. This validated process has generated ten important priorities for future soft-tissue knee injury research. These have been submitted to the National Institute for Health and Care Research. All 27 questions in the final workshop have been published on the JLA website. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(3):232–239

Aims. This study aims to identify the top unanswered research priorities in the field of knee surgery using consensus-based methodology. Methods. Initial research questions were generated using an online survey sent to all 680 members of the British Association for Surgery of the Knee (BASK). Duplicates were removed and a longlist was generated from this scoping exercise by a panel of 13 experts from across the UK who provided oversight of the process. A modified Delphi process was used to refine the questions and determine a final list. To rank the final list of questions, each question was scored between one (low importance) and ten (high importance) in order to produce the final list. Results. This consensus exercise took place between December 2020 and April 2022. A total of 286 clinicians from the BASK membership provided input for the initial scoping exercise, which generated a list of 105 distinct research questions. Following review and prioritization, a longlist of 51 questions was sent out for two rounds of the Delphi process. A total of 42 clinicians responded to the first round and 24 responded to the second round. A final list of 24 research questions was then ranked by 36 clinicians. The topics included arthroplasty, infection, meniscus, osteotomy, patellofemoral, cartilage, and ligament pathologies. The management of early osteoarthritis was the highest-ranking question. Conclusion. A Delphi exercise involving the BASK membership has identified the future research priorities in knee surgery. This list of questions will allow clinicians, researchers, and funders to collaborate in order to deliver high-quality research in knee surgery and further advance the care provided to patients with knee pathology. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(7):662–668

In 2017, the British Society for Children’s Orthopaedic Surgery engaged the profession and all relevant stakeholders in two formal research prioritization processes. In this editorial, we describe the impact of this prioritization on funding, and how research in children’s orthopaedics, which was until very recently a largely unfunded and under-investigated area, is now flourishing. Establishing research priorities was a crucial step in this process. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5):422–424

Trauma and orthopaedics is the largest of the surgical specialties and yet attracts a disproportionately small fraction of available national and international funding for health research. With the burden of musculoskeletal disease increasing, high-quality research is required to improve the evidence base for orthopaedic practice. Using the current research landscape in the United Kingdom as an example, but also addressing the international perspective, we highlight the issues surrounding poor levels of research funding in trauma and orthopaedics and indicate avenues for improving the impact and success of surgical musculoskeletal research. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B:1578–85

Aims. Arthroplasties of the elbow, including total elbow arthroplasty, radial head arthroplasty, distal humeral hemiarthroplasty, and radiocapitellar arthroplasty, are rarely undertaken. This scoping review aims to outline the current research in this area to inform the development of future research. Methods. A scoping review was undertaken adhering to the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines using Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and trial registries, limited to studies published between 1 January 1990 and 7 February 2021. Endnote software was used for screening and selection, and included randomized trials, non-randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case-control studies, analytical cross-sectional studies, and case series of ten or more patients reporting the clinical outcomes of elbow arthroplasty. The results are presented as the number of types of studies, sample size, length of follow-up, clinical outcome domains and instruments used, sources of funding, and a narrative review. Results. A total of 362 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most were of total elbow arthroplasty (246; 68%), followed by radial head arthroplasty (100; 28%), distal humeral hemiarthroplasty (11; 3%), and radiocapitellar arthroplasty (5; 1%). Most were retrospective (326; 90%) and observational (315; 87%). The median sample size for all types of implant across all studies was 36 (interquartile range (IQR) 21 to 75). The median length of follow-up for all studies was 56 months (IQR 36 to 81). A total of 583 unique outcome descriptors were used and were categorized into 18 domains. A total of 105 instruments were used to measure 39 outcomes. Conclusion. We found that most of the literature dealing with elbow arthroplasty consists of retrospective observational studies with small sample sizes and short follow-up. Many outcomes have been used with many different instruments for their measurement, indicating a need to define a core set of outcomes and instruments for future research in this area. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(10):1148–1155

Aims. The James Lind Alliance aims to bring patients, carers, and clinicians together to identify uncertainties regarding care. A Priority Setting Partnership was established by the British Association for Surgery of the Knee in conjunction with the James Lind Alliance to identify research priorities related to the assessment, management, and rehabilitation of patients with persistent symptoms after knee arthroplasty. Methods. The project was conducted using the James Lind Alliance protocol. A steering group was convened including patients, surgeons, anaesthetists, nurses, physiotherapists, and researchers. Partner organizations were recruited. A survey was conducted on a national scale through which patients, carers, and healthcare professionals submitted key unanswered questions relating to problematic knee arthroplasties. These were analyzed, aggregated, and synthesized into summary questions and the relevant evidence was checked. After confirming that these were not answered in the current literature, 32 questions were taken forward to an interim prioritization survey. Data from this survey informed a shortlist taken to a final consensus meeting. Results. A total of 769 questions were received during the initial survey with national reach across the UK. These were refined into 32 unique questions by an independent information specialist. The interim prioritization survey was completed by 201 respondents and 25 questions were taken to a final consensus group meeting between patients, carers, and healthcare professionals. Consensus was reached for ranking the top ten questions for publication and dissemination. Conclusions. The top ten research priorities focused on pain, infection, stiffness, health service configuration, surgical and non-surgical management strategies, and outcome measures. This list will guide funders and help focus research efforts within the knee arthroplasty community. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1176–1182

This paper outlines the recent development of an exchange Travelling Fellowship scheme between the British and American Orthopaedic Research Societies

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

Aims. High-quality clinical research in children’s orthopaedic surgery has lagged behind other surgical subspecialties. This study used a consensus-based approach to identify research priorities for clinical trials in children’s orthopaedics. Methods. A modified Delphi technique was used, which involved an initial scoping survey, a two-round Delphi process and an expert panel formed of members of the British Society of Children’s Orthopaedic Surgery. The survey was conducted amongst orthopaedic surgeons treating children in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Results. A total of 86 clinicians contributed to both rounds of the Delphi process, scoring priorities from one (low priority) to five (high priority). Elective topics were ranked higher than those relating to trauma, with the top ten elective research questions scoring higher than the top question for trauma. Ten elective, and five trauma research priorities were identified, with the three highest ranked questions relating to the treatment of slipped capital femoral epiphysis (mean score 4.6/ 5), Perthes’ disease (4.5) and bone infection (4.5). Conclusion. This consensus-based research agenda will guide surgeons, academics and funders to improve the evidence in children’s orthopaedic surgery and encourage the development of multicentre clinical trials. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:680–4

Aims. While use of large national clinical databases for orthopaedic trauma research has increased dramatically, there has been little study of the differences in populations contained therein. In this study we aimed to compare populations of patients with femoral shaft fractures across three commonly used national databases, specifically with regard to age and comorbidities. Patients and Methods. Patients were identified in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS), National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) and National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB). . Results. The distributions of age and Charleston comorbidity index (CCI) reflected a predominantly older population with more comorbidities in NSQIP (mean age 71.5; . sd. 15.6), mean CCI 4.9; . sd. 1.9) than in the NTDB (mean age 45.2; . sd. 21.4), mean CCI = 2.1; . sd. 2.0). Bimodal distributions in the NIS population showed a more mixed population (mean age 56.9; . sd.  24.9), mean CCI 3.2; . sd. 2.3). Differences in age and CCI were all statistically significant (p <  0.001). . Conclusion. While these databases have been commonly used for orthopaedic trauma research, differences in the populations they represent are not always readily apparent. Care must be taken to understand fully these differences before performing or evaluating database research, as the outcomes they detail can only be analysed in context. Take home message: Researchers and those evaluating research should be aware that orthopaedic trauma populations contained in commonly studied national databases may differ substantially based on sampling methods and inclusion criteria. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:425–32

There is increasing popularity in the use of artificial intelligence and machine-learning techniques to provide diagnostic and prognostic models for various aspects of Trauma & Orthopaedic surgery. However, correct interpretation of these models is difficult for those without specific knowledge of computing or health data science methodology. Lack of current reporting standards leads to the potential for significant heterogeneity in the design and quality of published studies. We provide an overview of machine-learning techniques for the lay individual, including key terminology and best practice reporting guidelines.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(12):1754–1758.

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

Traditionally, informed consent for clinical research involves the patient reading an approved Participant Information Sheet, considering the information presented and having as much time as they need to discuss the study information with their friends and relatives, their clinical care and the research teams. This system works well in the ‘planned’ or ‘elective’ setting. But what happens if the patient requires urgent treatment for an injury or emergency?. This article reviews the legal framework which governs informed consent in the emergency setting, discusses how the approach taken may vary according to the details of the emergency and the treatment required, and reports on the patients’ view of providing consent following a serious injury. We then provide some practical tips for managing the process of informed consent in the context of injuries and emergencies. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:147–150