Aims. The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) continues to present a significant clinical challenge. New biomarkers have been proposed to support clinical decision-making; among them, synovial fluid alpha-defensin has gained interest. Current
A systematic search of the literature published between January 1985 and February 2006 identified 62 studies which reported the results of arthroscopic procedures for chronic anterior shoulder instability or comparisons between arthroscopic and open surgery. These studies were classified by surgical technique and
The subject of noise in the operating theatre was recognized as early as 1972 and has been compared to noise levels on a busy highway. While noise-induced hearing loss in orthopaedic surgery specifically has been recognized as early as the 1990s, it remains poorly studied. As a result, there has been renewed focus in this occupational hazard. Noise level is typically measured in decibels (dB), whereas noise adjusted for human perception uses A-weighted sound levels and is expressed in dBA. Mean operating theatre noise levels range between 51 and 75 dBA, with peak levels between 80 and 119 dBA. The greatest sources of noise emanate from powered surgical instruments, which can exceed levels as high as 140 dBA. Newer technology, such as robotic-assisted systems, contribute a potential new source of noise. This article is a narrative review of the deleterious effects of prolonged noise exposure, including noise-induced hearing loss in the operating theatre team and the patient, intraoperative miscommunication, and increased cognitive load and stress, all of which impact the surgical team’s overall performance. Interventions to mitigate the effects of noise exposure include the use of quieter surgical equipment, the implementation of sound-absorbing personal protective equipment, or changes in communication protocols. Future research endeavours should use advanced research methods and embrace technological innovations to proactively mitigate the effects of operating theatre noise. Cite this article:
Despite recent advances in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, re-tear rates remain high. New methods to improve healing rates following rotator cuff repair must be sought. Our primary objective was to determine if adjunctive bone marrow stimulation with channelling five to seven days prior to arthroscopic cuff repair would lead to higher Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) scores at 24 months postoperatively compared with no channelling. A prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Patients were randomized to receive either a percutaneous bone channelling of the rotator cuff footprint or a sham procedure under ultrasound guidance five to seven days prior to index surgery. Outcome measures included the WORC, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and Constant scores, strength, ultrasound-determined healing rates, and adverse events.Aims
Methods
Our purpose was to determine the quality of current randomised
controlled trials (RCTs) in hand surgery using standardised metrics. Based on five-year mean impact factors, we selected the six journals
that routinely publish studies of upper extremity surgery. Using
a journal-specific search query, 62 RCTs met our inclusion criteria.
Then three blinded reviewers used the Jadad and revised Coleman Methodology
Score (RCMS) to assess the quality of the manuscripts.Aims
Materials and Methods
The aims of the study were to review and analyse the reported
series of debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR)
in the management of infected total hip arthroplasties (THAs) to
establish the overall success and the influencing factors. Using a standardised recognised study protocol, meta-analysis
of observational studies in epidemiology guidelines, a comprehensive
review and analysis of the literature was performed. The primary
outcome measure was the success of treatment. The search strategy
and inclusion criteria which involved an assessment of quality yielded
39 articles for analysis, which included 1296 patients.Aims
Patients and methods
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 Cite this article:
Cite this article:
The maintenance of quality and integrity in clinical
and basic science research depends upon peer review. This process
has stood the test of time and has evolved to meet increasing work
loads, and ways of detecting fraud in the scientific community.
However, in the 21st century, the emphasis on evidence-based medicine
and good science has placed pressure on the ways in which the peer
review system is used by most journals. This paper reviews the peer review system and the problems it
faces in the digital age, and proposes possible solutions. Cite this article:
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 Cite this article:
