Aims. Weightbearing instructions after musculoskeletal injury or orthopaedic surgery are a key aspect of the rehabilitation pathway and prescription. The terminology used to describe the weightbearing status of the patient is variable; many different terms are used, and there is recognition and evidence that the lack of standardized terminology contributes to confusion in practice. Methods. A consensus exercise was conducted involving all the major stakeholders in the patient journey for those with musculoskeletal injury. The consensus exercise primary aim was to seek agreement on a standardized set of terminology for weightbearing instructions. Results. A pre-meeting questionnaire was conducted. The one-day consensus meeting, including patient representatives, identified three agreed terms only to be used in defining the weightbearing status of the patient: 1) non-weightbearing; 2) limited weightbearing; and 3) unrestricted weightbearing. Conclusion. This study represents the first and only exercise in standardizing rehabilitation terminology in orthopaedics, as agreed by all major stakeholders in the patient pathway and the patients themselves. The standardization of language allows for higher-quality and more accurate research to be conducted, and is one small part of the bigger picture in increasing the mobility of patients after orthopaedic injury or surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(9):1016–1020

We evaluated the quality of guidelines on thromboprophylaxis in orthopaedic surgery by examining how they adhere to validated methodological standards in their development. A structured review was performed for guidelines that were published between January 2005 and April 2013 in medical journals or on the Internet. A pre-defined computerised search was used in MEDLINE, Scopus and Google to identify the guidelines. The AGREE II assessment tool was used to evaluate the quality of the guidelines in the study.

Seven international and national guidelines were identified. The overall methodological quality of the individual guidelines was good. ‘Scope and Purpose’ (median score 98% interquartile range (IQR)) 86% to 98%) and ‘Clarity of Presentation’ (median score 90%, IQR 90% to 95%) were the two domains that received the highest scores. ‘Applicability’ (median score 68%, IQR 45% to 75%) and ‘Editorial Independence’ (median score 71%, IQR 68% to 75%) had the lowest scores.

These findings reveal that although the overall methodological quality of guidelines on thromboprophylaxis in orthopaedic surgery is good, domains within their development, such as ‘Applicability’ and ‘Editorial Independence’, need to be improved. Application of the AGREE II instrument by the authors of guidelines may improve the quality of future guidelines and provide increased focus on aspects of methodology used in their development that are not robust.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:19–23.