Prevalence of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms within the Trauma & Orthopaedics (T&O) literature has greatly increased over the last ten years. One increasingly explored aspect of AI is the automated interpretation of free-text data often prevalent in electronic medical records (known as natural language processing (NLP)). We set out to review the current evidence for applications of NLP methodology in T&O, including assessment of study design and reporting. MEDLINE, Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED), Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were screened for studies pertaining to NLP in T&O from database inception to 31 December 2023. An additional grey literature search was performed. NLP quality assessment followed the criteria outlined by Farrow et al in 2021 with two independent reviewers (classification as absent, incomplete, or complete). Reporting was performed according to the Synthesis-Without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) guidelines. The review protocol was registered on the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration no. CRD42022291714).Aims
Methods
To systematically review the predominant complication rates and changes to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following osteochondral allograft (OCA) transplantation for shoulder instability. This systematic review, following PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO, involved a comprehensive literature search using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus. Key search terms included “allograft”, “shoulder”, “humerus”, and “glenoid”. The review encompassed 37 studies with 456 patients, focusing on primary outcomes like failure rates and secondary outcomes such as PROMs and functional test results.Aims
Methods
Due to the overwhelming demand for trauma services, resulting from increasing emergency department attendances over the past decade, virtual fracture clinics (VFCs) have become the fashion to keep up with the demand and help comply with the BOA Standards for Trauma and Orthopaedics (BOAST) guidelines. In this article, we perform a systematic review asking, “How useful are VFCs?”, and what injuries and conditions can be treated safely and effectively, to help decrease patient face to face consultations. Our primary outcomes were patient satisfaction, clinical efficiency and cost analysis, and clinical outcomes. We performed a systematic literature search of all papers pertaining to VFCs, using the search engines PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist. Searches were carried out and screened by two authors, with final study eligibility confirmed by the senior author.Background
Methods
