The evidence base within trauma and orthopaedics has traditionally favoured quantitative research methodologies. Qualitative research can provide unique insights which illuminate patient experiences and perceptions of care. Qualitative methods reveal the subjective narratives of patients that are not captured by quantitative data, providing a more comprehensive understanding of patient-centred care. The aim of this study is to quantify the level of qualitative research within the orthopaedic literature. A bibliometric search of journals’ online archives and multiple databases was undertaken in March 2024, to identify articles using qualitative research methods in the top 12 trauma and orthopaedic journals based on the 2023 impact factor and SCImago rating. The bibliometric search was conducted and reported in accordance with the preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO).Aims
Methods
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic presents significant challenges to healthcare systems globally. Orthopaedic surgeons are at risk of contracting COVID-19 due to their close contact with patients in both outpatient and theatre environments. The aim of this review was to perform a literature review, including articles of other coronaviruses, to formulate guidelines for orthopaedic healthcare staff. A search of Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, World Health Organization (WHO), and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) databases was performed encompassing a variety of terms including ‘coronavirus’, ‘covid-19’, ‘orthopaedic’, ‘personal protective environment’ and ‘PPE’. Online database searches identified 354 articles. Articles were included if they studied any of the other coronaviruses or if the basic science could potentially applied to COVID-19 (i.e. use of an inactivated virus with a similar diameter to COVID-19). Two reviewers independently identified and screened articles based on the titles and abstracts. 274 were subsequently excluded, with 80 full-text articles retrieved and assessed for eligibility. Of these, 66 were excluded as they compared personal protection equipment to no personal protection equipment or referred to prevention measures in the context of bacterial infections.Aim
Methods
