To explore whether orthopaedic surgeons have adopted the Proximal Fracture of the Humerus: Evaluation by Randomisation (PROFHER) trial results routinely into clinical practice. A questionnaire was piloted with six orthopaedic surgeons using a ‘think aloud’ process. The final questionnaire contained 29 items and was distributed online to surgeon members of the British Orthopaedic Association and British Elbow and Shoulder Society. Descriptive statistics summarised the sample characteristics and fracture treatment of respondents overall, and grouped them by whether they changed practice based on PROFHER trial findings. Free-text responses were analysed qualitatively for emerging themes using Framework Analysis principles.Objectives
Methods
Accurate characterisation of fractures is essential in fracture management trials. However, this is often hampered by poor inter-observer agreement. This article describes the practicalities of defining the fracture population, based on the Neer classification, within a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial in which surgical treatment was compared with non-surgical treatment in adults with displaced fractures of the proximal humerus involving the surgical neck. The trial manual illustrated the Neer classification of proximal humeral fractures. However, in addition to surgical neck displacement, surgeons assessing patient eligibility reported on whether either or both of the tuberosities were involved. Anonymised electronic versions of baseline radiographs were sought for all 250 trial participants. A protocol, data collection tool and training presentation were developed and tested in a pilot study. These were then used in a formal assessment and classification of the trial fractures by two independent senior orthopaedic shoulder trauma surgeons.Objectives
Methods
A rigorous approach to developing, delivering and documenting
rehabilitation within randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions
is required to underpin the generation of reliable and usable evidence.
This article describes the key processes used to ensure provision
of good quality and comparable rehabilitation to all participants
of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial comparing surgery
with conservative treatment of proximal humeral fractures in adults. These processes included the development of a patient information
leaflet on self-care during sling immobilisation, the development
of a basic treatment physiotherapy protocol that received input
and endorsement by specialist physiotherapists providing patient
care, and establishing an expectation for the provision of home
exercises. Specially designed forms were also developed to facilitate
reliable reporting of the physiotherapy care that patients received.Objectives
Methods
The aim of this study was to review the role
of clinical trial networks in orthopaedic surgery. A total of two
electronic databases (MEDLINE and EMBASE) were searched from inception
to September 2013 with no language restrictions. Articles related
to randomised controlled trials (RCTs), research networks and orthopaedic
research, were identified and reviewed. The usefulness of trainee-led
research collaborations is reported and our knowledge of current
clinical trial infrastructure further supplements the review. Searching
yielded 818 titles and abstracts, of which 12 were suitable for
this review. Results are summarised and presented narratively under
the following headings: 1) identifying clinically relevant research
questions; 2) education and training; 3) conduct of multicentre
RCTs and 4) dissemination and adoption of trial results. This review
confirms growing international awareness of the important role research
networks play in supporting trials in orthopaedic surgery. Multidisciplinary
collaboration and adequate investment in trial infrastructure are crucial
for successful delivery of RCTs. Cite this article:
The peer review process for the evaluation of
manuscripts for publication needs to be better understood by the
orthopaedic community. Improving the degree of transparency surrounding
the review process and educating orthopaedic surgeons on how to
improve their manuscripts for submission will help improve both
the review procedure and resultant feedback, with an increase in
the quality of the subsequent publications. This article seeks to clarify
the peer review process and suggest simple ways in which the quality
of submissions can be improved to maximise publication success. Cite this article:
