Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 20 of 35
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 102-B, Issue 2 | Pages 145 - 147
1 Feb 2020
Ollivere B Metcalfe D Perry DC Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 100-B, Issue 11 | Pages 1407 - 1408
1 Nov 2018
Simpson AHRW Frost H Norrie J


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 100-B, Issue 9 | Pages 1136 - 1337
1 Sep 2018
Griffin XL McBride D Nnadi C Reed MR Rossiter ND


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 7, Issue 5 | Pages 325 - 326
1 May 2018
Clement ND Deehan DJ


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 6, Issue 10 | Pages 600 - 601
1 Oct 2017
Ghert M


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 6, Issue 4 | Pages 194 - 195
1 Apr 2017
Simpson AHRW Howie CR Norrie J


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 99-B, Issue 3 | Pages 291 - 294
1 Mar 2017
Javaid MK Handley R Costa ML


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 99-B, Issue 2 | Pages 147 - 150
1 Feb 2017
Costa ML Tutton E Achten J Grant R Slowther AM

Traditionally, informed consent for clinical research involves the patient reading an approved Participant Information Sheet, considering the information presented and having as much time as they need to discuss the study information with their friends and relatives, their clinical care and the research teams. This system works well in the ‘planned’ or ‘elective’ setting. But what happens if the patient requires urgent treatment for an injury or emergency?

This article reviews the legal framework which governs informed consent in the emergency setting, discusses how the approach taken may vary according to the details of the emergency and the treatment required, and reports on the patients’ view of providing consent following a serious injury. We then provide some practical tips for managing the process of informed consent in the context of injuries and emergencies.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:147–150.


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 6, Issue 1 | Pages 1 - 1
1 Feb 2017
Ollivere B


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 99-B, Issue 1 | Pages 3 - 4
1 Jan 2017
Roberts LC Dowd JO Hlavsova A


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 11 | Pages 1425 - 1426
1 Nov 2016
Reed M Haddad FS


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 5, Issue 10 | Pages 520 - 522
1 Oct 2016
Simpson AHRW Murray IR Duckworth AD


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 5, Issue 10 | Pages 490 - 491
1 Oct 2016
Ghert M McKee M


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 5, Issue 5 | Pages 1 - 1
1 Oct 2016
Ollivere B


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 8 | Pages 1011 - 1013
1 Aug 2016
Masters JPM Nanchahal J Costa ML


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 5, Issue 4 | Pages 1 - 1
1 Aug 2016
Ollivere B


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 5, Issue 1 | Pages 1 - 1
1 Feb 2016
Ollivere B


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 2 | Pages 147 - 151
1 Feb 2016
Haddad FS McLawhorn AS

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 The Bone & Joint Journal are provided.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:147–51.


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 4, Issue 12 | Pages 195 - 197
1 Dec 2015
Simpson AHRW Dave J Ghert M