Salter-Harris II fractures of the distal tibia affect children frequently, and when they are displaced present a treatment dilemma. Treatment primarily aims to restore alignment and prevent premature physeal closure, as this can lead to angular deformity, limb length difference, or both. Current literature is of poor methodological quality and is contradictory as to whether conservative or surgical management is superior in avoiding complications and adverse outcomes. A state of clinical equipoise exists regarding whether displaced distal tibial Salter-Harris II fractures in children should be treated with surgery to achieve anatomical reduction, or whether cast treatment alone will lead to a satisfactory outcome. Systematic review and meta-analysis has concluded that high-quality prospective multicentre research is needed to answer this question. The Outcomes of Displaced Distal tibial fractures: Surgery Or Casts in KidS (ODD SOCKS) trial, funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research, aims to provide this high-quality research in order to answer this question, which has been identified as a top-five research priority by the British Society for Children’s Orthopaedic Surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(5):471–473

The importance of registries has been brought into focus by recent UK national reports focusing on implant (Cumberlege) and surgeon (Paterson) performance. National arthroplasty registries provide real-time, real-world information about implant, hospital, and surgeon performance and allow case identification in the event of product recall or adverse surgical outcomes. They are a valuable resource for research and service improvement given the volume of data recorded and the longitunidal nature of data collection. This review discusses the current value of registry data as it relates to both clinical practice and research. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(4):356–360

We recently published a paper comparing the incidence of adverse outcomes after unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty (UKA and TKA). The conclusion of this study, which was in favour of UKA, was dismissed as “biased” in a review in Bone & Joint 360. Although this study is one of the least biased comparisons of UKA and TKA, this episode highlights the biases that exist both for and against UKA. In this review, we explore the different types of bias, particularly selection, reporting and measurement. We conclude that comparisons between UKA and TKA are open to bias. These biases can be so marked, particularly in comparisons based just on national registry data, that the conclusions can be misleading. For a fair comparison, data from randomised studies or well-matched, prospective observational cohort studies, which include registry data, are required, and multiple outcome measures should be used. The data of this type that already exist suggest that if UKA is used appropriately, compared with TKA, its advantages outweigh its disadvantages. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:12–15

There is increasing popularity in the use of artificial intelligence and machine-learning techniques to provide diagnostic and prognostic models for various aspects of Trauma & Orthopaedic surgery. However, correct interpretation of these models is difficult for those without specific knowledge of computing or health data science methodology. Lack of current reporting standards leads to the potential for significant heterogeneity in the design and quality of published studies. We provide an overview of machine-learning techniques for the lay individual, including key terminology and best practice reporting guidelines.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(12):1754–1758.

Randomised controlled trials represent the gold standard in the evaluation of outcome of treatment. They are needed because differences between treatment effects have been minimised and observational studies may give a biased estimation of the outcome. However, conducting this kind of trial is challenging. Several methodological issues, including patient or surgeon preference, blinding, surgical standardisation, as well as external validity, have to be addressed in order to lower the risk of bias. Specific tools have been developed in order to take into account the specificity of evaluation of the literature on non-pharmacological intervention. A better knowledge of methodological issues will allow the orthopaedic surgeon to conduct more appropriate studies and to better appraise the limits of his intervention.