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:
Smoking is associated with post-operative complications but smokers
often under-report the amount they smoke. Our objective was to determine
whether a urine dipstick test could be used as a substitute for
quantitative cotinine assays to determine smoking status in patients. Between September 2013 and July 2014 we conducted a prospective
cohort study in which 127 consecutive patients undergoing a planned
foot and ankle arthrodesis or osteotomy were included. Patients
self-reported their smoking status and were classified as: ‘never
smoked’ (61 patients), ‘ex-smoker’ (46 patients), or ‘current smoker’ (20
patients). Urine samples were analysed with cotinine assays and
cotinine dipstick tests.Aims
Patients and Methods
In May 2012, in airports across the globe, seven
orthopaedic surgeons bravely said goodbye to their loved ones, and
slowly turned towards their respective aircraft. Filled with expectation
and mild trepidation they stepped into the unknown… the ABC fellowship
of 2012.
We reviewed 59 bone graft substitutes marketed
by 17 companies currently available for implantation in the United Kingdom,
with the aim of assessing the peer-reviewed literature to facilitate
informed decision-making regarding their use in clinical practice.
After critical analysis of the literature, only 22 products (37%)
had any clinical data. Norian SRS (Synthes), Vitoss (Orthovita),
Cortoss (Orthovita) and Alpha-BSM (Etex) had Level I evidence. We question
the need for so many different products, especially with limited
published clinical evidence for their efficacy, and conclude that
there is a considerable need for further prospective randomised
trials to facilitate informed decision-making with regard to the
use of current and future bone graft substitutes in clinical practice. Cite this article:
Thromboprophylaxis remains a controversial subject. A vast amount of epidemiological and trial data about venous thromboembolism has been published over the past 40 years. These data have been distilled and synthesised into guidelines designed to help the practitioner translate this extensive research into ‘evidence-based’ advice. Guidelines should, in theory, benefit patient care by ensuring that every patient routinely receives the best prophylaxis; without guidelines, it is argued, patients may fail to receive treatment or be exposed to protocols which are ineffective, dangerous or expensive. Guidelines, however, have not been welcomed or applied universally. In the United States, orthopaedic surgeons have published their concerns about the thromboprophylaxis guidelines prepared by the American College of Chest Physicians. In Britain, controversy persists with many surgeons unconvinced of the risk/benefit, cost/benefit or practicality of thromboprophylaxis. The extended remit of the recent National Institute of Clinical Excellence thromboprophylaxis guidelines has been challenged. The reasons for this disquiet are addressed in this paper and particular emphasis is placed on how clinically-acceptable guidelines could be developed and applied.
Current studies on the additional benefit of using computed tomography
(CT) in order to evaluate the surgeons’ agreement on treatment plans
for fracture are inconsistent. This inconsistency can be explained
by a methodological phenomenon called ‘spectrum bias’, defined as
the bias inherent when investigators choose a population lacking
therapeutic uncertainty for evaluation. The aim of the study is
to determine the influence of spectrum bias on the intra-observer
agreement of treatment plans for fractures of the distal radius. Four surgeons evaluated 51 patients with displaced fractures
of the distal radius at four time points: T1 and T2: conventional
radiographs; T3 and T4: radiographs and additional CT scan (radiograph
and CT). Choice of treatment plan (operative or non-operative) and
therapeutic certainty (five-point scale: very uncertain to very
certain) were rated. To determine the influence of spectrum bias,
the intra-observer agreement was analysed, using Kappa statistics,
for each degree of therapeutic certainty. Objectives
Methods
