Aims

Acromial fractures following reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) have a wide range of incidences in reported case series. This study evaluates their incidence following RSA by systematically reviewing the current literature.

Objectives

Evidence -based medicine (EBM) is designed to inform clinical decision-making within all medical specialties, including orthopaedic surgery. We recently published a pilot survey of the Canadian Orthopaedic Association (COA) membership and demonstrated that the adoption of EBM principles is variable among Canadian orthopaedic surgeons. The objective of this study was to conduct a broader international survey of orthopaedic surgeons to identify characteristics of research studies perceived as being most influential in informing clinical decision-making.

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: Bone Joint Res 2013;2:245–7.

The maintenance of quality and integrity in clinical and basic science research depends upon peer review. This process has stood the test of time and has evolved to meet increasing work loads, and ways of detecting fraud in the scientific community. However, in the 21st century, the emphasis on evidence-based medicine and good science has placed pressure on the ways in which the peer review system is used by most journals.

This paper reviews the peer review system and the problems it faces in the digital age, and proposes possible solutions.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:436–41.

The credibility and creativity of an author may be gauged by the number of scientific papers he or she has published, as well as the frequency of citations of a particular paper reflecting the impact of the data on the area of practice. The object of this study was to identify and analyse the qualities of the top 100 cited papers in orthopaedic surgery. The database of the Science Citation Index of the Institute for Scientific Information (1945 to 2008) was used. A total of 1490 papers were cited more than 100 times, with the top 100 being subjected to further analysis. The majority originated in the United States, followed by the United Kingdom. The top 100 papers were published in seven specific orthopaedic journals.

Analysis of the most-cited orthopaedic papers allows us a unique insight into the qualitites, characteristics and clinical innovations required for a paper to attain ‘classic’ status.

In 2006, approximately 1.3 million peer-reviewed scientific articles were published, aided by a large rise in the number of available scientific journals from 16 000 in 2001 to 23 750 by 2006. Is this evidence of an explosion in scientific knowledge or just the accumulation of wasteful publications and junk science? Data show that only 45% of the articles published in the 4500 top scientific journals are cited within the first five years of publication, a figure that is dropping steadily. Only 42% receive more than one citation. For better or for worse, “Publish or Perish” appears here to stay as the number of published papers becomes the basis for selection to academic positions, for tenure and promotions, a criterion for the awarding of grants and also the source of funding for salaries. The high pressure to publish has, however, ushered in an era where scientists are increasingly conducting and publishing data from research performed with ‘questionable research practices’ or even committing outright fraud. The few cases which are reported will in fact be the tip of an iceberg and the scientific community needs to be vigilant against this corruption of science.

There is no unified national training system for orthopaedic surgeons in China. With such rapid progress in many aspects of life in China, there is an imminent need for improvement in the training of orthopaedic specialists. Since 2003 the orthopaedic community in Hong Kong has been working in collaboration with their colleagues in mainland China to develop a training system for orthopaedic surgery. We adopted the system from the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (RCSEd), setting up a trial centre in the Beijing Jishuitan hospital in 2006, with trainers and trainees attaining the standards set by RCSEd and the Hong Kong College of Orthopaedic Surgeons (HKCOS). This trial is ongoing, with the success of two trainees who passed the exit examination in 2010 and became the first Chinese orthopaedic surgeons with a joint fellowship of both the RCSEd and the HKCOS. Following this inaugural success, we are confident that China will develop a training system for orthopaedic surgeons to a consistently high international standard.

The poor reporting and use of statistical methods in orthopaedic papers has been widely discussed by both clinicians and statisticians. A detailed review of research published in general orthopaedic journals was undertaken to assess the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting. A representative sample of 100 papers was assessed for compliance to CONSORT and STROBE guidelines and the quality of the statistical reporting was assessed using a validated questionnaire. Overall compliance with CONSORT and STROBE guidelines in our study was 59% and 58% respectively, with very few papers fulfilling all criteria. In 37% of papers patient numbers were inadequately reported; 20% of papers introduced new statistical methods in the ‘results’ section not previously reported in the ‘methods’ section, and 23% of papers reported no measurement of error with the main outcome measure. Taken together, these issues indicate a general lack of statistical rigour and are consistent with similar reviews undertaken in a number of other scientific and clinical research disciplines. It is imperative that the orthopaedic research community strives to improve the quality of reporting; a failure to do so could seriously limit the development of future research.

There is a high risk of venous thromboembolism when patients are immobilised following trauma. The combination of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) with graduated compression stockings is frequently used in orthopaedic surgery to try and prevent this, but a relatively high incidence of thromboembolic events remains. Mechanical devices which perform continuous passive motion imitate contractions and increase the volume and velocity of venous flow.

In this study 227 trauma patients were randomised to receive either treatment with the Arthroflow device and LMWH or only with the latter. The Arthroflow device passively extends and plantarflexes the feet. Patients were assessed initially by venous-occlusion plethysmography, compression ultrasonography and continuous wave Doppler, which were repeated weekly without knowledge of the category of randomisation. Those who showed evidence of deep-vein thrombosis underwent venography for confirmation. The incidence of deep-vein thrombosis was 25% in the LMWH group compared with 3.6% in those who had additional treatment with the Arthroflow device (p < 0.001). There were no substantial complications or problems of non-compliance with the Arthroflow device. Logistic regression analysis of the risk factors of deep-vein thrombosis showed high odds ratios for operation (4.1), immobilisation (4.3), older than 40 years of age (2.8) and obesity (2.2).