Using inaccurate quotations can propagate misleading information, which might affect the management of patients. The aim of this study was to determine the predictors of quotation inaccuracy in the peer-reviewed orthopaedic literature related to the scaphoid. We randomly selected 100 papers from ten orthopaedic journals. All references were retrieved in full text when available or otherwise excluded. Two observers independently rated all quotations from the selected papers by comparing the claims made by the authors with the data and expressed opinions of the reference source. A statistical analysis determined which article-related factors were predictors of quotation inaccuracy. The mean total inaccuracy rate of the 3840 verified quotes was 7.6%. There was no correlation between the rate of inaccuracy and the impact factor of the journal. Multivariable analysis identified the journal and the type of study (clinical, biomechanical, methodological, case report or review) as important predictors of the total quotation inaccuracy rate. We concluded that inaccurate quotations in the peer-reviewed orthopaedic literature related to the scaphoid were common and slightly more so for certain journals and certain study types. Authors, reviewers and editorial staff play an important role in reducing this inaccuracy

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

The application and interpretation of the impact factor of a journal is fraught with problems, some of which are explored in this editorial

Trauma and Orthopaedic care has been through a rapid evolution over the past few decades. This Editorial discusses some of the advances. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1–2

This editorial considers the shortcomings of assessing outcome after joint replacement only by the survival of the implant

This year is the centenary of the birth of John Charnley. Some of his legacy to Orthopaedic Surgery is described in this editorial

This article has been retracted, an editorial will follow

Aims

Mendelian randomization (MR) is considered to overcome the bias of observational studies, but there is no current meta-analysis of MR studies on rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The purpose of this study was to summarize the relationship between potential pathogenic factors and RA risk based on existing MR studies.

This editorial examines the influence of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) on the conduct of orthopaedic surgery. It proffers criticism and suggests ways of improvement

The routine administration of prophylactic antibiotics for dental interventions to prevent haematogenous spread of infections to prosthetic joints is a contentious issue. In this editorial we discuss the potentially harmful effects of this practice and propose an alternative solution

Due to economic constraints, it has been suggested that joint replacement patients can be followed up in primary care. There are clinical, ethical and academic reasons why we must ensure that our joint replacements are appropriately clinically and radiologically followed up to minimise complications. This Editorial discusses this