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
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
The application and interpretation of the impact factor of a journal is fraught with problems, some of which are explored in this
Trauma and Orthopaedic care has been through
a rapid evolution over the past few decades. This
This
This year is the centenary of the birth of John Charnley. Some of his legacy to Orthopaedic Surgery is described in this
This article has been retracted, an
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. PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched for MR studies on influencing factors in relation to RA up to October 2022. Meta-analyses of MR studies assessing correlations between various potential pathogenic factors and RA were conducted. Random-effect and fixed-effect models were used to synthesize the odds ratios of various pathogenic factors and RA. The quality of the study was assessed using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology using Mendelian Randomization (STROBE-MR) guidelines.Aims
Methods
This
The routine administration of prophylactic antibiotics for dental interventions to prevent haematogenous spread of infections to prosthetic joints is a contentious issue. In this
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