By and large, physicians and surgeons trust what they read, even if they take authors’ conclusions with a pinch of salt. There is a world of difference between being cautious about the implications of what you read and being defrauded by dishonest researchers. Fraud and scientific research are incompatible bedfellows and yet are an unhappy part of our research existence. All subspecialties are to blame and orthopaedics is no exception.

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.

Aims. Isolated fractures of the ulnar diaphysis are uncommon, occurring at a rate of 0.02 to 0.04 per 1,000 cases. Despite their infrequency, these fractures commonly give rise to complications, such as nonunion, limited forearm pronation and supination, restricted elbow range of motion, radioulnar synostosis, and prolonged pain. Treatment options for this injury remain a topic of debate, with limited research available and no consensus on the optimal approach. Therefore, this trial aims to compare clinical, radiological, and functional outcomes of two treatment methods: open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus nonoperative treatment in patients with isolated ulnar diaphyseal fractures. Methods. This will be a multicentre, open-label, parallel randomized clinical trial (under National Clinical Trial number NCT01123447), accompanied by a parallel prospective cohort group for patients who meet the inclusion criteria, but decline randomization. Eligible patients will be randomized to one of the two treatment groups: 1) nonoperative treatment with closed reduction and below-elbow casting; or 2) surgical treatment with ORIF utilizing a limited contact dynamic compression plate and screw construct. The primary outcome measured will be the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire score at 12 months post-injury. Additionally, functional outcomes will be assessed using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey and pain visual analogue scale, allowing for a comparison of outcomes between groups. Secondary outcome measures will encompass clinical outcomes such as range of motion and grip strength, radiological parameters including time to union, as well as economic outcomes assessed from enrolment to 12 months post-injury. Ethics and dissemination. This trial has been approved by the lead site Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board (CHREB; REB14-2004) and local ethics boards at each participating site. Findings from the trial will be disseminated through presentations at regional, national, and international scientific conferences and public forums. The primary results and secondary findings will be submitted for peer-reviewed publication. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(5):411–418

Aims. Virtual fracture clinics (VFCs) are advocated by recent British Orthopaedic Association Standards for Trauma and Orthopaedics (BOASTs) to efficiently manage injuries during the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary aim of this national study is to assess the impact of these standards on patient satisfaction and clinical outcome amid the pandemic. The secondary aims are to determine the impact of the pandemic on the demographic details of injuries presenting to the VFC, and to compare outcomes and satisfaction when the BOAST guidelines were first introduced with a subsequent period when local practice would be familiar with these guidelines. Methods. This is a national cross-sectional cohort study comprising centres with VFC services across the UK. All consecutive adult patients assessed in VFC in a two-week period pre-lockdown (6 May 2019 to 19 May 2019) and in the same two-week period at the peak of the first lockdown (4 May 2020 to 17 May 2020), and a randomly selected sample during the ‘second wave’ (October 2020) will be eligible for the study. Data comprising local VFC practice, patient and injury characteristics, unplanned re-attendances, and complications will be collected by local investigators for all time periods. A telephone questionnaire will be used to determine patient satisfaction and patient-reported outcomes for patients who were discharged following VFC assessment without face-to-face consultation. Ethics and dissemination. The study results will identify changes in case-mix and numbers of patients managed through VFCs and whether this is safe and associated with patient satisfaction. These data will provide key information for future expert-led consensus on management of trauma injuries through the VFC. The protocol will be disseminated through conferences and peer-reviewed publication. This protocol has been reviewed by the South East Scotland Research Ethics Service and is classified as a multicentre audit. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(3):211–215

Aims. Fractures of the humeral shaft represent 3% to 5% of all fractures. The most common treatment for isolated humeral diaphysis fractures in the UK is non-operative using functional bracing, which carries a low risk of complications, but is associated with a longer healing time and a greater risk of nonunion than surgery. There is an increasing trend to surgical treatment, which may lead to quicker functional recovery and lower rates of fracture nonunion than functional bracing. However, surgery carries inherent risk, including infection, bleeding, and nerve damage. The aim of this trial is to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of functional bracing compared to surgical fixation for the treatment of humeral shaft fractures. Methods. The HUmeral SHaft (HUSH) fracture study is a multicentre, prospective randomized superiority trial of surgical versus non-surgical interventions for humeral shaft fractures in adult patients. Participants will be randomized to receive either functional bracing or surgery. With 334 participants, the trial will have 90% power to detect a clinically important difference for the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire score, assuming 20% loss to follow-up. Secondary outcomes will include function, pain, quality of life, complications, cost-effectiveness, time off work, and ability to drive. Discussion. The results of this trial will provide evidence regarding clinical and cost-effectiveness between surgical and non-surgical treatment of humeral shaft fractures. Ethical approval has been obtained from East of England – Cambridge Central Research Ethics Committee. Publication is anticipated to occur in 2024. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(4):343–349

Aims. The extended wait that most patients are now experiencing for hip and knee arthroplasty has raised questions about whether reliance on waiting time as the primary driver for prioritization is ethical, and if other additional factors should be included in determining surgical priority. Our Prioritization of THose aWaiting hip and knee ArthroplastY (PATHWAY) project will explore which perioperative factors are important to consider when prioritizing those on the waiting list for hip and knee arthroplasty, and how these factors should be weighted. The final product will include a weighted benefit score that can be used to aid in surgical prioritization for those awaiting elective primary hip and knee arthroplasty. Methods. There will be two linked work packages focusing on opinion from key stakeholders (patients and surgeons). First, an online modified Delphi process to determine a consensus set of factors that should be involved in patient prioritization. This will be performed using standard Delphi methodology consisting of multiple rounds where following initial individual rating there is feedback, discussion, and further recommendations undertaken towards eventual consensus. The second stage will then consist of a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) to allow for priority setting of the factors derived from the Delphi through elicitation of weighted benefit scores. The DCE consists of several choice tasks designed to elicit stakeholder preference regarding included attributes (factors). Results. The study is co-funded by the University of Aberdeen Knowledge Exchange Commission (Ref CF10693-29) and a Chief Scientist Office (CSO) Scotland Clinical Research Fellowship which runs from 08/2021 to 08/2024 (Grant ref: CAF/21/06). Approval from the University of Aberdeen Institute of Applied Health Sciences School Ethics Review Board was granted 22/03/2022 - Reference number SERB/2021/12/2210. Conclusion. The PATHWAY project provides the first attempt to use patient and surgeon opinions to develop a unified approach to prioritization for those awaiting hip and knee arthroplasty. Development of such a tool will provide more equitable access to arthroplasty services, as well as providing a framework for developing similar approaches in other areas of healthcare delivery. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):753–758

Aims. This study reviews the past 30 years of research from the Canadian Orthopedic Trauma Society (COTS), to identify predictive factors that delay or accelerate the course of randomized controlled trials in orthopaedic trauma. Methods. We conducted a methodological review of all papers published through the Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society or its affiliates. Data abstracted included: year of publication; journal of publication; study type; number of study sites; sample size; and achievement of sample size goals. Information about the study timelines was also collected, including: the date of study proposal to COTS; date recruitment began; date recruitment ended; and date of publication. Results. In total, 22 studies have been published through the COTS working group, 13 of which are randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In total, 1,423 individual patients have been involved in COTS studies, a mean of 110 patients per trial (22 to 424). Each study was conducted across a mean of approximately six centres (1 to 11) and took nearly ten years (mean 119.9 months (59 to 188)) from presentation of concept to publication. The mean length of enrolment was 63 months (26 to 113) and the mean time from cessation of enrolment to publication 51 months (19 to 78). Regardless of sample size, the only factor associated with a decreased length of enrolment was a higher number of clinical sites (p = 0.041). Neither study sample size nor length of enrolment were associated with total time to publication. Conclusion. Over the last three decades, COTS has developed a multinational strategy to produce high-quality evidence in the field of orthopaedic trauma through 13 multicentre RCTs. Future efficiencies can be realized by recruitment of more clinical sites, improving connectivity between the sites, and the promotion of national streamlined ethics processes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(5):898–901

Aims. Surgery is often indicated in patients with metastatic bone disease (MBD) to improve pain and maximize function. Few studies are available which report on clinically meaningful outcomes such as quality of life, function, and pain relief after surgery for MBD. This is the published protocol for the Bone Metastasis Audit — Patient Reported Outcomes (BoMA-PRO) multicentre MBD study. The primary objective is to ascertain patient-reported quality of life at three to 24 months post-surgery for MBD. Methods. This will be a prospective, longitudinal study across six UK orthopaedic centres powered to identify the influence of ten patient variables on quality of life at three months after surgery for MBD. Adult patients managed for bone metastases will be screened by their treating consultant and posted out participant materials. If they opt in to participate, they will receive questionnaire packs at regular intervals from three to 24 months post-surgery and their electronic records will be screened until death or five years from recruitment. The primary outcome is quality of life as measured by the European Organisation for Research and the Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ) C30 questionnaire. The protocol has been approved by the Newcastle & North Tyneside 2 Research Ethics Committee (REC ref 19/NE/0303) and the study is funded by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow (RCPSG) and the Association for Cancer Surgery (BASO-ACS). Discussion. This will be the first powered study internationally to investigate patient-reported outcomes after orthopaedic treatment for bone metastases. We will assess quality of life, function, and pain relief at three to 24 months post-surgery and identify which patient variables are significantly associated with a good outcome after MBD treatment. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(2):79–85

High-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating surgical therapies are fundamental to the delivery of evidence-based orthopaedics. Orthopaedic clinical trials have unique challenges; however, when these challenges are overcome, evidence from trials can be definitive in its impact on surgical practice. In this review, we highlight several issues that pose potential challenges to orthopaedic investigators aiming to perform surgical randomised controlled trials. We begin with a discussion on trial design issues, including the ethics of sham surgery, the importance of sample size, the need for patient-important outcomes, and overcoming expertise bias. We then explore features surrounding the execution of surgical randomised trials, including ethics review boards, the importance of organisational frameworks, and obtaining adequate funding. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:161–8

Aims. Hip fractures in patients < 60 years old currently account for only 3% to 4% of all hip fractures in England, but this proportion is increasing. Little is known about the longer-term patient-reported outcomes in this potentially more active population. The primary aim is to examine patient-reported outcomes following isolated hip fracture in patients aged < 60 years. The secondary aim is to determine an association between outcomes and different types of fracture pattern and/or treatment implants. Methods. All hip fracture patients aged 18 to 60 years admitted to a single centre over a 15-year period were used to identify the study group. Fracture pattern (undisplaced intracapsular, displaced intracapsular, and extracapsular) and type of operation (multiple cannulated hip screws, angular stable fixation, hemiarthroplasty, and total hip replacement) were recorded. The primary outcome measures were the Oxford Hip Score (OHS), the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L), and EQ-visual analogue scale (VAS) scores. Preinjury scores were recorded by patient recall and postinjury scores were collected at a mean of 57 months (9 to 118) postinjury. Ethics approval was obtained prior to study commencement. Results. A total of 72 patients were included. There was a significant difference in pre- and post-injury OHS (mean 9.8 point reduction (38 to -20; p < 0.001)), EQ-5D (mean 0.208 reduction in index (0.897 to -0.630; p < 0.001)), and VAS , and VAS (mean 11.6 point reduction (70 to -55; p < 0.001)) Fracture pattern had a significant influence on OHS (p < 0.001) with extracapsular fractures showing the least favourable long-term outcome. Fixation type also impacted significantly on OHS (p = 0.011) with the worst outcomes in patients treated by hemiarthroplasty or angular stable fixation. Conclusion. There is a significant reduction in function and quality of life following injury, with all three patient-reported outcome measures used, indicating that this is a substantial injury in younger patients. Treatment with hemiarthroplasty or angular stable devices in this cohort were associated with a less favourable hip score outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6):766–771

Aims

The primary aim of this prospective, multicentre study is to describe the rates of returning to golf following hip, knee, ankle, and shoulder arthroplasty in an active golfing population. Secondary aims will include determining the timing of return to golf, changes in ability, handicap, and mobility, and assessing joint-specific and health-related outcomes following surgery.

Aims

This study examined windswept deformity (WSD) of the knee, comparing prevalence and contributing factors in healthy and osteoarthritic (OA) cohorts.

Aims

During total knee replacement (TKR), surgeons can choose whether or not to resurface the patella, with advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Recently, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended always resurfacing the patella, rather than never doing so. NICE found insufficient evidence on selective resurfacing (surgeon’s decision based on intraoperative findings and symptoms) to make recommendations. If effective, selective resurfacing could result in optimal individualized patient care. This protocol describes a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of primary TKR with always patellar resurfacing compared to selective patellar resurfacing.

Aims

Ankle fractures are common, mainly affecting adults aged 50 years and over. To aid recovery, some patients are referred to physiotherapy, but referral patterns vary, likely due to uncertainty about the effectiveness of this supervised rehabilitation approach. To inform clinical practice, this study will evaluate the effectiveness of supervised versus self-directed rehabilitation in improving ankle function for older adults with ankle fractures.

Aims

Olecranon fractures are usually caused by falling directly on to the olecranon or following a fall on to an outstretched arm. Displaced fractures of the olecranon with a stable ulnohumeral joint are commonly managed by open reduction and internal fixation. The current predominant method of management of simple displaced fractures with ulnohumeral stability (Mayo grade IIA) in the UK and internationally is a low-cost technique using tension band wiring. Suture or suture anchor techniques have been described with the aim of reducing the hardware related complications and reoperation. An all-suture technique has been developed to fix the fracture using strong synthetic sutures alone. The aim of this trial is to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of tension suture repair versus traditional tension band wiring for the surgical fixation of Mayo grade IIA fractures of the olecranon.

Aims

Is it feasible to conduct a definitive multicentre trial in community settings of corticosteroid injections (CSI) and hydrodilation (HD) compared to CSI for patients with frozen shoulder? An adequately powered definitive randomized controlled trial (RCT) delivered in primary care will inform clinicians and the public whether hydrodilation is a clinically and cost-effective intervention. In this study, prior to a full RCT, we propose a feasibility trial to evaluate recruitment and retention by patient and clinician willingness of randomization; rates of withdrawal, crossover and attrition; and feasibility of outcome data collection from routine primary and secondary care data.

Aims

Steroid injections are used for subacromial pain syndrome and can be administered via the anterolateral or posterior approach to the subacromial space. It is not currently known which approach is superior in terms of improving clinical symptoms and function. This is the protocol for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to compare the clinical effectiveness of a steroid injection given via the anterolateral or the posterior approach to the subacromial space.