Research into COVID-19 has been rapid in response to the dynamic global situation, which has resulted in heterogeneity of methodology and the communication of information. Adherence to reporting standards would improve the quality of evidence presented in future studies, and may ensure that findings could be interpreted in the context of the wider literature. The COVID-19 pandemic remains a dynamic situation, requiring continued assessment of the disease incidence and monitoring for the emergence of viral variants and their transmissibility, virulence, and susceptibility to vaccine-induced immunity. More work is needed to assess the long-term impact of COVID-19 infection on patients who sustain a hip fracture. The International Multicentre Project Auditing COVID-19 in Trauma & Orthopaedics (IMPACT) formed the largest multicentre collaborative audit conducted in orthopaedics in order to provide an emergency response to a global pandemic, but this was in the context of many vital established audit services being disrupted at an early stage, and it is crucial that these resources are protected during future health crises. Rapid data-sharing between regions should be developed, with wider adoption of the revised 2022 Fragility Fracture Network Minimum Common Data Set for Hip Fracture Audit, and a pragmatic approach to information governance processes in order to facilitate cooperation and meta-audit. This editorial aims to: 1) identify issues related to COVID-19 that require further research; 2) suggest reporting standards for studies of COVID-19 and other communicable diseases; 3) consider the requirement of new risk scores for hip fracture patients; and 4) present the lessons learned from IMPACT in order to inform future collaborative studies. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(6):342–345

In 2017, the British Society for Children’s Orthopaedic Surgery engaged the profession and all relevant stakeholders in two formal research prioritization processes. In this editorial, we describe the impact of this prioritization on funding, and how research in children’s orthopaedics, which was until very recently a largely unfunded and under-investigated area, is now flourishing. Establishing research priorities was a crucial step in this process.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5):422–424.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(1):6–8.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(5):306–308.

The high prevalence of osteoarthritis (OA), as well as the current lack of disease-modifying drugs for OA, has provided a rationale for regenerative medicine as a possible treatment modality for OA treatment. In this editorial, the current status of regenerative medicine in OA including stem cells, exosomes, and genes is summarized along with the author’s perspectives. Despite a tremendous interest, so far there is very little evidence proving the efficacy of this modality for clinical application. As symptomatic relief is not sufficient to justify the high cost associated with regenerative medicine, definitive structural improvement that would last for years or decades and obviate or delay the need for joint arthroplasty is essential for regenerative medicine to retain a place among OA treatment methods.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(2):134–136.

There is continued debate as to whether cemented or cementless implants should be utilized in particular cases based upon chronological age. This debate has been rekindled in the UK and other countries by directives mandating certain forms of acetabular and femoral component fixation based exclusively on the chronological age of the patient. This editorial focuses on the literature-based arguments to support the use of cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA), while addressing potential concerns surrounding safety and cost-effectiveness.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res. 2019;8(12):604–607.

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 extent and depth of routine health care data are growing at an ever-increasing rate, forming huge repositories of information. These repositories can answer a vast array of questions. However, an understanding of the purpose of the dataset used and the quality of the data collected are paramount to determine the reliability of the result obtained.

This Editorial describes the importance of adherence to sound methodological principles in the reporting and publication of research using ‘big’ data, with a suggested reporting framework for future Bone & Joint Journal submissions.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1575–7.