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 Res 2022;11(8):514–517.

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 limitations and benefits of patient-reported outcome measures, in defining the merits of arthroplasty surgery, are discussed.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:578–81.

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.

We explore the limitations of complete reliance on evidence-based medicine which can be diminished by confounding issues and sampling bias. Other strategies which may be reasonably invoked are discussed.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B:997–9.

The Bone & Joint Journal provides the latest evidence to guide the clinical practice of orthopaedic surgeons. The benefits of one intervention compared with another are presented using outcome measures; some may be specific to a limb or joint and some are more general health-related quality of life measures. Readers will be familiar with many of these outcome measures and will be able to judge the relative benefits of different interventions when measured using the same outcome tool; for example, different treatments for pain in the knee measured using a particular knee score. But, how should readers compare outcomes between different clinical areas using different outcome measures? This article explores the use of standardised effect sizes.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:853–4.

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.