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
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:
Cite this article:
Cite this article:
Cite this article:
Traditionally, informed consent for clinical
research involves the patient reading an approved Participant Information
Sheet, considering the information presented and having as much time
as they need to discuss the study information with their friends
and relatives, their clinical care and the research teams. This
system works well in the ‘planned’ or ‘elective’ setting. But what
happens if the patient requires urgent treatment for an injury or emergency? This article reviews the legal framework which governs informed
consent in the emergency setting, discusses how the approach taken
may vary according to the details of the emergency and the treatment
required, and reports on the patients’ view of providing consent
following a serious injury. We then provide some practical tips
for managing the process of informed consent in the context of injuries
and emergencies. Cite this article:
The effective capture of outcome measures in
the healthcare setting can be traced back to Florence Nightingale’s
investigation of the in-patient mortality of soldiers wounded in
the Crimean war in the 1850s. Only relatively recently has the formalised collection of outcomes
data into Registries been recognised as valuable in itself. With the advent of surgeon league tables and a move towards value
based health care, individuals are being driven to collect, store
and interpret data. Following the success of the National Joint Registry, the British
Association of Spine Surgeons instituted the British Spine Registry.
Since its launch in 2012, over 650 users representing the whole
surgical team have registered and during this time, more than 27 000
patients have been entered onto the database. There has been significant publicity regarding the collection
of outcome measures after surgery, including patient-reported scores.
Over 12 000 forms have been directly entered by patients themselves,
with many more entered by the surgical teams. Questions abound: who should have access to the data produced
by the Registry and how should they use it? How should the results
be reported and in what forum? Cite this article:
Cite this article:
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:
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.
