Trauma and orthopaedics is the largest of the surgical specialties and yet attracts a disproportionately small fraction of available national and international funding for health research. With the burden of musculoskeletal disease increasing, high-quality research is required to improve the evidence base for orthopaedic practice. Using the current research landscape in the United Kingdom as an example, but also addressing the international perspective, we highlight the issues surrounding poor levels of research funding in trauma and orthopaedics and indicate avenues for improving the impact and success of surgical musculoskeletal research. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B:1578–85

Objectives. Despite the fact that research fraud and misconduct are under scrutiny in the field of orthopaedic research, little systematic work has been done to uncover and characterise the underlying reasons for academic retractions in this field. The purpose of this study was to determine the rate of retractions and identify the reasons for retracted publications in the orthopaedic literature. Methods. Two reviewers independently searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (1995 to current) using MeSH keyword headings and the ‘retracted’ filter. We also searched an independent website that reports and archives retracted scientific publications (. www.retractionwatch.com. ). Two reviewers independently extracted data including reason for retraction, study type, journal impact factor, and country of origin. Results. One hundred and ten retracted studies were included for data extraction. The retracted studies were published in journals with impact factors ranging from 0.000 (discontinued journals) to 13.262. In the 20-year search window, only 25 papers were retracted in the first ten years, with the remaining 85 papers retracted in the most recent decade. The most common reasons for retraction were fraudulent data (29), plagiarism (25) and duplicate publication (20). Retracted articles have been cited up to 165 times (median 6; interquartile range 2 to 19). Conclusion. The rate of retractions in the orthopaedic literature is increasing, with the majority of retractions attributed to academic misconduct and fraud. Orthopaedic retractions originate from numerous journals and countries, indicating that misconduct issues are widespread. The results of this study highlight the need to address academic integrity when training the next generation of orthopaedic investigators. Cite this article: J. Yan, A. MacDonald, L-P. Baisi, N. Evaniew, M. Bhandari, M. Ghert. Retractions in orthopaedic research: A systematic review. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:263–268. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.56.BJR-2016-0047

Objectives. Evidence -based medicine (EBM) is designed to inform clinical decision-making within all medical specialties, including orthopaedic surgery. We recently published a pilot survey of the Canadian Orthopaedic Association (COA) membership and demonstrated that the adoption of EBM principles is variable among Canadian orthopaedic surgeons. The objective of this study was to conduct a broader international survey of orthopaedic surgeons to identify characteristics of research studies perceived as being most influential in informing clinical decision-making. Materials and Methods. A 29-question electronic survey was distributed to the readership of an established orthopaedic journal with international readership. The survey aimed to analyse the influence of both extrinsic (journal quality, investigator profiles, etc.) and intrinsic characteristics (study design, sample size, etc.) of research studies in relation to their influence on practice patterns. Results. A total of 353 surgeons completed the survey. Surgeons achieved consensus on the ‘importance’ of three key designs on their practices: randomised controlled trials (94%), meta-analyses (75%) and systematic reviews (66%). The vast majority of respondents support the use of current evidence over historical clinical training; however subjective factors such as journal reputation (72%) and investigator profile (68%) continue to influence clinical decision-making strongly. Conclusion. Although intrinsic factors such as study design and sample size have some influence on clinical decision-making, surgeon respondents are equally influenced by extrinsic factors such as investigator reputation and perceived journal quality. Cite this article: Dr M. Ghert. An international survey to identify the intrinsic and extrinsic factors of research studies most likely to change orthopaedic practice. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:130–136. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.54.2000578

This edition of Cochrane Corner looks at some of the work published by the Cochrane Collaboration, covering pharmacological interventions for the prevention of bleeding in people undergoing definitive fixation or joint replacement for hip, pelvic, and long bone fractures; interventions for reducing red blood cell transfusion in adults undergoing hip fracture surgery: an overview of systematic reviews; and pharmacological treatments for low back pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

The Cochrane Collaboration has produced five new reviews relevant to bone and joint surgery since the publication of the last Cochrane Corner These reviews are relevant to a wide range of musculoskeletal specialists, and include reviews in Morton’s neuroma, scoliosis, vertebral fractures, carpal tunnel syndrome, and lower limb arthroplasty.

Objectives. The evidence base to inform the management of Achilles tendon rupture is sparse. The objectives of this research were to establish what current practice is in the United Kingdom and explore clinicians’ views on proposed further research in this area. This study was registered with the ISRCTN (ISRCTN68273773) as part of a larger programme of research. Methods. We report an online survey of current practice in the United Kingdom, approved by the British Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society and completed by 181 of its members. A total of ten of these respondents were invited for a subsequent one-to-one interview to explore clinician views on proposed further research in this area. Results. The survey showed wide variations in practice, with patients being managed in plaster cast alone (13%), plaster cast followed by orthoses management (68%), and orthoses alone (19%). Within these categories, further variation existed regarding the individual rehabilitation facets, such as the length of time worn, the foot position within them and weight-bearing status. The subsequent interviews reflected this clinical uncertainty and the pressing need for definitive research. Conclusions. The gap in evidence in this area has resulted in practice in the United Kingdom becoming varied and based on individual opinion. Future high-quality randomised trials on this subject are supported by the clinical community. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2015;4:65–9

In vivo animal experimentation has been one of the cornerstones of biological and biomedical research, particularly in the field of clinical medicine and pharmaceuticals. The conventional in vivo model system is invariably associated with high production costs and strict ethical considerations. These limitations led to the evolution of an ex vivo model system which partially or completely surmounted some of the constraints faced in an in vivo model system. The ex vivo rodent bone culture system has been used to elucidate the understanding of skeletal physiology and pathophysiology for more than 90 years. This review attempts to provide a brief summary of the historical evolution of the rodent bone culture system with emphasis on the strengths and limitations of the model. It encompasses the frequency of use of rats and mice for ex vivo bone studies, nutritional requirements in ex vivo bone growth and emerging developments and technologies. This compilation of information could assist researchers in the field of regenerative medicine and bone tissue engineering towards a better understanding of skeletal growth and development for application in general clinical medicine. Cite this article: A. A. Abubakar, M. M. Noordin, T. I. Azmi, U. Kaka, M. Y. Loqman. The use of rats and mice as animal models in ex vivo bone growth and development studies. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:610–618. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.512.BJR-2016-0102.R2

Objectives. Meniscal injuries are often associated with an active lifestyle. The damage of meniscal tissue puts young patients at higher risk of undergoing meniscal surgery and, therefore, at higher risk of osteoarthritis. In this study, we undertook proof-of-concept research to develop a cellularized human meniscus by using 3D bioprinting technology. Methods. A 3D model of bioengineered medial meniscus tissue was created, based on MRI scans of a human volunteer. The Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) data from these MRI scans were processed using dedicated software, in order to obtain an STL model of the structure. The chosen 3D Discovery printing tool was a microvalve-based inkjet printhead. Primary mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) were isolated from bone marrow and embedded in a collagen-based bio-ink before printing. LIVE/DEAD assay was performed on realized cell-laden constructs carrying MSCs in order to evaluate cell distribution and viability. Results. This study involved the realization of a human cell-laden collagen meniscus using 3D bioprinting. The meniscus prototype showed the biological potential of this technology to provide an anatomically shaped, patient-specific construct with viable cells on a biocompatible material. Conclusion. This paper reports the preliminary findings of the production of a custom-made, cell-laden, collagen-based human meniscus. The prototype described could act as the starting point for future developments of this collagen-based, tissue-engineered structure, which could aid the optimization of implants designed to replace damaged menisci. Cite this article: G. Filardo, M. Petretta, C. Cavallo, L. Roseti, S. Durante, U. Albisinni, B. Grigolo. Patient-specific meniscus prototype based on 3D bioprinting of human cell-laden scaffold. Bone Joint Res 2019;8:101–106. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.82.BJR-2018-0134.R1