This study assesses patient barriers to successful telemedicine care in orthopaedic practices in a large academic practice in the COVID-19 era. In all, 381 patients scheduled for telemedicine visits with three orthopaedic surgeons in a large academic practice from 1 April 2020 to 12 June 2020 were asked to participate in a telephone survey using a standardized Institutional Review Board-approved script. An unsuccessful telemedicine visit was defined as patient-reported difficulty of use or reported dissatisfaction with teleconferencing. Patient barriers were defined as explicitly reported barriers of unsatisfactory visit using a process-based satisfaction metric. Statistical analyses were conducted using analysis of variances (ANOVAs), ranked ANOVAs, post-hoc pairwise testing, and chi-squared independent analysis with 95% confidence interval.Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to investigate surgeons’ reported change of treatment preference in response to the results and conclusion from a randomized contolled trial (RCT) and to study patterns of change between subspecialties and nationalities. Two questionnaires were developed through the Delphi process for this cross-sectional survey of surgical preference. The first questionnaire was sent out before the publication of a RCT and the second questionnaire was sent out after publication. The RCT investigated repair or non-repair of the pronator quadratus (PQ) muscle during volar locked plating of distal radial fractures (DRFs). Overall, 380 orthopaedic surgeons were invited to participate in the first questionnaire, of whom 115 replied. One hundred surgeons were invited to participate in the second questionnaire. The primary outcome was the proportion of surgeons for whom a treatment change was warranted, who then reported a change of treatment preference following the RCT. Secondary outcomes included the reasons for repair or non-repair, reasons for and against following the RCT results, and difference of preferred treatment of the PQ muscle between surgeons of different nationalities, qualifications, years of training, and number of procedures performed per year.Aims
Methods
Using inaccurate quotations can propagate misleading
information, which might affect the management of patients. The
aim of this study was to determine the predictors of quotation inaccuracy
in the peer-reviewed orthopaedic literature related to the scaphoid.
We randomly selected 100 papers from ten orthopaedic journals. All references
were retrieved in full text when available or otherwise excluded.
Two observers independently rated all quotations from the selected
papers by comparing the claims made by the authors with the data
and expressed opinions of the reference source. A statistical analysis
determined which article-related factors were predictors of quotation
inaccuracy. The mean total inaccuracy rate of the 3840 verified
quotes was 7.6%. There was no correlation between the rate of inaccuracy
and the impact factor of the journal. Multivariable analysis identified
the journal and the type of study (clinical, biomechanical, methodological,
case report or review) as important predictors of the total quotation
inaccuracy rate. We concluded that inaccurate quotations in the peer-reviewed
orthopaedic literature related to the scaphoid were common and slightly
more so for certain journals and certain study types. Authors, reviewers
and editorial staff play an important role in reducing this inaccuracy.
