To develop a multidisciplinary health research agenda (HRA) utilizing expertise from various disciplines to identify and prioritize evidence uncertainties in orthopaedics, thereby reducing research waste. We employed a novel, structured framework to develop a HRA. We started by systematically collecting all evidence uncertainties from stakeholders with an interest in orthopaedic care, categorizing them into 13 sub-themes defined by the Dutch Orthopaedic Association (NOV). Subsequently, a modified two-phased Delphi study (two rounds per phase), adhering to the Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies (CREDES) guideline, was conducted. In Phase 1, board members assessed the collected evidence uncertainties on a three-point Likert scale to confirm knowledge gaps. In Phase 2, diverse stakeholders, including orthopaedic surgeons, rated the confirmed knowledge gaps on a seven-point Likert scale. Panel members rated one self-selected sub-theme and two randomly assigned sub-themes. The results from Phase 2 were ranked based on the overall average score for each uncertainty. Finally, a focus group discussion with patient associations’ representatives identified their top-ranked uncertainty from a predefined consensus process, leading to the final HRA. An advisory board, the Federation of Medical Specialists, and the NOV research coordinator oversaw the process.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.