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.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(4):256–258.

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: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:871–4

There is continued debate as to whether cemented or cementless implants should be utilized in particular cases based upon chronological age. This debate has been rekindled in the UK and other countries by directives mandating certain forms of acetabular and femoral component fixation based exclusively on the chronological age of the patient. This editorial focuses on the literature-based arguments to support the use of cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA), while addressing potential concerns surrounding safety and cost-effectiveness.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res. 2019;8(12):604–607.

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.