Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(11):1133–1134.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(6):372–374.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(1):6–8.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(8):494–496.

Trauma and Orthopaedic care has been through a rapid evolution over the past few decades. This Editorial discusses some of the advances.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1–2.

The Bone & Joint Journal provides the latest evidence to guide the clinical practice of orthopaedic surgeons. The benefits of one intervention compared with another are presented using outcome measures; some may be specific to a limb or joint and some are more general health-related quality of life measures. Readers will be familiar with many of these outcome measures and will be able to judge the relative benefits of different interventions when measured using the same outcome tool; for example, different treatments for pain in the knee measured using a particular knee score. But, how should readers compare outcomes between different clinical areas using different outcome measures? This article explores the use of standardised effect sizes.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:853–4.

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.