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
Cite this article:
Cite this article:
In 2017, the British Society for Children’s Orthopaedic Surgery engaged the profession and all relevant stakeholders in two formal research prioritization processes. In this editorial, we describe the impact of this prioritization on funding, and how research in children’s orthopaedics, which was until very recently a largely unfunded and under-investigated area, is now flourishing. Establishing research priorities was a crucial step in this process. Cite this article:
The OpenAI chatbot ChatGPT is an artificial intelligence (AI) application that uses state-of-the-art language processing AI. It can perform a vast number of tasks, from writing poetry and explaining complex quantum mechanics, to translating language and writing research articles with a human-like understanding and legitimacy. Since its initial release to the public in November 2022, ChatGPT has garnered considerable attention due to its ability to mimic the patterns of human language, and it has attracted billion-dollar investments from Microsoft and PricewaterhouseCoopers. The scope of ChatGPT and other large language models appears infinite, but there are several important limitations. This editorial provides an introduction to the basic functionality of ChatGPT and other large language models, their current applications and limitations, and the associated implications for clinical practice and research. Cite this article:
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
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
Many hospitals do not have a structured process
of consent, the attainment of which can often be rather ‘last-minute’
and somewhat chaotic. This is a surprising state of affairs as spinal
surgery is a high-risk surgical specialty with potential for expensive
litigation claims. More recently, the Montgomery ruling by the United
Kingdom Supreme Court has placed the subject of informed consent
into the spotlight. There is a paucity of practical guidance on how a consent process
can be achieved in a busy clinical setting. The British Association
of Spinal Surgeons (BASS) has convened a working party to address
this need. To our knowledge this is the first example of a national
professional body, representing a single surgical specialty, taking such
a fundamental initiative. In a hard-pressed clinical environment, the ability to achieve
admission reliably on the day of surgery, in patients at ease with
their situation and with little likelihood of late cancellation,
will be of great benefit. It will reduce litigation and improve
the patient experience. Cite this article:
Health economic evaluations potentially provide
valuable information to clinicians, health care administrators,
and policy makers regarding the financial implications of decisions
about the care of patients. The highest quality research should
be used to inform decisions that have direct impact on the access
to care and the outcome of treatment. However, economic analyses
are often complex and use research methods which are relatively unfamiliar
to clinicians. Furthermore, health economic data have substantial
national, regional, and institutional variability, which can limit
the external validity of the results of a study. Therefore, minimum
guidelines that aim to standardise the quality and transparency
of reporting health economic research have been developed, and instruments
are available to assist in the assessment of its quality and the
interpretation of results. The purpose of this editorial is to discuss the principal types
of health economic studies, to review the most common instruments
for judging the quality of these studies and to describe current
reporting guidelines. Recommendations for the submission of these
types of studies to Cite this article:
