Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 4 of 4
Results per page:
Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 3, Issue 7 | Pages 582 - 588
1 Jul 2022
Hodel S Selman F Mania S Maurer SM Laux CJ Farshad M

Aims. Preprint servers allow authors to publish full-text manuscripts or interim findings prior to undergoing peer review. Several preprint servers have extended their services to biological sciences, clinical research, and medicine. The purpose of this study was to systematically identify and analyze all articles related to Trauma & Orthopaedic (T&O) surgery published in five medical preprint servers, and to investigate the factors that influence the subsequent rate of publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Methods. All preprints covering T&O surgery were systematically searched in five medical preprint servers (medRxiv, OSF Preprints, Preprints.org, PeerJ, and Research Square) and subsequently identified after a minimum of 12 months by searching for the title, keywords, and corresponding author in Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane, and the Web of Science. Subsequent publication of a work was defined as publication in a peer-reviewed indexed journal. The rate of publication and time to peer-reviewed publication were assessed. Differences in definitive publication rates of preprints according to geographical origin and level of evidence were analyzed. Results. The number of preprints increased from 2014 to 2020 (p < 0.001). A total of 38.6% of the identified preprints (n = 331) were published in a peer-reviewed indexed journal after a mean time of 8.7 months (SD 5.4 (1 to 27)). The highest proportion of missing subsequent publications was in the preprints originating from Africa, Asia/Middle East, and South America, or in those that covered clinical research with a lower level of evidence (p < 0.001). Conclusion. Preprints are being published in increasing numbers in T&O surgery. Depending on the geographical origin and level of evidence, almost two-thirds of preprints are not subsequently published in a peer-reviewed indexed journal after one year. This raises major concerns regarding the dissemination and persistence of potentially wrong scientific work that bypasses peer review, and the orthopaedic community should discuss appropriate preventive measures. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(7):582–588


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 105-B, Issue 3 | Pages 247 - 253
1 Mar 2023
Pakarinen O Ponkilainen V Uimonen M Haapanen M Helenius I Kuitunen I

Aims

To analyze whether the addition of risk-based criteria to clinical examination-based selective ultrasound screening would increase the rates of early detected cases of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) and decrease the rate of late detected cases.

Methods

A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed. The initial search was performed in the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases in November 2021. The following search terms were used: (hip) AND (ultrasound) AND (luxation or dysplasia) AND (newborn or neonate or congenital).


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 11, Issue 11 | Pages 814 - 825
14 Nov 2022
Ponkilainen V Kuitunen I Liukkonen R Vaajala M Reito A Uimonen M

Aims

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to gather epidemiological information on selected musculoskeletal injuries and to provide pooled injury-specific incidence rates.

Methods

PubMed (National Library of Medicine) and Scopus (Elsevier) databases were searched. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they reported incidence rate (or count with population at risk), contained data on adult population, and were written in English language. The number of cases and population at risk were collected, and the pooled incidence rates (per 100,000 person-years) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by using either a fixed or random effects model.


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 1, Issue 8 | Pages 457 - 464
1 Aug 2020
Gelfer Y Hughes KP Fontalis A Wientroub S Eastwood DM

Aims

To analyze outcomes reported in studies of Ponseti correction of idiopathic clubfoot.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify a list of outcomes and outcome tools reported in the literature. A total of 865 studies were screened following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and 124 trials were included in the analysis. Data extraction was completed by two researchers for each trial. Each outcome tool was assigned to one of the five core areas defined by the Outcome Measures Recommended for use in Randomized Clinical Trials (OMERACT). Bias assessment was not deemed necessary for the purpose of this paper.