Continuing professional development (CPD) refers to the ongoing participation in activities that keep a doctor up to date and fit to practise once they have completed formal training. It is something that most will do naturally to serve their patients and to enable them to run a safe and profitable practice. Increasingly, regulators are formalising the requirements for evidence of CPD, often as part of a process of revalidation or relicensing.

This paper reviews how orthopaedic journals can be used as part of the process of continuing professional development.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:565–6.

The peer review process for the evaluation of manuscripts for publication needs to be better understood by the orthopaedic community. Improving the degree of transparency surrounding the review process and educating orthopaedic surgeons on how to improve their manuscripts for submission will help improve both the review procedure and resultant feedback, with an increase in the quality of the subsequent publications. This article seeks to clarify the peer review process and suggest simple ways in which the quality of submissions can be improved to maximise publication success.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2013;2:245–7.

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: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(6):587–589.

Aims

To report the outcomes of patients with a fracture of the distal tibia who were treated with intramedullary nail versus locking plate in the five years after participating in the Fixation of Distal Tibia fracture (FixDT) trial.

Aims

Lower limb fractures are common in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and represent a significant burden to the existing orthopaedic surgical infrastructure. In high income country (HIC) settings, internal fixation is the standard of care due to its superior outcomes. In LMICs, external fixation is often the surgical treatment of choice due to limited supplies, cost considerations, and its perceived lower complication rate. The aim of this systematic review protocol is identifying differences in rates of infection, nonunion, and malunion of extra-articular femoral and tibial shaft fractures in LMICs treated with either internal or external fixation.

Aims

The evidence base within trauma and orthopaedics has traditionally favoured quantitative research methodologies. Qualitative research can provide unique insights which illuminate patient experiences and perceptions of care. Qualitative methods reveal the subjective narratives of patients that are not captured by quantitative data, providing a more comprehensive understanding of patient-centred care. The aim of this study is to quantify the level of qualitative research within the orthopaedic literature.

We evaluated the top 13 journals in trauma and orthopaedics by impact factor and looked at the longer-term effect regarding citations of their papers.

All 4951 papers published in these journals during 2007 and 2008 were reviewed and categorised by their type, subspecialty and super-specialty. All citations indexed through Google Scholar were reviewed to establish the rate of citation per paper at two, four and five years post-publication. The top five journals published a total of 1986 papers. Only three (0.15%) were on operative orthopaedic surgery and none were on trauma. Most (n = 1084, 54.5%) were about experimental basic science. Surgical papers had a lower rate of citation (2.18) at two years than basic science or clinical medical papers (4.68). However, by four years the rates were similar (26.57 for surgery, 30.35 for basic science/medical), which suggests that there is a considerable time lag before clinical surgical research has an impact.

We conclude that high impact journals do not address clinical research in surgery and when they do, there is a delay before such papers are cited. We suggest that a rate of citation at five years post-publication might be a more appropriate indicator of importance for papers in our specialty.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:414–19.

Objectives

Despite the fact that research fraud and misconduct are under scrutiny in the field of orthopaedic research, little systematic work has been done to uncover and characterise the underlying reasons for academic retractions in this field. The purpose of this study was to determine the rate of retractions and identify the reasons for retracted publications in the orthopaedic literature.

The maintenance of quality and integrity in clinical and basic science research depends upon peer review. This process has stood the test of time and has evolved to meet increasing work loads, and ways of detecting fraud in the scientific community. However, in the 21st century, the emphasis on evidence-based medicine and good science has placed pressure on the ways in which the peer review system is used by most journals.

This paper reviews the peer review system and the problems it faces in the digital age, and proposes possible solutions.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:436–41.

By and large, physicians and surgeons trust what they read, even if they take authors’ conclusions with a pinch of salt. There is a world of difference between being cautious about the implications of what you read and being defrauded by dishonest researchers. Fraud and scientific research are incompatible bedfellows and yet are an unhappy part of our research existence. All subspecialties are to blame and orthopaedics is no exception.

Osteoarthritis is extremely common and many different causes for it have been described. One such cause is abnormal morphology of the affected joint, the hip being a good example of this. For those joints with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) or developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH), a link with subsequent osteoarthritis seems clear. However, far from being abnormal, these variants may be explained by evolution, certainly so for FAI, and may actually be normal rather than representing deformity or disease. The animal equivalent of FAI is coxa recta, commonly found in species that run and jump. It is rarely found in animals that climb and swim. In contrast are the animals with coxa rotunda, a perfectly spherical femoral head, and more in keeping with the coxa profunda of mankind. This article describes the evolutionary process of the human hip and its link to FAI and DDH. Do we need to worry after all?

The credibility and creativity of an author may be gauged by the number of scientific papers he or she has published, as well as the frequency of citations of a particular paper reflecting the impact of the data on the area of practice. The object of this study was to identify and analyse the qualities of the top 100 cited papers in orthopaedic surgery. The database of the Science Citation Index of the Institute for Scientific Information (1945 to 2008) was used. A total of 1490 papers were cited more than 100 times, with the top 100 being subjected to further analysis. The majority originated in the United States, followed by the United Kingdom. The top 100 papers were published in seven specific orthopaedic journals.

Analysis of the most-cited orthopaedic papers allows us a unique insight into the qualitites, characteristics and clinical innovations required for a paper to attain ‘classic’ status.