Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Orthopaedics 7/2013

01-07-2013 | Review

Improvement of research quality in the fields of orthopaedics and trauma—a global perspective

Authors: Hangama C. Fayaz, Norbert Haas, James Kellam, Suthorn Bavonratanavech, Javad Parvizi, George Dyer, Tim Pohlemann, Jörg Jerosch, Karl-Josef Prommersberger, Hans Christoph Pape, Malcolm Smith, Marc Vrahas, Carsten Perka, Klaus Siebenrock, Bassem Elhassan, Christopher Moran, Jesse B. Jupiter

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 7/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

The international orthopaedic community aims to achieve the best possible outcome for patient care by constantly modifying surgical techniques and expanding the surgeon’s knowledge. These efforts require proper reflection within a setting that necessitates a higher quality standard for global orthopaedic publication. Furthermore, these techniques demand that surgeons acquire information at a rapid rate while enforcing higher standards in research performance. An international consensus exists on how to perform research and what rules should be considered when publishing a scientific paper. Despite this global agreement, in today’s “Cross Check Era”, too many authors do not give attention to the current standards of systematic research. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to describe these performance standards, the available choices for orthopaedic surgeons and the current learning curve for seasoned teams of researchers and orthopaedic surgeons with more than three decades of experience. These lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the topics that will significantly influence the research development as we arrive at an important globalisation era in orthopaedics and trauma-related research.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Baldwin KD, Bernstein J, Ahn J, McKay SD, Sankar WN (2012) Level of evidence gap in orthopedic research. Orthopedics 35(9):e1416–e1419PubMedCrossRef Baldwin KD, Bernstein J, Ahn J, McKay SD, Sankar WN (2012) Level of evidence gap in orthopedic research. Orthopedics 35(9):e1416–e1419PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Bernstein J, Ahn J, Veillette C (2012) The future of orthopaedic information management. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94(13):e95 Bernstein J, Ahn J, Veillette C (2012) The future of orthopaedic information management. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94(13):e95
3.
go back to reference Bhandari M, Morrow F, Kulkarni AV, Tornetta P 3rd (2001) Meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery. A systematic review of their methodologies. J Bone Joint Surg 83:15–24PubMedCrossRef Bhandari M, Morrow F, Kulkarni AV, Tornetta P 3rd (2001) Meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery. A systematic review of their methodologies. J Bone Joint Surg 83:15–24PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Dijkman BG, Abouali JA, Kooistra BW, Conter HJ, Poolman RW, Kulkarni AV, Tornetta P 3rd, Bhandari M (2010) Twenty years of meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery: has quality kept up with quantity? J Bone Joint Surg 92(1):48–57PubMedCrossRef Dijkman BG, Abouali JA, Kooistra BW, Conter HJ, Poolman RW, Kulkarni AV, Tornetta P 3rd, Bhandari M (2010) Twenty years of meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery: has quality kept up with quantity? J Bone Joint Surg 92(1):48–57PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference ORI (1992) Draft standards for the responsible conduct of science in PHS intramural research programs. Office of Scientific Integrity Review, ORI, Washington, DC ORI (1992) Draft standards for the responsible conduct of science in PHS intramural research programs. Office of Scientific Integrity Review, ORI, Washington, DC
8.
go back to reference Eck JC, Nachtigall D, Hodges SD, Humphreys SC (2007) Redundant publications in the orthopedic literature. Orthopedics 30(1):60–62PubMed Eck JC, Nachtigall D, Hodges SD, Humphreys SC (2007) Redundant publications in the orthopedic literature. Orthopedics 30(1):60–62PubMed
9.
go back to reference Egger M, Smith GD, Phillips AN (1997) Meta-analysis: principles and procedures. BMJ 315:1533–1537PubMedCrossRef Egger M, Smith GD, Phillips AN (1997) Meta-analysis: principles and procedures. BMJ 315:1533–1537PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group (1992) Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA 268(17):2420–2425CrossRef Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group (1992) Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA 268(17):2420–2425CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Fayaz HC, Jupiter JB, Pape HC, Smith RM, Giannoudis PV, Moran CG, Krettek C, Prommersberger KJ, Raschke MJ, Parvizi J (2011) Challenges and barriers to improving care of the musculoskeletal patient of the future—a debate article and global perspective. Patient Saf Surg 5:23PubMedCrossRef Fayaz HC, Jupiter JB, Pape HC, Smith RM, Giannoudis PV, Moran CG, Krettek C, Prommersberger KJ, Raschke MJ, Parvizi J (2011) Challenges and barriers to improving care of the musculoskeletal patient of the future—a debate article and global perspective. Patient Saf Surg 5:23PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Garfield E (1998) Long-term vs. short-term journal impact: does it matter? Physiologist 41(3):113–115PubMed Garfield E (1998) Long-term vs. short-term journal impact: does it matter? Physiologist 41(3):113–115PubMed
14.
go back to reference Garfield E (1999) Journal impact factor: a brief review. Can Med Assoc J 161(8):979–980 Garfield E (1999) Journal impact factor: a brief review. Can Med Assoc J 161(8):979–980
15.
go back to reference Gerbarg ZB, Horwitz RI (1988) Resolving conflicting clinical trials: guidelines for meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 41:503–509PubMedCrossRef Gerbarg ZB, Horwitz RI (1988) Resolving conflicting clinical trials: guidelines for meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 41:503–509PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Guyatt GH, Haynes RB, Jaeschke RZ, Cook DJ, Green L, Naylor CD, Wilson MC, Richardson WS (2000) Users’ guides to the medical literature: XXV. Evidence-based medicine: principles for applying the users’ guides to patient care. Evidence-based medicine working group. JAMA 284:1290–1296PubMedCrossRef Guyatt GH, Haynes RB, Jaeschke RZ, Cook DJ, Green L, Naylor CD, Wilson MC, Richardson WS (2000) Users’ guides to the medical literature: XXV. Evidence-based medicine: principles for applying the users’ guides to patient care. Evidence-based medicine working group. JAMA 284:1290–1296PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA et al (2011) GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 64(4):383–394PubMedCrossRef Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA et al (2011) GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 64(4):383–394PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair JC, Hayward R, Cook DJ, Cook RJ (1995) Users’ guides to the medical literature. IX. A method for grading health care recommendations evidence-based medicine working group. JAMA 274:1800–1804PubMedCrossRef Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair JC, Hayward R, Cook DJ, Cook RJ (1995) Users’ guides to the medical literature. IX. A method for grading health care recommendations evidence-based medicine working group. JAMA 274:1800–1804PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Gwilym SE, Swan MC, Giele H (2004) One in 13 ‘original’ articles in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery are duplicate or fragmented publications. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86(5):743–745PubMedCrossRef Gwilym SE, Swan MC, Giele H (2004) One in 13 ‘original’ articles in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery are duplicate or fragmented publications. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86(5):743–745PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2003) Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication. http://www.icmje.org. Accessed 25 Feb 2013 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2003) Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication. http://​www.​icmje.​org. Accessed 25 Feb 2013
23.
go back to reference Lankhorst GJ, Franchignoni F (2001) The ‘impact factor’—an explanation and its application to rehabilitation journals. Clin Rehabil 15(2):115–118PubMedCrossRef Lankhorst GJ, Franchignoni F (2001) The ‘impact factor’—an explanation and its application to rehabilitation journals. Clin Rehabil 15(2):115–118PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Leong JCY (2004) Globalization in orthopedics. J Jpn Orthop Assoc 78(3):S1 Leong JCY (2004) Globalization in orthopedics. J Jpn Orthop Assoc 78(3):S1
25.
go back to reference Leopold SS, Warme WJ, Fritz Braunlich E, Shott S (2003) Association between funding source and study outcome in orthopaedic research. Clin Orthop Relat Res 415:293–301 Leopold SS, Warme WJ, Fritz Braunlich E, Shott S (2003) Association between funding source and study outcome in orthopaedic research. Clin Orthop Relat Res 415:293–301
26.
go back to reference Lynch JR, Cunningham MR, Warme WJ, Schaad DC, Wolf FM, Leopold SS (2007) Commercially funded and United States-based research is more likely to be published; good-quality studies with negative outcomes are not. J Bone Joint Surg 89(5):1010–1018PubMedCrossRef Lynch JR, Cunningham MR, Warme WJ, Schaad DC, Wolf FM, Leopold SS (2007) Commercially funded and United States-based research is more likely to be published; good-quality studies with negative outcomes are not. J Bone Joint Surg 89(5):1010–1018PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Obremskey WT, Pappas N, Attallah-Wasif E, Tornetta P III, Bhandari M (2005) Level of evidence in orthopaedic journals. J Bone Joint Surg 87(12):2632–2638PubMedCrossRef Obremskey WT, Pappas N, Attallah-Wasif E, Tornetta P III, Bhandari M (2005) Level of evidence in orthopaedic journals. J Bone Joint Surg 87(12):2632–2638PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Okike K, Kocher MS, Mehlman CT, Heckman JD, Bhandari M (2008) Publication bias in orthopaedic research: an analysis of scientific factors associated with publication in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume). J Bone Joint Surg 90(3):595–601PubMedCrossRef Okike K, Kocher MS, Mehlman CT, Heckman JD, Bhandari M (2008) Publication bias in orthopaedic research: an analysis of scientific factors associated with publication in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume). J Bone Joint Surg 90(3):595–601PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Perez EA, Yates AJ (2000) Positive outcomes in the orthopaedic literature. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons. Orlando, FL Perez EA, Yates AJ (2000) Positive outcomes in the orthopaedic literature. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons. Orlando, FL
30.
go back to reference Pines A, Mijatovic V, van der Mooren MJ, Kenemans P (1997) Hormone replacement therapy and cardioprotection: basic concepts and clinical considerations. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 71:193–197PubMedCrossRef Pines A, Mijatovic V, van der Mooren MJ, Kenemans P (1997) Hormone replacement therapy and cardioprotection: basic concepts and clinical considerations. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 71:193–197PubMedCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Rossouw JE, Anderson GL, Prentice RL, LaCroix AZ, Kooperberg C, Stefanick ML et al (2002) Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results from the Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA 288:321–333PubMedCrossRef Rossouw JE, Anderson GL, Prentice RL, LaCroix AZ, Kooperberg C, Stefanick ML et al (2002) Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results from the Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA 288:321–333PubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference Sambunjak D, Franic M (2012) Steps in the undertaking of a systematic review in orthopedic surgery. Int Orthop 36(3):477–484PubMedCrossRef Sambunjak D, Franic M (2012) Steps in the undertaking of a systematic review in orthopedic surgery. Int Orthop 36(3):477–484PubMedCrossRef
33.
go back to reference Schein M, Paladugu R (2001) Redundant surgical publications: tip of the iceberg? Surgery 129(6):655–661PubMedCrossRef Schein M, Paladugu R (2001) Redundant surgical publications: tip of the iceberg? Surgery 129(6):655–661PubMedCrossRef
34.
35.
go back to reference Tornetta P 3rd, Siegel J, McKay P, Bhandari M (2009) Authorship and ethical considerations in the conduct of observational studies. J Bone Joint Surg 91(Suppl 3):61–67PubMedCrossRef Tornetta P 3rd, Siegel J, McKay P, Bhandari M (2009) Authorship and ethical considerations in the conduct of observational studies. J Bone Joint Surg 91(Suppl 3):61–67PubMedCrossRef
36.
go back to reference Wright JG (2007) A practical guide to assigning levels of evidence. J Bone Joint Surg 89(5):1128–1130PubMedCrossRef Wright JG (2007) A practical guide to assigning levels of evidence. J Bone Joint Surg 89(5):1128–1130PubMedCrossRef
37.
go back to reference Wright JG, Swiontkowski MF, Tolo VT (2012) Meta-analyses and systematic reviews: new guidelines for JBJS. J Bone Joint Surg 94(17):1537PubMedCrossRef Wright JG, Swiontkowski MF, Tolo VT (2012) Meta-analyses and systematic reviews: new guidelines for JBJS. J Bone Joint Surg 94(17):1537PubMedCrossRef
38.
go back to reference Xue D, Zheng Q, Li H, Qian S, Zhang B, Pan Z (2011) Selective COX-2 inhibitor versus nonselective cox-1 and cox-2 inhibitor in the prevention of heterotopic ossification after total hip arthroplasty; a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Int Orthop 35:3–8PubMedCrossRef Xue D, Zheng Q, Li H, Qian S, Zhang B, Pan Z (2011) Selective COX-2 inhibitor versus nonselective cox-1 and cox-2 inhibitor in the prevention of heterotopic ossification after total hip arthroplasty; a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Int Orthop 35:3–8PubMedCrossRef
39.
go back to reference Zlowodzki M, Poolman RW, Kerkhoffs GM, Tornetta P 3rd, Bhandari M (2007) International evidence-based orthopedic surgery working group. How to interpret a meta-analysis and judge its value as a guide for clinical practice. Acta Orthop 78(5):598–609PubMedCrossRef Zlowodzki M, Poolman RW, Kerkhoffs GM, Tornetta P 3rd, Bhandari M (2007) International evidence-based orthopedic surgery working group. How to interpret a meta-analysis and judge its value as a guide for clinical practice. Acta Orthop 78(5):598–609PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Improvement of research quality in the fields of orthopaedics and trauma—a global perspective
Authors
Hangama C. Fayaz
Norbert Haas
James Kellam
Suthorn Bavonratanavech
Javad Parvizi
George Dyer
Tim Pohlemann
Jörg Jerosch
Karl-Josef Prommersberger
Hans Christoph Pape
Malcolm Smith
Marc Vrahas
Carsten Perka
Klaus Siebenrock
Bassem Elhassan
Christopher Moran
Jesse B. Jupiter
Publication date
01-07-2013
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
International Orthopaedics / Issue 7/2013
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-1897-2

Other articles of this Issue 7/2013

International Orthopaedics 7/2013 Go to the issue