A survey of orthopaedic journal editors determining the criteria of manuscript selection for publication

Background: To investigate the characteristics of editors and criteria used by orthopaedic journal editors in assessing submitted manuscripts. Methods: Between 2008 to 2009 all 70 editors of Medline listed orthopaedic journals were approached prospectively with a questionnaire to determine the criteria used in assessing manuscripts for publication. Results: There was a 42% response rate. There was 1 female editor and the rest were male with 57% greater than 60 years of age. 67% of the editors worked in university teaching hospitals and 90% of publications were in English.The review process differed between journals with 59% using a review proforma, 52% reviewing an anonymised manuscript, 76% using a routine statistical review and 59% of journals used 2 reviewers routinely. In 89% of the editors surveyed, the editor was able to overrule the final decision of the reviewers.Important design factors considered for manuscript acceptance were that the study conclusions were justified (80%), that the statistical analysis was appropriate (76%), that the findings could change practice (72%). The level of evidence (70%) and type of study (62%) were deemed less important. When asked what factors were important in the manuscript influencing acceptance, 73% cited an understandable manuscript, 53% cited a well written manuscript and 50% a thorough literature review as very important factors. Conclusions: The editorial and review process in orthopaedic journals uses different approaches. There may be a risk of language bias among editors of orthopaedic journals with under-representation of non-English publications in the orthopaedic literature

Do journals raise their impact factor or SCImago Ranking by self-citing in editorials? A bibliometric analysis of trauma and orthopaedic journals

Background: Impact factor (IF) is widely accepted as a measure of a journal's quality but it can be influenced by self-citation. However, the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) is based on journal prestige, excludes self-citation and considers quality of citations of a journal. This study aimed to investigate journal editors' use of self-citation and whether this correlated with IFs or SJR in trauma and orthopaedic (T&O) journals. Methods: T&O journals on the SJR database were identified. From each journal, data including country of publication, number of annual issues, IF, SJR indicator and citable articles were extracted. The editorial(s) of each issue in 2018 were reviewed. The total number of times the editors cited their own previous work or their journal (in the preceding 2 years, 2016–2017) were identified. Regression analyses were performed to investigate the association of editorial self-citation with journal IF or SJR indicator. Results: Of the 270 journals identified, 43 T&O journals with 151 editorials were included in the final analysis. A positive correlation between journal self-citation in the editorial and IF (P = 0.02) and SJR indicator (P = 0.02) was found. Citation by editors of their own publications within editorials also positively correlated with IF (P = 0.04) but not for SJR indicator (P = 0.19). There was a positive linear relationship between journal IF and SJR indicators (P < 0.01). Conclusion: Editor self-citation influences the IF and SJR indicators in T&O journals. Therefore, these metrics should be considered in conjunction with other factors such as audience, topics included and international presence when evaluating journals

Arthroscopic washout of the knee: a procedure in decline.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee is a chronic, progressive condition which often requires surgical intervention. The evidence for the benefits of arthroscopic debridement or washout for knee OA is weak and arthroscopy is currently only indicated in the UK if there is a history of mechanical locking of the knee. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether there has been any change in the number of arthroscopies performed in the UK since the 2007 NICE guidance on knee arthroscopy and the 2008 Cochrane review of arthroscopic debridement for OA of the knee. METHODS: We interrogated data from the Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) database with Office of Population Censuses and Surveys-4 (OPSC-4) codes pertaining to therapeutic endoscopic operations in the 60-74 year old and 75 and over age groups. RESULTS: The number of arthroscopic knee interventions in the UK decreased overall from 2000 to 2012, with arthroscopic irrigations decreasing the most by 39.6 per 100,000 population (80%). However, the number of arthroscopic meniscal resections increased by 105.3 per 100,000 (230%) population. These trends were mirrored in both the 60-74 and 75 and over age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Knee arthroscopy in the 60-74 and 75 and over age groups appears to be decreasing but there is still a large and increasing number of arthroscopic meniscal resections being performed

Randomised controlled trial of a behaviour change physiotherapy intervention to increase physical activity following hip and knee replacement: the PEP-TALK trial

OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness of a behaviour change physiotherapy intervention to increase physical activity compared with usual rehabilitation after Total Hip Replacement (THR) or Total Knee Replacement (TKR). DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic, two-arm, open, randomised controlled, superiority trial SETTING National Health Service providers in nine English hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: 224 individuals aged >18 years, undergoing a primary THR or TKR deemed “moderately inactive” or “inactive”. INTERVENTION: Participants received either six, 30-minute, weekly, group-based exercise sessions (usual care), or the same six-weekly, group-based, exercise sessions each preceded by a 30-minute cognitive behaviour discussion group aimed at challenging barriers to physical inactivity following surgery (experimental). RANDOMISATION & BLINDING: Initial 75 participants were randomised 1:1 before changing the allocation ratio to 2:1 (experimental:usual care). Allocation was based on minimisation, stratifying on comorbidities, operation type and hospital. There was no blinding. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary: UCLA Activity Score at 12 months. Secondary: six and 12 month assessed function, pain, self-efficacy, kinesiophobia, psychological distress and quality of life. RESULTS: Of the 1254 participants assessed for eligibility, 224 were included (139 experimental:85 usual care). Mean age was 68.4 years (standard deviation: 8.7), 63% were female, 52% underwent TKR. There was no between-group difference in UCLA score (mean difference: -0.03 (95% CI: -0.52 to 0.45, p=0.89)). There were no differences observed in any of the secondary outcomes at six or 12 months. There were no important adverse events in either group. The COVID-19 pandemic contributed to the reduced intended sample size (target 260) and reduced intervention compliance. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence to suggest attending usual care physiotherapy sessions plus a group-based behaviour change intervention differs to attending usual care physiotherapy alone. As the trial could not reach its intended sample size, nor a proportion of participants receive their intended rehabilitation, this should be interpreted with caution

Difficulty in diagnosing the pathological nature of an acute fracture of the clavicle: a case report

Fractures of the clavicle comprise between 5% to10% of all fractures. Medial clavicular fractures are uncommon and are normally caused by high-energy trauma. A low impact mechanism of injury should raise suspicion of a pathological fracture, but this case report highlights the difficulty in diagnosing the pathological nature of an acute fracture of the clavicle. We describe a patient who presented with a medial clavicular fracture after a simple fall but the fracture was diagnosed as pathological in retrospect four months after the initial presentation. We would also like to emphasise that the medial clavicle is the most frequent site of pathological fractures of the clavicle, and the possibility of an underlying pathological condition should be considered whenever a patient with a medial clavicular fracture is encountered

Are bisphosphonates effective in the treatment of osteoarthritis pain? A meta-analysis and systematic review.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis worldwide. Pain and reduced function are the main symptoms in this prevalent disease. There are currently no treatments for OA that modify disease progression; therefore analgesic drugs and joint replacement for larger joints are the standard of care. In light of several recent studies reporting the use of bisphosphonates for OA treatment, our work aimed to evaluate published literature to assess the effectiveness of bisphosphonates in OA treatment

Barriers and facilitators to primary care research: views of GP trainees and trainers

Background: Primary care plays an important role in the conception and delivery of transformational research but GP engagement lacks, prompting calls for the promotion of academic opportunities in primary care. Aim: To identify potential barriers and facilitators amongst GP trainees and trainers in primary care research to inform support given by Local Clinical Research Networks (LCRNs). Design & setting: A cross sectional online survey was developed and distributed by the CRN to GP trainees and trainers in the North East and North West. Method: The survey covered areas including demographics, career intentions, current and potential engagement with research as well as their general understanding of research in primary care, that included barriers and facilitators to primary care research. Results: Trainees had low intentionality to pursue research and half of trainees did not engage with any research activity. Despite 1 in five trainees reporting intentions to include research in their career, only 1% would undertake a solely academic career. Medical school region is the only strongly associated factor with academic career intention. Just under 30% of trainers reported engagement in research, but far fewer (8.6%) were interested in contributing to research, and only 10% felt prepared to mentor in research. Conclusion: Among trainees, there is limited engagement in, and intentionality to pursue research and this is crucially reflected by responses from trainers. This study identifies the need for LCRN’s to assist with training in research mentoring and skills, funding opportunities and to develop resources to promote research in primary care