The poor reporting and use of statistical methods in orthopaedic papers has been widely discussed by both clinicians and statisticians. A detailed review of research published in general orthopaedic journals was undertaken to assess the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting. A representative sample of 100 papers was assessed for compliance to CONSORT and STROBE guidelines and the quality of the statistical reporting was assessed using a validated questionnaire. Overall compliance with CONSORT and STROBE guidelines in our study was 59% and 58% respectively, with very few papers fulfilling all criteria. In 37% of papers patient numbers were inadequately reported; 20% of papers introduced new statistical methods in the 'results' section not previously reported in the 'methods' section, and 23% of papers reported no measurement of error with the main outcome measure. Taken together, these issues indicate a general lack of statistical rigour and are consistent with similar reviews undertaken in a number of other scientific and clinical research disciplines. It is imperative that the orthopaedic research community strives to improve the quality of reporting; a failure to do so could seriously limit the development of future research.
BackgroundThe application of statistics in reported research in trauma and orthopaedic surgery has become ever more important and complex. Despite the extensive use of statistical analysis, it is still a subject which is often not conceptually well understood, resulting in clear methodological flaws and inadequate reporting in many papers.MethodsA detailed statistical survey sampled 100 representative orthopaedic papers using a validated questionnaire that assessed the quality of the trial design and statistical analysis methods.ResultsThe survey found evidence of failings in study design, statistical methodology and presentation of the results. Overall, in 17% (95% confidence interval; 10–26%) of the studies investigated the conclusions were not clearly justified by the results, in 39% (30–49%) of studies a different analysis should have been undertaken and in 17% (10–26%) a different analysis could have made a difference to the overall conclusions.ConclusionIt is only by an improved dialogue between statistician, clinician, reviewer and journal editor that the failings in design methodology and analysis highlighted by this survey can be addressed.
Intra-operative, peri-articular injection of local anaesthesia is an increasingly popular way of controlling pain following total knee replacement. At the same time, the problems associated with allogenic blood transfusion have led to interest in alternative methods for managing blood loss after total knee replacement, including the use of auto-transfusion of fluid from the patient's surgical drain. It is safe to combine peri-articular infiltration with auto-transfusion from the drain. We performed a randomised clinical trial to compare the concentration of local anaesthetic in the blood and in the fluid collected in the knee drain in patients having either a peri-articular injection or a femoral nerve block. Clinically relevant concentrations of local anaesthetic were found in the fluid from the drains of patients having peri-articular injections (4.92 μg/ml (sd 3.151)). However, none of the patients having femoral nerve blockade had detectable levels. None of the patients in either group had clinically relevant concentrations of local anaesthetic in their blood after re-transfusion. The evidence from this study suggests that it is safe to use peri-articular injection in combination with auto-transfusion of blood from peri-articular drains during knee replacement surgery.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.