Positive-outcome bias was present during peer review. A fabricated manuscript with a positive outcome was more likely to be recommended for publication than was an otherwise identical no-difference manuscript.
Background
Surgeries employing arthroscopic techniques are among the most commonly performed in orthopaedic clinical practice however, valid and reliable methods of assessing the arthroscopic skill of orthopaedic surgeons are lacking.
Hypothesis
The Arthroscopic Surgery Skill Evaluation Tool (ASSET) will demonstrate content validity, concurrent criterion-oriented validity, and reliability, when used to assess the technical ability of surgeons performing diagnostic knee arthroscopy on cadaveric specimens.
Study Design
Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3
Methods
Content validity was determined by a group of seven experts using a Delphi process. Intra-articular performance of a right and left diagnostic knee arthroscopy was recorded for twenty-eight residents and two sports medicine fellowship trained attending surgeons. Subject performance was assessed by two blinded raters using the ASSET. Concurrent criterion-oriented validity, inter-rater reliability, and test-retest reliability were evaluated.
Results
Content validity: The content development group identified 8 arthroscopic skill domains to evaluate using the ASSET. Concurrent criterion-oriented validity: Significant differences in total ASSET score (p<0.05) between novice, intermediate, and advanced experience groups were identified. Inter-rater reliability: The ASSET scores assigned by each rater were strongly correlated (r=0.91, p <0.01) and the intra-class correlation coefficient between raters for the total ASSET score was 0.90. Test-retest reliability: there was a significant correlation between ASSET scores for both procedures attempted by each individual (r = 0.79, p<0.01).
Conclusion
The ASSET appears to be a useful, valid, and reliable method for assessing surgeon performance of diagnostic knee arthroscopy in cadaveric specimens. Studies are ongoing to determine its generalizability to other procedures as well as to the live OR and other simulated environments.
The concept of impingement syndrome was originally introduced to cover the full range of rotator cuff disorders, as it was recognized that rotator cuff tendinosis, partial tears, and complete tears could not be reliably differentiated by clinical signs alone. The current availability of sonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and arthroscopy now enable these conditions to be accurately differentiated. Nonoperative and operative treatments are currently being used for the different rotator cuff abnormalities. Future clinical investigations can now focus on the indications for and the outcome of treatments for the specific rotator cuff diagnoses. It may be time to replace the nonspecific diagnosis of so-called impingement syndrome by using modern methods to differentiate tendinosis, partial tears, and complete tears of the rotator cuff.
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.