A systematic survey of the quality of research reporting in general orthopaedic journals

Abstract

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.

The reporting quality of parallel randomised controlled trials in ophthalmic surgery in 2011: a systematic review

“…Inter-item variability appears globally consistent across other specialties. [20][21][22][23][24][25]28 In our study, over 90% of RCTs adequately reported scientific background and explaining rationale (item 2), reporting objectives or hypotheses (item 5), and interpreting results in the context of current evidence (item 22). This might be considered unsurprising, as these items represent the better recognised and readily achievable standards in the reporting of RCTs.…”

“…Despite this, the mean score was only 8. Suboptimal compliance of RCT reporting to CONSORT is also found across many other surgical specialties including urological surgery, 20 general surgery, 21 neurosurgery, 22 orthopaedic surgery, 23 plastic surgery, 24 and vascular surgery, 20 as well as medical specialties such as cardiology. 25 The deficiencies identified in previous studies include particularly poor reporting of randomisation implementation, masking status, and healthcare providers.…”

“…Similar findings have been found in a wide range of surgical specialties. [20][21][22][23][24]28 Although most RCTs reported at least one aspect described by the item, a common reason for failure to score on an item was a failure to report all aspects highlighted by that item. The least reported item was related to the title and abstract (item 1).…”

Impact factors of orthopaedic journals between 2000 and 2010: trends and comparisons with other surgical specialties

“…Studies have highlighted widespread weaknesses in published orthopaedic research [23][24][25]. Parsons et al recently noted poor compliance to published guidance for the reporting of clinical research (CONSORT and STROBE) and a general lack of statistical rigour in orthopaedic research [24].…”

“…Studies have highlighted widespread weaknesses in published orthopaedic research [23][24][25]. Parsons et al recently noted poor compliance to published guidance for the reporting of clinical research (CONSORT and STROBE) and a general lack of statistical rigour in orthopaedic research [24]. Okike et al showed that studies with a high level of evidence, large sample size, representation from multiple institutions and conflict of interest disclosure are associated with higher citation rates, on which IF depends [26].…”