Levels of Evidence in Foot and Ankle Surgery Literature: Progress from 2000 to 2010?

Zaidi, Razi; Abbassian, Ali; Cro, Suzie; Guha, A.; Cullen, Nicholas; Singh, Dishan; Goldberg, Andy

doi:10.2106/jbjs.k.01453

Cited by 39 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is in contrast to LOE improvement demonstrated among orthopaedic publications [12,21,33] and other subspecialties [18,41,50].…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 78%

“…Since 2001, the LOE of clinical research presented at the AAOS and OTA annual meetings has increased [41,46]. Over this same time period, multiple orthopaedic subspecialty journals have demonstrated an increased emphasis on high-level study design and have subsequently increased the average LOE of articles published [10,18,21,29,33,50]. It was not known whether the research presented at the leading North American orthopaedic oncology meeting had kept pace with the changes observed in other orthopaedic subspecialties.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although we acknowledge that the MSTS is not the only venue for orthopaedic oncology clinical research and that a minority of podium presentations are ultimately published [23,43], we do believe it is a representative sample of surgical academia in North America. In contrast to other orthopaedic subspecialties, oncology lacks a dedicated journal, eliminating subspecialty-specific publications as a potential resource for LOE evaluations [18,29,50]. Although Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 1 is the official journal of the MSTS, its publication of orthopaedic oncology research is neither comprehensive nor exclusive.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Has the Level of Evidence of Podium Presentations at the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Annual Meeting Changed Over Time?

Lerman

Cable

Thornley

et al. 2017

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Level of evidence (LOE) framework is a tool with which to categorize clinical studies based on their likelihood to be influenced by bias. Improvements in LOE have been demonstrated throughout orthopaedics, prompting our evaluation of orthopaedic oncology research LOE to determine if it has changed in kind. Questions/purposes (1) Has the LOE presented at the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) annual meeting improved over time? (2) Over the past decade, how do the MSTS and Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) annual meetings compare regarding LOE overall and for the subset of therapeutic studies? Methods We reviewed abstracts from MSTS and OTA annual meeting podium presentations from 2005 to 2014. Three independent reviewers evaluated a total of 1222 abstracts for study type and LOE; there were 577 abstracts from MSTS and 645 from OTA. Changes in the distributions of study type and LOE over time were evaluated by Pearson chi-square test. Results There was no change over time in MSTS LOE for all study types (p = 0.13) and therapeutic (p = 0.36) study types during the reviewed decade. In contrast, OTA LOE increased over this time for all study types (p \ 0.01). The proportion of Level I therapeutic studies was higher at the OTA than the MSTS (3% [14 of 413] versus 0.5% [two of 387], respectively), whereas the proportion of Level IV studies was lower at the OTA than the MSTS (32% [134 of 413] versus 75% [292 of 387], respectively) during the reviewed decade. The proportion of controlled therapeutic studies (LOE I through III) versus uncontrolled studies (LOE IV) increased over time at OTA (p \ 0.021), but not at MSTS (p = 0.10). Conclusions Uncontrolled case series continue to dominate the MSTS scientific program, limiting progress in

show abstract

“…This is in contrast to LOE improvement demonstrated among orthopaedic publications [12,21,33] and other subspecialties [18,41,50].…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 78%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Has the Level of Evidence of Podium Presentations at the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Annual Meeting Changed Over Time?

Lerman

Cable

Thornley

et al. 2017

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our findings are not unique in the orthopaedic literature. In their review of the Foot and Ankle literature from 2000 to 2010, Zaidi et al [38] showed a similar preponderance of observational studies with Level III to V data comprising over 89% of the published literature in that field. Samuelsson et al [28] identified in their review of ACL reconstruction studies that Level III to V studies made up 81% of all reports between 1995 and 2011.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Retrospective controlled studies were graded as Level III and retrospective uncontrolled studies were classified as ''case series'' and graded Level IV [36]. Case reports were included in the analysis and graded as Level V [13,38].…”

Section: Levels Of Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

What Are the Levels of Evidence on Which We Base Decisions for Surgical Management of Lower Extremity Bone Tumors?

Evaniew

Nuttall

Farrokhyar

et al. 2014

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Evaluating Strength of Evidence of Pediatric Otolaryngology Research Literature: A 20‐Year Review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives/Hypothesis: Quantity and quality of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (OTL-HNS) research are increasing, yet patterns within Pediatric OTL-HNS publications are unknown. This study examines trends in the level of evidence of pediatric OTL-HNS articles over a 20-year period to quantify the growth and characterize contributing factors.Study Design: Review article. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted on 12 peer-reviewed OTL-HNS journals at three time-points: 1996, 2006, and 2016. Pediatric-specific OTL-HNS journals were selected; all were among the top 10 highest impact factor journals, with one pediatric-specific and one Canadian journal. Publication details, author characteristics, and study focus were collected. Papers were classified based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence by two independent reviewers.Results: Of the 1,733 articles reviewed, 727 met inclusion criteria. A greater absolute number of pediatric OTL-HNS articles were published over the years studied: from 95 in 1996 to 359 in 2016 (P < .001). As well, the absolute number of high-quality studies has increased over the study period, from 28 articles in 1996 to 100 articles in 2016. However, the relative percentage of high-quality papers remained stable between 27.9% and 32.2% with an average of 29.7% (P = .89). Higher impact factor journals did not tend to publish higher-quality pediatric OTL-HNS articles (P = .48).Conclusions: Over the past 20 years, there is no appreciable improvement in the proportion of high-quality publications in pediatric OTL-HNS; however, there is an overall greater number of high-quality papers within OTL-HNS literature. These findings likely relate to challenges of research within pediatric surgical specialties.

show abstract

Levels of Evidence in Foot and Ankle Surgery Literature: Progress from 2000 to 2010?

Abstract: There has been a trend toward higher levels of evidence in foot and ankle surgery literature over a decade, but the differences did not reach significance.

Cited by 39 publications

References 15 publications

Has the Level of Evidence of Podium Presentations at the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Annual Meeting Changed Over Time?

Has the Level of Evidence of Podium Presentations at the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Annual Meeting Changed Over Time?

What Are the Levels of Evidence on Which We Base Decisions for Surgical Management of Lower Extremity Bone Tumors?

Evaluating Strength of Evidence of Pediatric Otolaryngology Research Literature: A 20‐Year Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About