Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23758875›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2013

Risk of bias of randomized controlled trials published in orthopaedic journals.

Laura E Chess, Joel Gagnier

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Biomechanically superior treatments do not translate into improved outcomes in randomized controlled trials.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Efficacy Evaluation of High-Dose Atorvastatin Pretreatment in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2018
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Endoscopic spine surgery: a bibliometric and citation analysis of the most influential articles and authors across 19 spine journals (1976-2025).European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Assessment of 30 Years of Randomized Controlled Trials inOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2023
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Efficacy of antimicrobial washes before shoulder surgery againstJSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2022
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Laura E ChessWayne State University School of Medicine, Canfield Dr,, Detroit, MI 48201, USA. lchess@med.wayne.edu
Joel Gagnier

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe purpose of this study was to assess the quality of methodology in orthopaedics-related randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from January 2006 to December 2010 in the top orthopaedic journals based on impact scores from the Thompson ISI citation reports (2010).

methodsJournals included American Journal of Sports Medicine; Journal of Orthopaedic Research; Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American; Spine Journal; and Osteoarthritis and Cartilage. Each RCT was assessed on ten criteria (randomization method, allocation sequence concealment, participant blinding, outcome assessor blinding, outcome measurement, interventionist training, withdrawals, intent to treat analyses, clustering, and baseline characteristics) as having empirical evidence for biasing treatment effect estimates when not performed properly.

resultsA total of 232 RCTs met our inclusion criteria. The proportion of RCTs in published journals fell from 6% in 2006 to 4% in 2010. Forty-nine percent of the criteria were fulfilled across these journals, with 42% of the criteria not being amendable to assessment due to inadequate reporting. The results of our regression revealed that a more recent publication year was significantly associated with more fulfilled criteria (β = 0.171; CI = -0.00 to 0.342; p = 0.051).

conclusionIn summary, very few studies met all ten criteria. Thus, many of these studies likely have biased estimates of treatment effects. In addition, these journals had poor reporting of important methodological aspects.

Indexed as

BiasOrthopedicsFemaleHumansJournal Impact FactorMalePublishingRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID23758875
PMCPMC3724580

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.