ReviewClinical orthopaedics and related research2014
What are the levels of evidence on which we base decisions for surgical management of lower extremity bone tumors?
Review in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01479283 (Prophylactic Antibiotic Regimens in Tumor Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Prophylactic Antibiotic Regimens in Tumor Surgery (PARITY): A Multi-Center International Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Alternative Antibiotic Regimens in Patients Undergoing Tumor Resections With Endoprosthetic Replacements
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Treatment strategies for central low-grade chondrosarcoma of long bones: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis.Musculoskeletal surgery · 2018Pooled it
- Recruitment patterns in a large international randomized controlled trial of perioperative care in cancer patients.Trials · 2021Trial
- The Benefit of an Umbrella Protocol: Reducing Challenges in Orthopedic Oncology Research.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Birth order, sibship size, and risk of atopic dermatitis, food allergy, and atopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical and translational allergy · 2023Review
- Difficulties of Management of Multiple Synchronous Bone Tumors in Li-Fraumeni Syndrome.Case reports in orthopedics · 2019Article
- Is there consensus regarding surgical treatment of bone sarcomas?World journal of orthopedics · 2018Article
- Moving Forward Through Consensus: A Modified Delphi Approach to Determine the Top Research Priorities in Orthopaedic Oncology.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2017Article
- Barriers and facilitators experienced in collaborative prospective research in orthopaedic oncology: A qualitative study.Bone & joint research · 2017Article
- Has the Level of Evidence of Podium Presentations at the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Annual Meeting Changed Over Time?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2017Article
- Article
- Prophylactic antibiotic regimens in tumour surgery (PARITY): a pilot multicentre randomised controlled trial.Bone & joint research · 2015Article
- Editor's Spotlight/Take 5: What are the levels of evidence on which we base decisions for surgical management of lower extremity bone tumors?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2014Article
- Orthopedic oncology - "the challenges ahead".Frontiers in surgery · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBenign and malignant lower extremity primary bone tumors are among the least common conditions treated by orthopaedic surgeons. The literature supporting their surgical management has historically been in the form of observational studies rather than prospective controlled studies. Observational studies are prone to confounding bias, sampling bias, and recall bias. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What are the overall levels of evidence of articles published on the surgical management of lower extremity bone tumors? (2) What is the overall quality of reporting of studies in this field based on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist? (3) What are the most common pitfalls in reporting that authors might improve on?
methodsAll studies describing the surgical management of lower extremity primary bone tumors from 2002 to 2012 were systematically reviewed. Two authors independently appraised levels of evidence. Quality of reporting was assessed with the STROBE checklist. Pitfalls in reporting were quantified by determining the 10 most underreported elements of research study design in the group of studies analyzed, again using the STROBE checklist as the reference standard. Of 1387 studies identified, 607 met eligibility criteria.
resultsThere were no Level I studies, two Level II studies, 47 Level III studies, 308 Level IV studies, and 250 Level V studies. The mean percentage of STROBE points reported satisfactorily in each article as graded by the two reviewers was 53% (95% confidence interval, 42%-63%). The most common pitfalls in reporting were failures to justify sample size (2.2% reported), examine sensitivity (2.2%), account for missing data (9.8%), and discuss sources of bias (14%). Followup (66%), precision of outcomes (64%), eligibility criteria (55%), and methodological limitations (53%) were variably reported.
conclusionsObservational studies are the dominant evidence for the surgical management of primary lower extremity bone tumors. Numerous deficiencies in reporting limit their clinical use. Authors may use these results to inform future work and improve reporting in observational studies, and treating surgeons should be aware of these limitations when choosing among the various options with their patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.