Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25674510›Full record

ArticleSpringerPlus2015

CHAracteristics of research studies that iNfluence practice: a GEneral survey of Canadian orthopaedic Surgeons (CHANGES): a pilot survey.

Darren de Sa, Patrick Thornley, Nathan Evaniew, Kim Madden, Mohit Bhandari, Michelle Ghert

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SpringerPlus, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The 50 most cited studies on trochleoplasty.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The Journal Impact Factor of Orthopaedic Journals Does not Predict Individual Paper Citation Rate.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2017
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Darren de SaDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, HHS Hamilton General Hospital, 237 Barton Street, Hamilton, ON Canada L8L 2X2.
Patrick Thornley *Faculty of Health Sciences, Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON Canada.
Nathan Evaniew *Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, HHS Hamilton General Hospital, 237 Barton Street, Hamilton, ON Canada L8L 2X2.
Kim Madden *Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario Canada.
Mohit Bhandari *Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, HHS Hamilton General Hospital, 237 Barton Street, Hamilton, ON Canada L8L 2X2.
Michelle Ghert *Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, HHS Hamilton General Hospital, 237 Barton Street, Hamilton, ON Canada L8L 2X2.
McMaster University · CAHamilton General Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence Based Medicine (EBM) is increasingly being applied to inform clinical decision-making in orthopaedic surgery. Despite the promotion of EBM in Orthopaedic Surgery, the adoption of results from high quality clinical research seems highly unpredictable and does not appear to be driven strictly by randomized trial data. The objective of this study was to pilot a survey to determine if we could identify surgeon opinions on the characteristics of research studies that are perceived as being most likely to influence clinical decision-making among orthopaedic surgeons in Canada.

methodsA 28-question electronic survey was distributed to active members of the Canadian Orthopaedic Association (COA) over a period of 11 weeks. The questionnaire sought to analyze the influence of both extrinsic and intrinsic characteristics of research studies and their potential to influence practice patterns. Extrinsic factors included the perceived journal quality and investigator profiles, economic impact, peer/patient/industry influence and individual surgeon residency/fellowship training experiences. Intrinsic factors included study design, sample size, and outcomes reported. Descriptive statistics are provided.

resultsOf the 109 members of the COA who opened the survey, 95 (87%) completed the survey in its entirety. The overall response rate was 11% (95/841). Surgeons achieved consensus on the influence of three key designs on their practices: 1) randomized controlled trials 94 (99%), 2) meta-analysis 83 (87%), and 3) systematic reviews 81 (85%). Sixty-seven percent of surgeons agreed that studies with sample sizes of 101-500 or more were more likely to influence clinical practice than smaller studies (n = <100). Factors other than design influencing adoption included 1) reputation of the investigators (99%) and 2) perceived quality of the journal (75%).

conclusionAlthough study design and sample size (i.e. minimum of 100 patients) have some influence on clinical decision making, surgeon respondents are equally influenced by investigator reputation and perceived journal quality. At present, continued emphasis on the generation of large, methodologically sound clinical trials remains paramount to translating research findings to clinical practice changes. Specific to this pilot survey, strategies to solicit more widespread responses will be pursued.

Indexed as

Clinical practiceEvidence-based medicineOrthopaedic surgeryPatient care

Identifiers

PMID25674510
PMCPMC4320200
OpenAlexW2102274729

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.