Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27011857›Full record

ReviewJournal of hip preservation surgery2015

Level of clinical evidence presented at the International Society for Hip Arthroscopy Annual Scientific Meeting over 5 years (2010-2014).

Jeffrey Kay, Darren de Sa, Scott Shallow, Nicole Simunovic, Marc R Safran, Marc J Philippon, Olufemi R Ayeni

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of hip preservation surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The evolution of femoroacetabular impingement surgical management as a model for introducing new surgical techniques.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2020
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Authorship in the field of femoroacetabular impingement: an analysis of journal publications.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2017
    Article
  6. Article
  7. What do we mean when we say an operation works?Journal of hip preservation surgery · 2016
    Article
  8. So it is time.Journal of hip preservation surgery · 2015
    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

7 authors.

Jeffrey Kay1. Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine.
Darren de Sa2. Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery.
Scott Shallow1. Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine.
Nicole Simunovic3. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Marc R Safran4. Division of Orthopedic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA and.
Marc J Philippon5. Steadman Philippon Research Institute, Vail, CO, USA.
Olufemi R Ayeni2. Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The International Society for Hip Arthroscopy (ISHA) Annual Scientific Meeting is at the forefront of informing today's orthopaedic surgeons and society of the rapid advances in the exponentially growing field of hip arthroscopy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and observe any trends in the level of clinical evidence in the papers and posters presented at the ISHA Annual Scientific Meeting from 2010 to 2014. The online abstracts of the paper and poster presentations presented at the ISHA Annual Scientific Meetings were independently evaluated by two reviewers (582 total resulting presentations). Two reviewers screened these results for clinical studies and graded the quality of evidence from level I (i.e. randomized trials) to IV (i.e. case series) based on the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons classification system. Four hundred and twenty-eight presentations met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated. Overall, 10.1% of the presentations were level I, 12.8% were level II, 30.1% were level III and 47.0% were level IV evidence. Over time, from 2010 to 2014, we observed an increase in the percentage of level II paper presentations, an increase in the proportion of level III poster presentations, and a decrease in the proportion of both level IV paper and poster presentations. Significant non-random improvement in the level of evidence presented was noted for the poster presentations (P = 0.012) but not for the paper presentations (P = 0.61) over the study period. Statistical trends demonstrate ISHA's increased awareness and commitment to presenting higher quality evidence as the availability of this evidence increases.

Identifiers

PMID27011857
PMCPMC4732371

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.