Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27105650›Full record

ArticleBone & joint research2016

An international survey to identify the intrinsic and extrinsic factors of research studies most likely to change orthopaedic practice.

P Thornley, D de Sa, N Evaniew, F Farrokhyar, M Bhandari, M Ghert

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Bone & joint research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Same knee, different goals: patients and surgeons have different priorities related to ACL reconstruction.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2021
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Orthopaedic Academic Activity in the United States: Bibliometric Analysis of Publications by City and State.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2018
    Article
  5. 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
  6. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

P ThornleyMcMaster University, 1280 Main Street West Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4L8, Canada.
D de SaMcMaster University, 1280 Main Street West Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4L8, Canada.
N EvaniewMcMaster University, 1280 Main Street West Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4L8, Canada.
F FarrokhyarMcMaster University, 39 Charlton Avenue East Hamilton, Ontario, L8N 1Y3, Canada.
M BhandariMcMaster University, 293 Wellington Street North Hamilton, Ontario, L8L 8E7, Canada.
M GhertMcMaster University, 711 Concession Street Level B3 Surgical Offices Hamilton, Ontario, L6J 4J9, Canada mghert@hhsc.ca.
McMaster University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesEvidence -based medicine (EBM) is designed to inform clinical decision-making within all medical specialties, including orthopaedic surgery. We recently published a pilot survey of the Canadian Orthopaedic Association (COA) membership and demonstrated that the adoption of EBM principles is variable among Canadian orthopaedic surgeons. The objective of this study was to conduct a broader international survey of orthopaedic surgeons to identify characteristics of research studies perceived as being most influential in informing clinical decision-making. MATERIALS AND

methodsA 29-question electronic survey was distributed to the readership of an established orthopaedic journal with international readership. The survey aimed to analyse the influence of both extrinsic (journal quality, investigator profiles, etc.) and intrinsic characteristics (study design, sample size, etc.) of research studies in relation to their influence on practice patterns.

resultsA total of 353 surgeons completed the survey. Surgeons achieved consensus on the 'importance' of three key designs on their practices: randomised controlled trials (94%), meta-analyses (75%) and systematic reviews (66%). The vast majority of respondents support the use of current evidence over historical clinical training; however subjective factors such as journal reputation (72%) and investigator profile (68%) continue to influence clinical decision-making strongly.

conclusionAlthough intrinsic factors such as study design and sample size have some influence on clinical decision-making, surgeon respondents are equally influenced by extrinsic factors such as investigator reputation and perceived journal quality.Cite this article: Dr M. Ghert. An international survey to identify the intrinsic and extrinsic factors of research studies most likely to change orthopaedic practice. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:130-136. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.54.2000578.

Indexed as

Clinical practiceEvidence-based medicineOrthopaedic surgeryPatient care

Identifiers

PMID27105650
PMCPMC4921052
OpenAlexW2339761664

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.