Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27896395›Full record

ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2017

Level of evidence of free papers presented at the European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy congress from 2008 to 2016.

Jeffrey Kay, Muzammil Memon, Joelle Rogozinsky, Nicole Simunovic, Romain Seil, Jon Karlsson, Olufemi Rolland Ayeni

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Ten Years ofSports health
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Creation of a specialist core curriculum for the European Society for Sports traumatology, Knee surgery and Arthroscopy (ESSKA).Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2020
    Article
  5. Why ESSKA? On what it takes for orthopaedic surgeons and their scientific societies to adapt to societal changes in 2018.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2019
    Article
  6. Level of evidence and authorship trends of clinical studies in knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy, 1995-2015.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2018
    Review
  7. 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 KayMichael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Muzammil MemonMichael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Joelle RogozinskyDepartment of Medicine and School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Nicole SimunovicDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Romain SeilDépartement de l'Appareil Locomoteur, Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg.
Jon KarlssonDepartment of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden.
Olufemi Rolland AyeniDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. femiayeni@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy (ESSKA) congress is an important venue, and the research presented can be a critical source of information used to impact clinical decisions and health policies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the level of evidence of clinical free papers presented at the ESSKA congress from 2008 to 2016. Moreover, this study evaluated whether there were any changes in the distribution of level of evidence over time.

methodsTwo reviewers screened the free papers presented at the ESSKA biannual congresses 2008-2016 for clinical evidence. Clinical papers included observational studies and trials involving direct interaction between an investigator and human subjects. Biomechanical studies, technique demonstrations, cadaveric studies, and panel discussions were excluded. The reviewers independently graded their level of evidence from level I (e.g. high-quality randomized trials) to level IV (e.g. case series and reports) using the classification system published by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

resultsOf 1036 free papers that were identified, 729 met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated. Overall, 18% of studies were level I, 24% level II, 25% level III, and 33% level IV evidence. There was a significant improvement in level of evidence over time (p < 0.0001), with the proportion of level I studies increasing most dramatically (9% in 2008, 20% in 2012, 24% in 2016). Free papers studying the knee had higher levels of evidence than those evaluating other joints (p = 0.002).

conclusionThe level of evidence of clinical free papers presented at the ESSKA congress between 2008 and 2016 is high relative to other orthopaedic meetings. Moreover, there has been a significant improvement in the level of evidence over time. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review, Level IV.

Indexed as

Congresses as TopicPublishingEvidence-Based MedicineHumansOrthopedicsSocieties, ScientificESSKA congressEvidence-based medicineLevel of evidence

Identifiers

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.