ArticleSICOT-J2017
Impact of academic collaboration and quality of clinical orthopaedic research conducted in low- and middle-income countries.
Article in SICOT-J, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Networking in Orthopedics: Collaboration, Opportunities, Education, and Research in Orthopedics.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Article
- Mapping a Decade of Osteoporosis and Fracture Research: A Bibliometric Analysis (2015-2025).Journal of bone metabolism · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Statistical Fragility of Comparative Studies on Autografts for Pediatric ACL Reconstruction.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Critical elements of international academic partnerships in orthopaedic surgery: a modified Delphi approach.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2024Article
- Measuring post-discharge socioeconomic and quality of life outcomes in trauma patients: a scoping review.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2021Article
- Mapping breast cancer journal publications in conflict settings in the MENA region: a scoping review.Ecancermedicalscience · 2020Article
- The extent of pediatric orthopaedic research in low- and middle-income countries and the impact of academic collaboration on research quality: a scoping review.Pediatric surgery international · 2019Article
- Orthopaedic research in low-income countries: A bibliometric analysis of the current literature.SICOT-J · 2019Article
- The Institute for Global Orthopedics and Traumatology: A Model for Academic Collaboration in Orthopedic Surgery.Frontiers in public health · 2017Article
- The Current State of International Academic Partnerships in Orthopaedic Surgery Between High-Income and Low and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.JB & JS open accessReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLittle is known about the quality of orthopaedic investigations conducted in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Academic collaboration is one model to build research capacity and improve research quality. Our study aimed to determine (1) the quality of clinical orthopaedic research conducted in LMICs, (2) the World Bank Regions and LMICs that publish the highest quality studies, (3) the pattern of collaboration among investigators and (4) whether academic collaboration between LMIC and non-LMIC investigators is associated with studies that have higher levels of evidence.
methodsOrthopaedic studies from 2004 to 2014 conducted in LMICs were extracted from multiple electronic databases. The World Bank Region, level of evidence and author country-affiliation were recorded. Collaboration was defined as a study that included an LMIC with non-LMIC investigator.
resultsThere were 958 studies that met inclusion criteria of 22,714 searched. Ninety-seven (10.1%) of included studies achieved Level 1 or 2 evidence, but case series (52.3%) were the most common. Collaboration occurred in 14.4% of studies and the vast majority of these (88.4%) were among academic institutions. Collaborative studies were more likely to be Level 1 or 2 (20.3% vs. 8.4%, p < 0.01), prospective (34.8% vs. 22.9% p = 0.04) and controlled (29.7% vs. 14.4%, p < 0.01) compared to non-collaborative studies.
conclusionsAlthough orthopaedic studies in LMICs rarely reach Level 1 or 2 evidence, studies published through academic collaboration between LMIC and non-LMIC investigators are associated with higher levels of evidence and more prospective, controlled designs.
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.