ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2023
The interobserver reliability of clinical relevance in orthopaedic research.
Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of the relative differences in adverse events used for sample size calculations in orthopaedic trauma trials.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeA ratio of observed difference (OD) over the 95% confidence interval (CI) has been shown to be strongly associated with the perceived clinical relevance (CR) of medical research results. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between the OD/CI ratio and perceived CR in orthopaedic research.
methodsSixty-seven orthopaedic surgeons completed a survey with 15 study outcomes (mean difference and CI) and were asked if they perceived the findings as clinically relevant. The interobserver reliability of perceived CR and the association between CR and the OD/CI ratio and p-value were assessed.
resultsThe interobserver reliability of CR between respondents was moderate (kappa = 0.46, CI 0.45 to 0.48). P-values did not differ between results with and without CR (median difference (MD) - 0.12, CI - 0.74 to 0.0009, p = 0.07). The OD/CI ratio, however, was greater for results with CR (MD 1.01, CI 0.3 to 3.9, p = 0.004). The area under the curve (AUC) for the p-value and OD/CI ratio receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves was 0.80 (p = 0.01) and 0.97 (p = 0.0003). The cutoff p -value and OD/CI ratio that maximized the sensitivity (SN) and specificity (SP) for CR were 0.001 (SN 80%, SP 80%) and 0.84 (SN 100%, SP 90%). The SN and SP of a p-value cutoff of 0.05 was 100% and 50%.
conclusionThe interobserver reliability of the perceived CR of orthopaedic research findings was moderate. The OD/CI ratio, in contrast to the p-value, was strongly associated with perceived CR making it a potentially useful measure to evaluate research results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35922640What 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.