Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of radiographic classification of acromioclavicular joint dislocations.

HYPOTHESIS AND BACKGROUND: The classification and treatment of acromioclavicular (AC) joint dislocations remain controversial. The purpose of this study was to determine the interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the Rockwood classification system. We hypothesized poor interobserver and intraobserver reliability, limiting the role of the Rockwood classification system in determining severity of AC joint dislocations and accurately guiding treatment decisions. METHODS: We identified 200 patients with AC joint injuries using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code 831.04. Fifty patients met inclusion criteria. Deidentified radiographs were compiled and presented to 6 fellowship-trained upper extremity orthopedic surgeons. The surgeons classified each patient into 1 of the 6 classification types described by Rockwood. A second review was performed several months later by 2 surgeons. A κ value was calculated to determine the interobserver and intraobserver reliability. RESULTS: The interobserver and intraobserver κ values were fair (κ = 0.278) and moderate (κ = 0.468), respectively. Interobserver results showed that 4 of the 50 radiographic images had a unanimous classification. Intraobserver results for the 2 surgeons showed that 18 of the 50 images were rated the same on second review by the first surgeon and 38 of the 50 images were rated the same on second review by the second surgeon. CONCLUSION: We found that the Rockwood classification system has limited interobserver and intraobserver reliability. We believe that unreliable classification may account for some of the inconsistent treatment outcomes among patients with similarly classified injuries. We suggest that a better classification system is needed to use radiographic imaging for diagnosis and treatment of AC joint dislocations.

Funding sources and financial disclosures, and their relationship to study outcomes and level of evidence in the Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery.

HYPOTHESIS/BACKGROUND: Concern exists regarding the reliability of published manuscripts due to influence of industry funding and author financial conflicts of interest (COI). We aim to determine whether COI affect the outcome of a research study or the level of evidence (LOE). METHODS: We reviewed 244 consecutive original articles in Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery from January 2014 to December 2014. Articles included only those available in the printed journal. For LOE, 178 articles from the Shoulder and Elbow section were used (basic science articles were excluded). COI was determined by comparing financial disclosures and stated funding sources to the study content. RESULTS: COI were present in 44 of 244 articles (18%); of these, 24 (55%) had positive outcomes. Of the 200 without COI, 128 (64%) had positive outcomes. This difference in proportions was determined to be significant (P = .007). COI were present in 27 shoulder and elbow articles; of these, only 1 was LOE I or II (4%). Of the 151 without COI, 34 (23%) were LOE I or II. This difference in proportions was determined to be significant (P = .023). CONCLUSION: We found that Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery articles with COI are neither more likely to have positive outcomes nor higher LOE than those with no COI. Although the χ2 analysis found a statistically significant relationship between COI and study outcomes, the study outcomes were more often positive in articles without COI. This is contrary to previously published analyses that found outcomes to be more positive in articles with COI.