Harms-related data are poorly reported among randomized controlled trials underpinning the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons clinical practice guideline recommendations for rotator cuff injuries.

BACKGROUND: Results produced from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) help guide clinical decision making and health policy. Therefore, it is essential that RCT outcomes- including harms (eg, adverse events)-are adequately reported such that clinicians, patients, and policy makers are equipped with all necessary information to complete risk-benefit assessment of the RCT's intervention. Here, we evaluated the quality of reporting of harms (eg, adverse events) in RCTs cited as supporting evidence for recommendations in the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) Management of Rotator Cuff Injuries clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Extension for Harms Checklist. METHODS: To quantify adherence to CONSORT Extension for Harms items, each RCT was screened for pertinent information satisfying each checklist item. Screening of CPG reference sections for RCTs underpinning CPG recommendations, as well as data extraction from each of the included RCTs, was performed in a blind and duplicate manner. Descriptive statistics-including frequencies, percentages, and 95% confidence intervals-were used to summarize overall percent adherence to checklist items. A linear regression model assessed the relationship of CONSORT Harms reporting over time. RESULTS: Ninety-nine RCTs were included in our final sample. Fifty-seven RCTs (of 99; 57.6%) were conducted at a single center. Common funding sources included private (nonindustry) (17/99; 17.2%), private (industry) (8/99; 8.1%), and public (7/99; 7.1%) sources. Sample size for each trial most often consisted of <50 participants (29/99; 29.3%) or 51-100 participants (50/99; 50.5%). The average number of CONSORT Extension for Harms items adequately reported across all included RCTs was 5.7 (of 18; 31.7%). None of the included trials reported all 18 items. Twenty-six RCTs (of 99; 26.3%) adequately reported ≥50% of eligible checklist items. Fifty-nine RCTs (of 99; 59.6%) adequately reported ≤33% of eligible checklist items. Items with ≥50% adherence included item 2, item 7a, and item 8a. Items with ≤20% adherence included item 3b, item 4d, and item 5. Results from our linear regression demonstrated a slight, yet nonsignificant, improvement in adherence to the Harms Extension over time (R2 = 0.009; P = .407). CONCLUSIONS: Our results illustrate the poor state of harms reporting within RCTs cited as supporting evidence for the AAOS Management of Rotator Cuff Injuries CPG. Efforts to address these gaps in reporting are warranted, as complete knowledge of potential harms is critical to patients, clinicians, and health policy makers when determining best practice decisions in orthopedic surgery.

Inadequate Reporting of Complications in Randomized Controlled Trials Cited as Supporting Evidence Underpinning AAOS CPG Recommendations for Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis: Application of the CONSORT Harms Checklist.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been shown to influence clinical decision-making and health policy. Therefore, it is essential that trial outcomes-including harms-are completely reported. METHODS: We included all RCTs cited as supporting evidence for the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Surgical Management of Osteoarthritis of the Knee, Osteoarthritis of the Knee, and Osteoarthritis of theHip Clinical Practice Guideline recommendations. Manuscripts were analyzed for compliance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Extension for Harms items. We determined the Extension for Harms' influence on harms reporting by comparing RCTs published before and after the extension's release. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-three RCTs were included, of which 81 (47%) adequately reported ≥50% of the checklist and 75 (43%) reported ≤33% of the checklist items. The mean number of checklist items reported was 8 items (of 18; 45%). Our interrupted time-series analysis suggests the implementation of the CONSORT Extension for Harms did not have a statistically significant effect on the completeness of harms reporting (P = .35; 95% Confidence interval = -0.0041 to 0.0014). CONCLUSION: Harms-related data are poorly reported within RCTs cited as supporting evidence for the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons management for hip and knee OA Clinical Practice Guideline. Our time series analysis illustrates the failure of the CONSORT Extension for Harms on improving the reporting of harms-related data. Future efforts to improve the quality of harms reporting is crucial for patients, clinicians, and policy makers to perform thorough risk-benefit appraisals as RCT results directly influence clinical decision-making in orthopaedic surgery.

The Potential Effect of Lowering the Threshold of Statistical Significance From P < .05 to P < .005 in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine.

PURPOSE: To determine how changing the P value threshold of statistical significance from .05 to .005 could affect the statistical significance of findings in previously published orthopaedic sports medicine randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: The authors searched PubMed from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2017, for RCTs published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine, Arthroscopy, and Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. Data were extracted blinded and in duplicate fashion by 2 of us. The authors then extracted P value data for primary end points, since RCTs are most often powered for these end points. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Google Forms were used for data extraction and STATA 15.1 for the data analysis. RESULTS: In total, 275 primary end points were identified from 132 trials. Analysis of primary end points found 45.8% (126/275) had a P value less than .05 and were classified as statistically significant under the current threshold, whereas 54.2% (149/275) had a P value greater than .05 and were not classified as suggestive. Of those end points that were previously considered statistically significant, 38.9% (49/126) were less than .005, whereas 61.1% (77/126) were between .005 and .05 and thereby would be reclassified as suggestive rather than statistically significant under the proposed threshold. Overall, when analyzing the 275 primary end points, we found only 49 (17.8%) of the end points were less than .005 and would hold statistical significance with the proposed threshold. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that if the threshold of statistical significance were to change to .005, the significance of orthopaedic sports medicine RCTs would be heavily altered. The authors also acknowledge the many issues research faces in regard to P value reliability and therefore interpretation of study results. Because P values from RCTs can often influence the ways physicians choose interventions, it is important to implement methodology that decreases incidence of bias and misrepresentation of these results. However, the authors also understand that lowering the P value could increase the needed sample size and by consequence increase study costs as well, while not directly correlating to clinical significance. Thus, the authors recommend that this proposed threshold should be further evaluated and cautiously interpreted. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: If the statistical significance threshold is changed, clinical practice guideline recommendations also may be affected.

Analyzing Spin in Abstracts of Orthopaedic Randomized Controlled Trials with Statistically Insignificant Primary Endpoints.

PURPOSE: Our primary aim of our study is to evaluate the prevalence of spin among abstracts in orthopaedic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with nonsignificant primary endpoints. METHODS: This study was conducted in accordance with a previously written protocol publicly available via the Open Science Framework. PubMed (which includes Medline) was searched for RCTs in orthopaedic surgery. The articles that were identified were then uploaded to Rayyan, and the abstracts were screened for inclusion. To be included, a trial had to have randomized the patients for intervention, statistically compare multiple groups, and had a primary endpoint that was not significant. Odds ratios and summary statistics (frequencies and proportions) were then calculated for spin in the abstracts. RESULTS: Of the 780 articles retrieved from our search string, 250 articles met the inclusion criteria. Analysis resulted in 112/250 (44.80%; [95% CI, 38.64-50.96]) RCTs that containing spin within the abstract. Of the 112 RCTs, 52 (46.43%; [95% CI, 37.19-55.66]) had spin in the results, and 89 (79.46%; [95% CI, 71.98-86.95]) had spin in the conclusion of the abstract. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery was found to have the highest prevalence of spin (21/37, 56.76% [95% CI, 40.79%-72.72%]) while Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery had the lowest prevalence of spin (5/15, 33.33% [95% CI, 9.48%-57.19%]). No correlation was found between industry funding and increased odds of spin in the abstract (uOR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.45-2.63). Discrepancies for our primary endpoint, prevalence of spin among abstracts, were analyzed with Gwet's AC1 inter-rater statistic and found to be 81% [95% CI, 0.75-0.87]. CONCLUSION: Spin was found in 44.8% of the abstracts within our sample of orthopaedic RCTs. Nonsignificant primary data were often represented to seem significant, many orthopaedic RCTs did not indicate primary endpoints, and orthopaedic RCTs infrequently reported trial registration.

An Evaluation of Spin in Lower Extremity Joint Trials.

BACKGROUND: Spin is a specific type of reporting bias that misrepresents data and results within randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Because spin may provide a surgeon with an inaccurate representation of trial results, thus misconstruing the surgeons' interpretation thereof and possibly negatively affecting patient care, it is important that spin is identified within publications. The primary goal of our study was to determine the prevalence of spin found within the abstracts of lower extremity joint trials. METHODS: Using Google Scholar's H-5 index, we selected the top 20 journals in the orthopedic surgery category. We then conducted a PubMed search on July 2nd, 2018 using the advanced search feature, encompassing all RCTs published in these journals from January 1, 2016 to January 1, 2017. Spin was evaluated using a standardized protocol, using a previously published protocol on the Open Science Network. RESULTS: Our final sample consisted of 46 trials published in 9 of the top 20 orthopedic surgery journals. Spin was found in 27 (58.7%) of the 46 abstracts. Evidence of spin in the abstract results was found in 19 (41.3%) of the 46 articles, and spin in abstract conclusions was found in 15 (32.6%) of the 46 articles. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that a significant number of lower extremity joint RCTs contain one or more form of spin in either their abstract results, conclusions, or both. In addition, our investigation revealed that a sizable portion of these lower extremity orthopedic joint RCTs are not registered or do not report their registration, and funding sources are also underreported.

Compliance on Mandatory Data Reporting in Registered Obstetrics Trials.

BACKGROUND: The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) Amendments Act established a legal mandate requiring registration of certain drug, device, and biologics trials in ClinicalTrials.gov prior to patient enrollment. One provision of the act requires investigators to report trial results in ClinicalTrials.gov within 1 year of completion. Preliminary evidence suggests that overall compliance rates are inadequate, and rates specific to obstetrics have not been investigated. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the rate of compliance for mandatory reporting of results from obstetrics trials to ClinicalTrials.gov and to determine whether compliance rates were associated with funding type. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a registry-based study of clinical trials pertaining to obstetrics. ClinicalTrials.gov was cross-referenced with Drugs@FDA to determine which trials required mandatory reporting. We used obstetrics trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with at least 1 US site. Phase 0, Phase 1, and trials not reporting a phase were excluded. Furthermore, only trials of interventions approved by the FDA were retained. RESULTS: Our search returned 973 trials, of which 325 (33.4%) were screened for eligibility. Of the 325 completed trials, 74 (22.8% or 7.6% of the total) met all inclusion criteria and were evaluated for compliance. Thirty-seven of these trials (50%) did not list results, whereas the remaining 37 trials (50%) contained results on ClinicalTrials.gov. Trials funded by the National Institutes of Health (87.5%; ⅞) and industry (80%; 12/15) had higher rates of compliance than trials funded by other (43.9%; 18/41) or unspecified (0%; 0/10) sources. CONCLUSION: Half of all applicable obstetrics trials did not report results. Furthermore, rates of compliance appeared to vary by funding source, with trials funded by the National Institutes of Health or industry appearing to have a higher rate of compliance to mandatory data reporting. Greater awareness of federal regulations is needed, and changes should be implemented to increase reporting.

An Evaluation of Reporting Guidelines and Clinical Trial Registry Requirements Among Plastic Surgery Journals.

BACKGROUND: Ensuring that published studies are of the highest methodological quality is a critical step in plastic surgery's transition to a more evidence-based field. Reporting guidelines and reporting of clinical trial registration may serve as promising avenues of increasing the methodological quality in plastic surgery trials. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to evaluate the rate at which plastic surgery journals require reporting guidelines, as well as the effect these policies have on adherence to reporting guidelines. METHODS: Using journal's "Instructions for Authors," we conducted a cross-sectional survey to evaluate journal policies regarding adherence to reporting guidelines and trial registration. We also examined whether trials published in journals referencing Consolidated Standards of Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) had higher rates of compliance with publishing a CONSORT flow diagram and whether journals with trial registration policies were more likely to contain registered trials than journals without these requirements. RESULTS: Of the 20 plastic surgery journals, 13 (65%) did not mention a single guideline within their instructions to authors. Furthermore, 10 (50%) did not mention policies regarding clinical trial registration. In addition, journals with policies regarding the CONSORT statement were more likely to publish trials with a CONSORT flow diagram, and journals with policies regarding clinical trial registry were more likely to publish trials reporting registration. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Our study found that few plastic surgery journals mention reporting guidelines or trial registration in their instructions for authors. Our study also found that journal policies regarding guideline adherence and trial registration seem to be effective mechanisms toward improvement, and plastic surgery journals should consider adopting such policies.

Top 50 most impactful publications on massive rotator cuff tears.

Background: Bibliometric analysis is a useful tool for measuring the scholarly impact of a topic and its more and less heavily studied aspects. The purpose of this study is to use bibliometric analysis to comprehensively analyze the 50 articles with the highest citation indices in studies evaluating the treatment and outcomes of massive rotator cuff tears (mRCTs). Methods: This cross-sectional study identified articles within the Scopus database published through December 2022. Keywords used were "massive rotator cuff tear." Articles were sorted in chronological order. The year published and number of citations were recorded. A citation index (CI) was calculated for each article by dividing the number of citations by number of years published [1 citation/1 year published (2021) = CI of 1]. Of these, the 50 articles with the highest CIs were carried forward for evaluation. Frequencies and distributions were assessed for data of each variable collected. Results: These search methods produced 625 articles regarding mRCT research (ranging from January 1986 to December 2022). Four of the top 10 most impactful articles were published in the 2010s. The level of evidence (LOE) published with the greatest frequency was level of evidence 4 (41%). The journal Arthroscopy published the highest number within the top 50 (26%) followed by the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery and the American Journal of Sports Medicine (20% each). Clinical studies composed 88% of the top 50. Case series (38%) predominated, while systematic reviews (20%) and randomized control trials (8%) were less prevalent. The majority of studies concentrated on the clinical outcomes of certain interventions (62%), mainly comparing multiple interventions. Conclusion: Despite the relatively high prevalence of mRCTs (40% of all tears), this topic comprises only a small proportion of all rotator cuff research. This analysis has identified gaps within and limitations of the findings concerning mRCTs for researchers to propose research questions targeting understudied topics and influence the future treatment and outcomes of this clinically difficult diagnosis.

Inadequate harms reporting among randomized controlled trials cited as supporting evidence in the AAOS management of hip fractures in older adults clinical practice guideline recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations within clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are heavily influenced by results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Therefore, it is imperative that all RCT outcomes are reported thoroughly to ensure CPGs are created using accurate information. Here, we evaluate the quality of harms reporting using the CONSORT Extension for Harms in RCTs underpinning recommendations in the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) Management of Hip Fractures in Older Adults CPG. METHODS: Each RCT cited as evidence for recommendations in the AAOS Management of Hip Fractures in Older Adults CPG was evaluated using the CONSORT Extension for Harms to determine the quality of harms reporting. Descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages, 95 % confidence intervals) were used to summarize adherence to CONSORT Harms items. A linear regression model was used to evaluate the CONSORT Harms influence on the quality of reporting over time. RESULTS: Among the 156 RCTs identified, there were a total of 31,848 participants. Most RCTs were conducted at a single center (137; 87.8 %) and in a single-blind manner (130; 83.3 %). Fifty-four (34.6 %) RCTs did not provide funding statements. Trials adequately reported an average of 6.65 out of 18 CONSORT Extension for Harms items (37.0 %). One RCT adequately reported all items, while five reported zero items. Forty-seven RCTs (30.1 %) reported ≥ 50 % of items and 73 (46.8 %) reported ≤ 33.3 % of items. The linear regression model demonstrated no significant increase in mean adherence over time (adjusted R2 = -0.006; p = 0.563). CONCLUSION: Our results highlight inadequate harms reporting among RCTs in the AAOS Management of Hip Fractures in Older Patients CPG. While the CONSORT Harms Extension was intended to enhance reporting, the linear regression model did not demonstrate significant improvements over time.

Return to Golf After Hip Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

CONTEXT: Patients experiencing pain from femoral acetabular impingement and considering hip arthroscopy may be concerned about their timeline to resume activities they enjoy, such as golf. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to review current literature on return-to-play data after hip arthroscopy and to provide clinicians with data to set proper expectations with patients. DATA SOURCES: The following terms were used to search PubMed and Embase electronic databases on October 18, 2023: hip, arthroscopy, arthroscopic, golf. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if they were in the English language, of Level 1 to 4 evidence, and contained data specific to golfers undergoing hip arthroscopy. Studies were excluded if they did not designate participants as golfers or did not specify return-to-play data. Editorials, case reports, and review articles were excluded. Screening was completed by 2 authors in a blind and duplicate manner. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II. DATA EXTRACTION: The following datapoints were extracted from each study: hip pathology and arthroscopic procedure data; number of players returning to golf and time from surgery to return; outcome score(s); and rehabilitation details. Descriptive statistics were calculated using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. RESULTS: The search returned 400 studies, of which 4 were included for analysis. Of these 4 studies, 2 specified return-to-play time. Of 95 golfers, 90 (94.7%) returned to golf successfully after arthroscopic hip surgery. Subjective and objective outcome scores improved postoperatively, including an increased average drive distance. CONCLUSION: Return to golf after hip arthroscopy is highly probable, with approximately 95% of patients throughout literature returning to play. A mean return time of 4.7 months for professional golfers and 7.2 months for amateurs, alongside improved subjective outcomes and performance metrics postsurgery, suggest patients can expect a relatively quick return to the course with similar or improved performance.

Preference signaling in orthopaedic surgery: applicant perspectives and opinions.

CONTEXT: Orthopaedic surgery has become increasingly competitive over the years, with the COVID-19 pandemic creating additional challenges for applicants and programs. To promote an equitable match experience, the American Orthopaedic Association (AOA) introduced a formal preference signaling (PS) system into the 2022-2023 application cycle. PS allows applicants to indicate their heightened interest in specific programs, which improves the likelihood of receiving an interview and ultimately matching at their desired residency program. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this anonymous survey is to assess applicants' opinions and perspectives toward PS in orthopaedic surgery prior to the 2022-2023 match results. Additionally, we sought to evaluate the signaling strategies being utilized by applicants. METHODS: An anonymous 22-question survey was distributed to applicants of an orthopaedic surgery residency program (34.2 % response rate). Responses were collected after the application submission deadline but before the match lists and results were available. This survey included questions germane to demographics, signal utilization, signaling reasons and strategies, and opinions toward PS. Descriptive statistics were calculated utilizing R (version 4.2.1) and RStudio. RESULTS: Most respondents (96.1 %) participated in PS, and 96.7 % utilized all 30 signals. Signaling encouraged 24.2 % of applicants to apply to fewer programs. In accordance with guidelines, 83.2 % of respondents signaled each away rotation program; however, only 53 % signaled their home program. Applicants commonly signaled 1-10 "reach" and "safety" programs each. Proximity to Family and Perceived Operative Experience were the most important reasons for signaling, whereas Program Prestige was the least. A program's social presence and virtual interview option did not influence many applicants' decisions for signaling. Most applicants believe that the COVID-19 pandemic and pass/fail licensure examinations influenced PS adoption. Sixty-seven of 149 respondents (45 %) claimed that applicants and programs benefit equally from PS, while 41 % believe programs benefit more. Nearly half (40.94 %) knew very little or nothing about PS. CONCLUSIONS: During the inaugural introduction of PS in orthopaedic surgery, nearly every applicant utilized all 30 signals, prioritizing factors like family proximity and perceived operative experience over program prestige. This shift reflects the importance of geographic location and presumed training quality. Despite unfamiliarity toward PS, personalized signaling strategies were implemented, accompanied by a slight decrease in application volumes. The 30 allotted signals in orthopaedic surgery may serve as an informal application cap due to the necessity of signaling a program for an interview invite. However, improved educational efforts are needed to enhance the understanding and maximize the benefits of PS for both applicants and programs.

Network meta-analysis: What is its purpose in Orthopaedic literature?

Systematic reviews, of level-I primary literature, are the gold standard for the formation of Clinical Practice Guidelines in Orthopaedic Surgery. When systematic reviews have multiple groups of data, meta-analyses can be conducted to analyse the direct comparison of the data points (pairwise meta-analysis). Over recent years, statisticians have created a new statistical model called network meta-analyses that can be applied to systematic reviews. network meta-analyses allow for comparison of different treatment outcomes that may or may not have been directly assessed through level-I primary studies. network meta-analyses are appearing more and more in Orthopaedic Surgery literature; therefore, in this article, we discuss what a Network Meta-analysis is and its application in Orthopaedics.

Education Research in Orthopaedic Surgery: A 6-Year Analysis.

With the ever-changing dynamics of surgical training, it is essential for the content of educational research to evolve simultaneously. This study aimed to assess the current state of scholarly work in orthopaedic training education and to identify particular educational topics that are trending in the literature. Methods: A PubMed search string was used to identify literature on orthopaedic surgery education from 2016 to 2021. Publications on orthopaedic surgery education were divided into 8 education-based categories: (1) operative training and simulation, (2) curriculum and career development, (3) diversity, (4) wellness and burnout, (5) program evaluation and match data, (6) trainee assessments, (7) social media, and (8) other. Univariate analysis and linear regression were used to determine trends. Results: A total of 383 orthopaedic surgery education publications met inclusion criteria. Orthopaedic surgery education publications accounted for 0.47% of the total publications from all 54 journals. Fifteen journals provided 85% of all orthopaedic education publications (N = 325). The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery produced the most orthopaedic surgery education publications (76, 20%), followed by the Journal of Surgical Education (62, 16%) and the Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (58, 15%). Publications on curriculum and career development were the most common (21.9%). The following most frequent topics were program evaluation and match data (20.9%) and operative training and simulation (18%), respectively. Over the study period, the total amount of orthopaedic surgery education articles increased significantly (R2 = 0.86, p = 0.008). Articles included all levels of training, with resident education accounting for the majority, with 269 articles (70.2%). Conclusion: Recent trends in orthopaedic literature indicate an increased emphasis on education as the number of publications has increased, but are still sparse in orthopaedic literature. As the field of orthopaedics continues to advance, we recommend that academic institutions and organizations continue to evaluate and promote evidence-based educational research to ensure that orthopaedic education meets the ever-increasing demands that residents and practicing surgeons will face in the present and future. Level of Evidence: III.

Retrospective analysis of whole-body cryotherapy adverse effects in Division I collegiate athletes.

CONTEXT: Although the physiological effects and the performance of athletes after utilizing whole-body cryotherapy (WBC) have been widely studied, there is a lack of data on its adverse effects. It is important to be aware of the adverse effects of any treatment for its use to be properly recommended. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to provide insight to any adverse effects that collegiate athletes experienced after utilizing WBC to better utilize this therapeutic modality. METHODS: After the Institutional Review Board (IRB) deemed exemption, all 457 Division 1-A varsity athletes were recruited via email to participate in a retrospective survey. Participants consented to the study by continuing to the questions. The inclusion criteria were that they must be 18 years of age or older, had completed WBC at that university, and were a student-athlete. The survey was six questions long, and if any of the inclusion criteria was not met, they were redirected to end the survey. The data were analyzed utilizing odds ratios. RESULTS: Of the 457 student-athletes, 11.2% (n=51) responded and 6.3% (n=29) met the inclusion criteria. Responses were obtained from women's lacrosse (27.6%; n=8), women's gymnastics (24.1%, n=7), field hockey (17.2%, n=5), wrestling (6.9%, n=2), football (6.9%, n=2), women's cross country (3.5%, n=1), men's basketball (3.5%, n=1), women's volleyball (3.5%, n=1), softball (3.5%, n=1), and baseball (3.5%, n=1). Among the responses, 79.3% (n=23) were females and 29.7% (n=6) were males. Within 1 h of WBC, the most frequently reported adverse effects were skin rash (27.6%, n=8), itching (13.8%, n=4), and fatigue (6.9%, n=2). More than 1 h after WBC, the most frequently reported adverse effects were skin rash (20.7%, n=6), itching (10.3%, n=3), and increased energy (6.9%, n=2). When stratified by female and male athletes, for both within 1 h and more than 1 h after WBC, there were increased odds for females reporting adverse effects; however, neither were statistically significant (OR 4.58, p=0.19, 95% CI 0.46 to 45.61) (OR 3.84, p=0.25, 95% CI 0.39 to 38.36). Within 1 h of WBC, 58.6% (n=17) of subjects reported no adverse effects, and more than 1 h after WBC, 65.5% (n=19) subjects reported no adverse effects. The mean satisfaction level rating was 6.34 (range 0-10, n=29). When asked if they would do WBC again, 65.5% (n=19) responded "yes" and 34.5% (n=10) responded "no." CONCLUSIONS: In this collegiate athlete population, negative adverse effects of WBC commonly included skin burns and itching while potentially proving a beneficial adverse effect of increased energy. Subjects commonly reported no adverse effects after WBC treatment as well.

Clinical and functional outcomes of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty supplemented with latissimus dorsi transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: To optimize patients' functional external rotation outcomes, reverse total shoulder arthroplasties (rTSAs) including a latissimus dorsi tendon transfer were undertaken with promising early results and no significant increase in complications in comparison to traditional rTSAs. This was especially utilized for patients with a pronounced combined loss of elevation and external rotation. The purpose of this study is to evaluate and synthesize the findings of all relevant publications assessing the outcomes of rTSAs with associated latissimus dorsi transfer. Methods: We thoroughly searched the literature within the PubMed database using a standardized methodology. For our inclusion criteria, we included any study regarding rTSAs that contained functional outcome scores for postoperative range of motion (such as elevation, external rotation, etc.) or postoperative outcomes such as complications (reoperation, infection, etc.) and patient satisfaction. For the extraction of data, we used pilot-tested Google Forms to record extracted data. These data were then converted to spreadsheets (Microsoft Excel [Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA]). This was done on 2 separate scenarios by 2 authors to ensure accuracy. We used the modified Coleman Methodology Score to assess the methodological quality of the studies in our samples. Meta-analysis mathematics and statistical analysis were performed using Stata software 17 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA). Results: Our search returned a total of 12 studies containing data of 213 shoulders receiving RTSAs with a latissimus dorsi transfer. Functional outcomes were available for 160 shoulders. The mean preoperative elevation of the affected shoulder was 73.57 degrees, and the mean postoperative elevation was 141.80 degrees. For external rotation, the mean preoperative average was -6.71 degrees, and the mean postoperative average was 22.73 degrees. The absolute Constant score average was 31.56 preoperatively, while the postoperative value was 68.93. In our sample, 25 patients (11.73%) required a revision of the RTSA implant due to complications. Discussion: Combined loss of elevation and external rotation can be a severely debilitating condition for those with a glenohumeral pathology. Latissimus dorsi transfer for this condition has been proven to be an effective modality. The reoperation and complication rate appears to be sizable, and as such surgeons should consider this when considering this modality for their patients.

The presence of person-centered language in orthopedic-related amputation research: a cross-sectional analysis.

CONTEXT: Amputations are routine in orthopedics, specifically during trauma and when patients have recurrent surgical site infections. When undergoing amputations, patients must combat the psychosocial factors associated with the loss of an extremity, including stigmatization. OBJECTIVES: This study analyzes the presence of person-centered language (PCL) within amputation-related orthopedic publications in the top orthopedic journals. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis with a database search on February 14, 2021 utilizing PubMed. Utilizing a previously published search string, we isolated studies that were published in the top 20 orthopedic journals based on the Google h5-index. In addition to the top 20 orthopedic journals, we included the top two hand and foot & ankle journals in our search to incorporate more amputation literature. Our search yielded 687 returns. The sample was then randomized, and the first 300 studies that fit our inclusion criteria were examined for prespecified non-PCL terminology. RESULTS: Our results show that 157 (52.2%) studies were adherent to PCL according to the American Medical Association's Manual of Style 10th Edition (AMAMS). Of the 143 (47.7%) studies that were not adherent to PCL, 51 studies (35.7%) had more than one type of non-PCL language. The term "amputee," which is being labeled as identity-first language (IFL), was found in 101 articles (33.7%). Further investigation found that 73.3% (74/101) of the studies containing IFL were found to have other non-PCL terms. Of the other studies in the sample, non-PCL was found 34.7% (88/199) of the time. This analysis was done due to the discrepancies in stigmatization of the term "amputee." No statistical association was found between adherence to PCL and study characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that amputation literature within the top orthopedic journals has limited adherence to PCL. Additionally, the use of the term "amputee," which is widely accepted by the amputation community, resulted in a greater rate of non-PCL terminology within orthopedic amputation literature. Efforts should be implemented within orthopedics to avoid the use of stigmatizing language, regarding individuals that underwent amputations, to minimize psychosocial stressors.

Assessment of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses on Platelet-Rich Plasma Treatment in Orthopaedics: A Cross-sectional Analysis.

Background: Systematic reviews on the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in orthopaedic surgery are abundant in current published literature. However, a beautification of results (referred to as spin) has been noted in abstracts across various aspects of medicine. Purpose: To determine the prevalence of spin in systematic reviews of PRP-related orthopaedic surgery abstracts. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and Murad and Wang guidelines, we conducted a search in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Database for reviews on PRP-related orthopaedic surgery. The search included studies published from inception until June 30, 2021. Included were systematic reviews written in English that involved the use of PRP in the treatment of orthopaedic injuries in human participants. The abstracts of the included reviews were evaluated for the top 9 types of spin as described by Yavchitz et al in 2016. We determined the relationship between spin and study characteristics using odds ratios. Results: Of an initial 1560 studies, 176 were included. We found that 50 studies (28.4%) contained at least 1 form of spin. The 2 most common forms of spin found in our sample were type 5 ("Conclusion claims the beneficial effect of treatment despite high risk of bias"; n = 27 [15.3%]) and type 3 ("Selective reporting or overemphasis of efficacy in outcomes favoring beneficial effect of intervention"; n = 18 [10.2%]). No statistical significance was found between study characteristics and the presence of spin. Conclusion: Spin was present in 28% of the systematic reviews that covered PRP-related orthopaedic treatments. Spin was not associated with general study characteristics, including adherence to PRISMA guidelines or funding. Journals and authors should be aware of spin in articles and avoid its usage.

Cemented vs Uncemented hemiarthroplasties for femoral neck fractures: An overlapping systematic review and evidence appraisal.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of our study is to assess the methodology of overlapping systematic reviews related to cemented vs uncemented hip hemiarthroplasties for the treatment of femoral neck fractures to find the study with the best evidence. Also, we assess the gaps in methodology and information to help with direction of future studies. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in September 2022 using Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Clinical outcome data and characteristics of each study were extracted to see which treatment had better favorability. The outcomes and characteristics extracted from each study includes, first author, search date, publication journal and date, number of studies included, databases, level of evidence, software used, subgroup analyses that were conducted, and heterogeneity with the use of I2 statistics Methodological quality information was extracted from each study using four different methodologic scores (Oxford Levels of Evidence; Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR); Quality of reporting of meta-analyses (QUROM); Oxman and Guyatt. After that, the Jadad decision algorithm was used to identify which studies in our sample contained the best available evidence. Finally, overlap of each systematic review was assessed using Corrected Covered Area (CCA) to look at redundancy and research waste among the systematic reviews published on the topic. RESULTS: After screening, 12 studies were included in our sample. For the Oxford Levels of Evidence, we found that all the studies were Level I evidence. For the QUORUM assessment, we had 1 study with the highest score of 18. Additionally, we did the Oxman and Guyatt assessment, where we found 4 studies with a maximum score of 6. Finally, we did an AMSTAR assessment and found 2 studies with a score of 9. After conducting the methodological scores; the authors determined that Li. L et al 2021 had the highest quality. In addition, it was found that the CCA found among the primary studies in each systematic review calculated to .22. Any CCA above .15 is considered "very high overlap". CONCLUSIONS: The best available evidence suggests that Cemented HAs are better at preventing Prosthesis-related complications. Conversely, the best evidence also suggests that Cemented HA also results in longer operative time and increased intraoperative blood loss. When conducting future systematic reviews related to the topic, we ask that authors restrict conducting another systematic review until new evidence emerges so as not to confuse the clinical decision-making of physicians.

Reoperation and Complication Rates Following Patellar Fracture Repair with Plates: A Retrospective Analysis with Patient-Reported Outcomes at More than 1 Year of Follow-up.

Recent work has suggested good clinical and functional results with dorsal surface plating of patellar fractures. The primary outcome measurement of this study was reoperation rates for patellar fractures that had been treated with dorsal plating. Methods: This work consists of a retrospective review of clinical and functional outcome data following repair of patellar fractures with dorsal plates. We obtained institutional review board approval for this study and conducted a review of 9 consecutive years of our group's trauma practice. We also contacted patients to assess patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after 12 months. Results: Eighty-five patellar fractures were treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) via plating over 9 years. Eight (9.41%) of the patients required reoperation. Of the 72 patients with complete follow-up of ≥12 weeks, 3 (4.17%) had nonunion of the fracture site and 4 (5.56%) had loss of reduction of the fracture. The average Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score among our sample was 18.84 (slight symptoms); 72.41% of the patients in our sample had slight or no symptoms at ≥12 months postoperatively. Conclusions: Our results indicated that plating of comminuted patellar fractures is a safe, viable treatment strategy. The PROs at ≥12 months of follow-up data were promising. Additionally, dorsal plating may allow for early return of function and less postoperative bracing. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.