RESUMO
BACKGROUND: ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence technology, has the potential to be a useful patient aid, though the accuracy and appropriateness of its responses and recommendations on common hand surgical pathologies and procedures must be understood. Comparing the sources referenced and characteristics of responses from ChatGPT and an established search engine (Google) on carpal tunnel surgery will allow for an understanding of the utility of ChatGPT for patient education. METHODS: A Google search of "carpal tunnel release surgery" was performed and "frequently asked questions (FAQs)" were recorded with their answer and source. ChatGPT was then asked to provide answers to the Google FAQs. The FAQs were compared, and answer content was compared using word count, readability analyses, and content source. RESULTS: There was 40% concordance among questions asked by the programs. Google answered each question with one source per answer, whereas ChatGPT's answers were created from two sources per answer. ChatGPT's answers were significantly longer than Google's and multiple readability analysis algorithms found ChatGPT responses to be statistically significantly more difficult to read and at a higher grade level than Google's. ChatGPT always recommended "contacting your surgeon." CONCLUSION: A comparison of ChatGPT's responses to Google's FAQ responses revealed that ChatGPT's answers were more in-depth, from multiple sources, and from a higher proportion of academic Web sites. However, ChatGPT answers were found to be more difficult to understand. Further study is needed to understand if the differences in the responses between programs correlate to a difference in patient comprehension.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Patient sex is known to affect patient outcomes in sports medicine. Historically, many studies on athletes have focused on male athletes and been generalized to female athletes. HYPOTHESIS: Studies with female first or senior authors will isolate female athletes as study participants more frequently than studies with male first or senior authors. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: Following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) protocols, original research studies published between 2017 and 2021 that analyzed athletes were systematically screened from the 6 top sports medicine journals (British Journal of Sports Medicine; Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery; Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy; American Journal of Sports Medicine; Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine; Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach). Articles were included for analysis if they met the following criteria: (1) original sports medicine research study, (2) analysis involving athletes, and (3) inclusion of ≥10 participants. Exclusion criteria included (1) review articles of any type and (2) cadaveric studies. The determination of author sex was completed using the name-to-gender assignment algorithm Genderize.io (https://genderize.io/). RESULTS: A total of 1146 studies were included in quantitative analysis. There were 246 studies with a female first author (21.5%) and 191 studies with a female senior author (16.7%). When looking at all authors (first, senior, and intermediate), 19.9% were female. Female first authors were over 4 times more likely to isolate female athletes in clinical research than male first authors (17.5% vs 3.8%, respectively; P < .001). Female senior authors were approximately twice as likely to isolate female athletes compared with male senior authors (11.5% vs 5.8%, respectively; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Female first authors were significantly more likely to perform research isolating female athletes. While improving the frequency of female athlete research is multifactorial, increasing the number of female researchers may have a direct effect on improving gender equality in sports medicine research.
RESUMO
The purpose of this systematic review is to report outcomes and complications following the reconstruction of chronic patellar tendon ruptures. Four databases (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE) were searched from inception to July 2021. Inclusion criteria included articles that (1) analyzed outcomes and complications following chronic patellar tendon reconstruction (>4 weeks from injury to repair), (2) were written in English, (3) greater than five patients, and (4) a minimum 2-year follow-up. Exclusion criteria included (1) non-original research and (2) patellar tendon repair/reconstruction with prior total knee arthroplasty. Data on outcome metrics and complications were extracted from the included studies and reported in a qualitative manner. Nine studies (number of patients = 96) were included after screening. Seven studies analyzed autograft reconstruction, and three of those seven studies analyzed reconstructions with additional augmentation. The remaining two studies evaluated reconstruction utilizing a bone-tendon-bone (BTB) allograft. Four of the autograft studies (n=40 patients) showed a range of post-operative mean Lysholm scores of 74-94. Additionally, four studies reported a post-operative extensor lag of 0-3°. Post-operative protocol for autograft studies included delayed motion and was either contained to a bivalved cast or a hinged knee brace for six weeks. The two allograft studies reported a range of mean Lysholm scores from 62 to 67, and each immobilized the leg in full extension until six weeks. While chronic patellar tendon ruptures are a rare injury of the extensor mechanism, there are viable options for reconstruction. Overall, chronic patellar tendon ruptures reconstructed with both autograft and allograft will provide fair to good outcomes with low complication rates. Following surgery, immobilization for at least six weeks should be emphasized to protect the graft and optimize patient outcomes.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Prospective trial registration has become an important means of improving the transparency and reproducibility of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and is recommended by the Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery (JSES) per the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines. Herein, we performed a cross-sectional evaluation of RCTs published in JSES from 2010 to present to determine the prevalence of trial registration and consistency of outcome reporting. METHODS: The electronic database PubMed was searched to identify all RCTs on total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) published in JSES from 2010 to 2022 using the search terms "randomized controlled trial" AND "shoulder" AND "arthroplasty OR replacement." RCTs were considered to be registered if they provided a registration number. For articles that were registered, authors also extracted the registry name, registration date, date of first enrollment, date of last enrollment, and if the primary outcomes reported in the registry were either (1) omitted, (2) newly introduced in the publication, (3) reported as a secondary outcome or vice versa, or (4) varied in timing of assessment compared to the publication. "Early" RCTs were considered those published from 2010 to 2016, whereas "later" RCTs were from 2017 to 2022. RESULTS: Fifty-eight RCTs met inclusion criteria. There were 16 early RCTs and 42 later RCTs. Twenty-three of the 58 (39.7%) studies were registered, with 9 of 22 with an available registry (40.9%) of those being enrolled prior to patient enrollment. Nineteen of the registered studies (82.6%) provided the name of the registry and a registration number. The proportion of later RCTs that were registered was not significantly different from the early RCTs (45.2% vs. 25.0%, P = .232). Seven RCTs (31.8%) had at least 1 inconsistency compared with the registry. The most common discrepancy was the timing of the assessment (ie, follow-up period) reported in the publication vs. the registry. DISCUSSION: Although JSES recommends prospective trial registration, less than half of shoulder arthroplasty RCTs are registered and more than 30% registered trials have at least 1 inconsistency with their registry record. More rigorous review of trial registration and accuracy is necessary to limit bias in published shoulder arthroplasty RCTs.