Musculoskeletal Infection in Orthopaedic Oncology: Assessment of the 2018 International Consensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection.

BACKGROUND: The first International Consensus Meeting (ICM) on Musculoskeletal Infection convened in 2013 in order to provide agreement on the prevention, the diagnosis, and the treatment of surgical site infection (SSI) and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Recognizing the added susceptibility of orthopaedic oncology patients to SSI and PJI, the second ICM in 2018 included questions and corresponding recommendations from this subspecialty of orthopaedics. METHODS: The 13 steps of the Delphi method were followed over the course of 26 months, starting in June 2016. From July 25 to 27, 2018, delegates from 93 countries convened at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Delegates were divided into their subspecialty workgroups, where questions and recommendations were discussed, modified, and subsequently voted upon. The level of consensus measured the agreement among the delegates on the basis of the voting results. The level of evidence that accompanied each question and recommendation was dependent on the types of studies that were reviewed for each question and the number of flaws that were present in those studies. RESULTS: There were 30 orthopaedic oncology questions and recommendations that were voted on by 14 delegates with expertise in either orthopaedic oncology or infectious disease. Twenty-six (87%) of the questions were unanimous among the delegates. The remaining 13% (n = 4) were agreed upon by 93% of the delegates, with 7% of the delegates abstaining from the vote. CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of orthopaedic oncology in the 2018 ICM on Musculoskeletal Infection was particularly important because of the high rate of SSI and PJI following these procedures. Despite there being strong consensus among voting delegates, these recommendations are based on limited levels of evidence and tend to reflect the recommendations from hip and knee arthroplasty. We hope that high-quality prospective studies in the field of orthopaedic oncology are available for the third ICM.

2018 International Consensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection: Research Priorities from the General Assembly Questions.

Musculoskeletal infections (MSKI) remain the bane of orthopedic surgery, and result in grievous illness and inordinate costs that threaten healthcare systems. As prevention, diagnosis, and treatment has remained largely unchanged over the last 50 years, a 2nd International Consensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection (ICM 2018, https://icmphilly.com) was completed. Questions pertaining to all areas of MSKI were extensively researched to prepare recommendations, which were discussed and voted on by the delegates using the Delphi methodology. The questions, including the General Assembly (GA) results, have been published (GA questions). However, as critical outcomes include: (i) incidence and cost data that substantiate the problems, and (ii) establishment of research priorities; an ICM 2018 research workgroup (RW) was assembled to accomplish these tasks. Here, we present the result of the RW consensus on the current and projected incidence of infection, and the costs per patient, for all orthopedic subspecialties, which range from 0.1% to 30%, and $17,000 to $150,000. The RW also identified the most important research questions. The Delphi methodology was utilized to initially derive four objective criteria to define a subset of the 164 GA questions that are high priority for future research. Thirty-eight questions (23% of all GA questions) achieved the requisite > 70% agreement vote, and are highlighted in this Consensus article within six thematic categories: acute versus chronic infection, host immunity, antibiotics, diagnosis, research caveats, and modifiable factors. Finally, the RW emphasizes that without appropriate funding to address these high priority research questions, a 3rd ICM on MSKI to address similar issues at greater cost is inevitable.

Moving Forward Through Consensus: A Modified Delphi Approach to Determine the Top Research Priorities in Orthopaedic Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Several challenges presently impede the conduct of prospective clinical studies in orthopaedic oncology, including limited financial resources to support their associated costs and inadequate patient volume at most single institutions. This study was conducted to prioritize research questions within the field so that the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS), and other relevant professional societies, can direct the limited human and fiscal resources available to address the priorities that the stakeholders involved believe will have the most meaningful impact on orthopaedic oncology patient care. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purpose of this study was to use a formal consensus-based approach involving clinician-scientists and other stakeholders to identify the top priority research questions for future international prospective clinical studies in orthopaedic oncology. METHODS: A three-step modified Delphi process involving multiple stakeholder groups (including orthopaedic oncologists, research personnel, funding agency representation, and patient representation) was conducted. First, we sent an electronic questionnaire to all participants to solicit clinically relevant research questions (61 participants; 54% of the original 114 individuals invited to participate returned the questionnaires). Then, participants rated the candidate research questions using a 5-point Likert scale for five criteria (60 participants; 53% of the original group participated in this portion of the process). Research questions that met a priori consensus thresholds progressed for consideration to an in-person consensus meeting, which was attended by 44 participants (39% of the original group; 12 countries were represented at this meeting). After the consensus panel's discussion, members individually assigned scores to each question using a 9-point Likert scale. Research questions that met preset criteria advanced to final ranking, and panel members individually ranked their top three priority research questions, resulting in a final overall ranking of research priorities. RESULTS: A total of 73 candidate research questions advanced to the consensus meeting. In the end, the consensus panel identified four research priorities: (1) Does less intensive surveillance of patients with sarcoma affect survival? (2) What are the survival outcomes over time for orthopaedic oncology implants? (3) Does resection versus stabilization improve oncologic and functional outcomes in oligometastatic bone disease? (4) What is the natural history of untreated fibromatosis? CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study will assist in developing a long-term research strategy for the MSTS and, possibly, the orthopaedic oncology field as a whole. Furthermore, the results of this study can assist researchers in guiding their research efforts and in providing a justified rationale to funding agencies when requesting the resources necessary to support future collaborative research studies that address the identified orthopaedic oncology priorities.

The Scholarly Influence of Orthopaedic Research According to Conventional and Alternative Metrics: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Researchers are experiencing an innovative shift toward online distribution of their work, and metrics related to online scholarly influence are gaining importance. Our objectives were to determine which types of online activity are most prevalent in orthopaedics, to identify associated factors, and to explore a complementary approach to measuring overall scholarly influence using online activity and conventional citations. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials of surgical or nonsurgical interventions in participants with, or at specific risk for, injuries and diseases of the musculoskeletal system. We collected data on online activity in social media, mainstream media, blogs, forums, and other sources from a commercial provider of alternative metric data for medical journals. We tested associations with use of negative binomial regression. RESULTS: We identified 1,697 trials, published between 2011 and 2014, that had a total of 12,995 conventional citations and 15,068 online mentions. The median number of online mentions of each trial was 2 (interquartile range, 0 to 5). Twitter (82%) and Facebook (13%) mentions were the most prevalent types of online activity. Counts of online mentions correlated with conventional citations (r = 0.11, p < 0.01) but accumulated more rapidly. Higher total counts of online mentions were consistently associated with longer time since publication, higher journal impact factor, higher author h-index values, and less risk of bias (p < 0.01 for each). We found the best model fit for a complementary approach by weighting citations and online mentions equally. CONCLUSIONS: Online activity in orthopaedics is dominated by activity on Twitter and Facebook and is associated with increasing time since publication, journal impact factor, and author h-index values, and less risk of bias. Institutions, publishers, funding agencies, and clinicians may consider a complementary approach to measuring scholarly influence that weights online mentions and conventional citations equally.

Impact of research investment on scientific productivity of junior researchers.

There is a demand for providing evidence on the effectiveness of research investments on the promotion of novice researchers' scientific productivity and production of research with new initiatives and innovations. We used a mixed method approach to evaluate the funding effect of the New Investigator Fund (NIF) by comparing scientific productivity between award recipients and non-recipients. We reviewed NIF grant applications submitted from 2004 to 2013. Scientific productivity was assessed by confirming the publication of the NIF-submitted application. Online databases were searched, independently and in duplicate, to locate the publications. Applicants' perceptions and experiences were collected through a short survey and categorized into specified themes. Multivariable logistic regression was performed. Odds ratios (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) are reported. Of 296 applicants, 163 (55 %) were awarded. Gender, affiliation, and field of expertise did not affect funding decisions. More physicians with graduate education (32.0 %) and applicants with a doctorate degree (21.5 %) were awarded than applicants without postgraduate education (9.8 %). Basic science research (28.8 %), randomized controlled trials (24.5 %), and feasibility/pilot trials (13.3 %) were awarded more than observational designs (p < 0.001). Adjusting for applicants and application factors, awardees published the NIF application threefold more than non-awardees (OR = 3.4, 95 %, CI = 1.9, 5.9). The survey response rate was 90.5 %, and only 58 % commented on their perceptions, successes, and challenges of the submission process. These findings suggest that research investments as small as seed funding are effective for scientific productivity and professional growth of novice investigators and production of research with new initiatives and innovations. Further efforts are recommended to enhance the support of small grant funding programs.