How-To Create an Orthopaedic Systematic Review: A Step-by-step Guide Part II: Study Execution.

Systematic reviews are the apex of the evidence-based pyramid, representing the strongest form of evidence synthesizing results from multiple primary studies. In particular, a quantitative systematic review, or meta-analysis, pools results from multiple studies to help answer a respective research question. The aim of this review is to serve as a guide on how to: (1) design, (2) execute, and (3) publish an orthopaedic arthroplasty systematic review. In Part II, we focus on methods to assess data quality through the Cochrane Risk of Bias, Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies criteria, or Newcastle-Ottawa scale; enumerate various methods for appropriate data interpretation and analysis; and summarize how to convert respective findings to a publishable manuscript (providing a previously published example). Use of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines is recommended and standard in all scientific literature, including that of orthopedic surgery. Pooled analyses with forest plots and associated odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals are common ways to present data. When converting to a manuscript, it is important to consider and discuss the inherent limitations of systematic reviews, including their inclusion and/or exclusion criteria and overall quality, which can be limited based on the quality of individual studies (eg, publication bias, heterogeneity, search/selection bias). We hope our papers will serve as starting points for those interested in performing an orthopaedic arthroplasty systematic review.

High Area Deprivation Index is Associated With Not Achieving the Patient-acceptable Symptom State After TKA.

BACKGROUND: The Area Deprivation Index (ADI) approximates a patient's relative socioeconomic deprivation. The ADI has been associated with increased healthcare use after TKA, but it is unknown whether there is an association with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Given that a high proportion of patients are dissatisfied with their results after TKA, and the large number of these procedures performed, knowledge of factors associated with PROMs may indicate opportunities to provide support to patients who might benefit from it. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is the ADI associated with achieving the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) for pain, Joint Replacement (JR), and Physical Function (PS) short forms after TKA? (2) Is the ADI associated with achieving the patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) thresholds for the KOOS pain, JR, and PS short forms? METHODS: This was a retrospective study of data drawn from a longitudinally maintained database. Between January 2016 and July 2021, a total of 12,239 patients underwent unilateral TKA at a tertiary healthcare center. Of these, 92% (11,213) had available baseline PROM data and were potentially eligible. An additional 21% (2400) of patients were lost before the minimum study follow-up of 1 year or had incomplete data, leaving 79% (8813) for analysis here. The MCID is the smallest change in an outcome score that a patient is likely to perceive as a clinically important improvement, and the PASS refers to the threshold beyond which patients consider their symptoms acceptable and consistent with adequate functioning and well-being. MCIDs were calculated using a distribution-based method. Multivariable logistic regression models were created to investigate the association of ADI with 1-year PROMs while controlling for patient demographic variables. ADI was stratified into quintiles based on their distribution in our sample. Achievement of MCID and PASS thresholds was determined by the improvement between preoperative and 1-year PROMs. RESULTS: After controlling for patient demographic factors, ADI was not associated with an inability to achieve the MCID for the KOOS pain, KOOS PS, or KOOS JR. A higher ADI was independently associated with an increased risk of inability to achieve the PASS for KOOS pain (for example, the odds ratio of those in the ADI category of 83 to 100 compared with those in the 1 to 32 category was 1.34 [95% confidence interval 1.13 to 1.58]) and KOOS JR (for example, the OR of those in the ADI category of 83 to 100 compared with those in the 1 the 32 category was 1.29 [95% CI 1.10 to 1.53]), but not KOOS PS (for example, the OR of those in the ADI category of 83 to 100 compared with those in the 1 the 32 category was 1.09 [95% CI 0.92 to 1.29]). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that social and economic factors are associated with patients' perceptions of their overall pain and function after TKA, but such factors are not associated with patients' perceptions of their improvement in symptoms. Patients from areas with higher deprivation may be an at-risk population and could benefit from targeted interventions to improve their perception of their healthcare experience, such as through referrals to nonemergent medical transportation and supporting applications to local care coordination services before proceeding with TKA. Future research should investigate the mechanisms underlying why socioeconomic disadvantage is associated with inability to achieve the PASS, but not the MCID, after TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

How-To Create an Orthopaedic Systematic Review: A Step-by-Step Guide Part I: Study Design.

Systematic reviews are conducted through a consistent and reproducible method to search, appraise, and summarize information. Within the evidence-based pyramid, systematic reviews can be at the apex when incorporating high-quality studies, presenting the strongest form of evidence given their synthesis of results from multiple primary studies to level IV evidence, depending on the studies they incorporate. When combined and supplemented with a meta-analysis using statistical methods to pool the results of 3 or more studies, systematic reviews are powerful tools to help answer research questions. The aim of this review is to serve as a guide on how to: (1) design; (2) execute; and (3) publish an orthopaedic arthroplasty systematic review and meta-analysis. In Part I, we discuss how to develop an appropriate research question as well as source and screen databases. To date, commonly used databases to source studies include PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science. Although not all-encompassing, this paper serves as a starting point for those interested in performing and/or critically reviewing lower extremity arthroplasty systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

How-To Create an Orthopaedic Systematic Review: A Step-by-Step Guide. Part III: Executing a Meta-Analysis.

At the top of the evidence-based pyramid, systematic reviews stand out as the most powerful, synthesizing findings from numerous primary studies. Specifically, a quantitative systematic review, known as a meta-analysis, combines results from various studies to address a specific research question. This review serves as a guide on how to: (1) design; (2) perform; and (3) publish an orthopedic arthroplasty systematic review. In Part III, we focus on how to design and perform a meta-analysis. We delineate the advantages and disadvantages of meta-analyses compared to systematic reviews, acknowledging their potential challenges due to time constraints and the complexities posed by study heterogeneity and data availability. Despite these obstacles, a well-executed meta-analysis contributes precision and heightened statistical power, standing at the apex of the evidence-based pyramid. The design of a meta-analysis closely mirrors that of a systematic review, but necessitates the inclusion of effect sizes, variability measures, sample sizes, outcome measures, and overall study characteristics. Effective data presentation involves the use of forest plots, along with analyses for heterogeneities and subgroups. Widely-used software tools are common in this domain, and there is a growing trend toward incorporating artificial intelligence software. Ultimately, the intention is for these papers to act as foundational resources for individuals interested in conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the context of orthopaedic arthroplasty, where applicable.

Journal Metrics of Orthopaedic Journals between 2016 and 2021: Trends and Comparisons with Other Specialties.

Bibliometric analysis plays a crucial role in elucidating publication trends and aids scholars in gauging the reach of prospective journals for their research dissemination. Concerns with impact factor (IF) have led us to examine the trends in IF, corrected IF (cIF), and Citescore in orthopaedic journals from 2016 to 2021 and compare them with internal medicine and general surgery journals. Journal IF and cIF were obtained from Journal Citation Reports and Citescore data from the Elsevier Scopus database for the years 2016 to 2021. Orthopaedic journals were categorized, and 10 medicine and surgery journals were selected for comparison. Mean values were analyzed to identify trends. The study included 52 orthopaedic journals, evenly split between the United States and the rest of the world, predominantly publishing in English. Mean IF in orthopaedic journals increased from 1.93 (2016) to 2.78 (2021), with similar rises in cIF and Citescore. These trends were consistent in specialty and general orthopaedic journals. No significant differences were found in mean IF between these categories. Medicine and surgery journals also experienced significant IF increases. Orthopaedic journals have experienced growing esteem and extent from 2016 to 2021. Specialty and general orthopaedic journals showed parallel growth. Researchers can utilize this analysis for informed publishing decisions, potentially expanding their readership.

A Longitudinal Analysis of Weight Changes before and after Total Knee Arthroplasty: Weight Trends, Patterns, and Predictors.

Longitudinal data on patient trends in body mass index (BMI) and the proportion that gains or loses significant weight before and after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are scarce. This study aimed to observe patients longitudinally for a 2-year period and determine (1) clinically significant BMI changes during the 1 year before and 1 year after TKA and (2) identify factors associated with clinically significant weight changes.A prospective cohort of 5,388 patients who underwent primary TKA at a tertiary health care institution between January 2016 and December 2019 was analyzed. The outcome of interests was clinically significant weight changes, defined as a ≥5% change in BMI, during the 1-year preoperative and postoperative periods, respectively. Patient-specific variables and demographics were assessed as potential predictors of weight change using multinomial logistic regression.Overall, 47% had a stable weight throughout the study period (preoperative: 17% gained, 15% lost weight; postoperative: 19% gained, 16% lost weight). Patients who were older (odds ratio [OR] = 0.95), men (OR = 0.47), overweight (OR = 0.36), and Obese Class III (OR = 0.06) were less likely to gain weight preoperatively. Preoperative weight loss was associated with postoperative weight gain 1 year after TKA (OR = 3.03). Preoperative weight gain was associated with postoperative weight loss 1 year after TKA (OR = 3.16).Most patients maintained a stable weight before and after TKA. Weight changes during the 1 year before TKA were strongly associated with reciprocal rebounds in BMI postoperatively, emphasizing the importance of ongoing weight management during TKA and the recognition of patients at higher risk for weight gain.Level of evidence II (prospective cohort study).