A Survey for End-Stage Ankle Arthritis Treatment: Ankle Arthrodesis Versus Ankle Arthroplasty.

With promising technological advances, ankle arthroplasty has become an alternative to arthrodesis, traditionally the gold standard, for treating end-stage ankle arthritis. We collected knowledge and perceptions on both procedures to determine the need for a patient decision aid for these patients by administering a cross-sectional survey to 103 orthopaedic surgeons. Respondents were predominantly male and 41 to 50 years old. Half of those who stated that they do not perform arthroplasty said this was because they do not have adequate training. Additionally, certain variables were associated with the surgeon's choice of intervention: patient gender, age, body mass index, postoperative activity level, employment type, perceived risk of infection, neurovascular injury or wound complication, risk of developing or pre-existing adjacent arthritis, deformity, malalignment, bone loss or abnormal bone quality, number of prior ankle operations, cause of arthritis, and desire for motion preservation. The majority agreed that they always incorporate patient preferences into their decisions and that a decision aid would be beneficial. This survey revealed that several patient characteristics are influential in the surgeon's preference for either arthroplasty or arthrodesis for end-stage ankle arthritis. Because the majority of surgeons incorporate patient preferences in their decisions and report that a decision aid would be beneficial for informed decision-making in this clinical scenario, this survey identified an unmet need supporting the development of such a tool for these patients.

What happens to intimate partner violence studies registered on clinicaltrials.gov? A systematic review of a clinical trials registry.

BACKGROUND: There is an increasing number of interventions aimed at reducing the incidence and improving the identification and management of intimate partner violence (IPV), which are being tested in randomized clinical trials. Publication bias, improper reporting, and selective reporting in clinical trials have led to widespread adoption of pre-registration of clinical trials. Non-publication of study results leads to inefficiency, ethical issues, and scientific issues with the IPV literature. When study results and methodology are not made available through publication or other public means, the results cannot be used to their full potential. The objective of this study was to determine the publication rates of IPV trials registered in a large clinical trial registry. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of all IPV-related clinicaltrials.gov records and determined whether the studies that had been completed for ≥ 18 months have been published in a peer-reviewed journal or in the clinicaltrials.gov registry. Two authors extensively searched the literature and contacted study investigators to locate full-text publications for each included study. RESULTS: Of 83 completed IPV-related trials registered on clinicaltrials.gov, 64 (77.1%, 95% CI: 66.6-85.6) were subsequently published in full-text form. Of the 19 unpublished studies, authors confirmed that there was no publication for 11 studies; we were unable to contact the investigator or locate a publication for the remaining eight studies. Only four studies (all published) posted their results on clinicaltrials.gov upon completion. CONCLUSION: Approximately one in four IPV trials are not published 18 months after completion, indicating that clinicians, researchers, and other evidence users should consider whether publication bias might affect their interpretation of the IPV literature. Further research is warranted to understand reasons for non-publication of IPV research and methods to improve publication rates.

Published intimate partner violence studies often differ from their trial registration records.

INTRODUCTION: Registering study protocols in a trial registry is important for methodologic transparency and reducing selective reporting bias. The objective of this investigation was to determine whether published studies of intimate partner violence (IPV) that had been registered matched the registration record on key study design elements. METHODS: We systematically searched three trial registries to identify registered IPV studies and the published literature for the associated publication. Two authors independently determined for each study whether key study elements in the registry matched those in the published paper. RESULTS: We included 66 studies published between 2006 and 2017. Nearly half (29/66, 44%) were registered after study completion. Many (26/66, 39%) had discrepancies regarding the primary outcome, and nearly two-thirds (42/66, 64%) had discrepancies in secondary outcomes. Discrepancies in study design were less frequent (13/66, 20%). However, large changes in sample size (26/66, 39%) and discrepancies in funding source (28/66, 42%) were frequently observed. CONCLUSIONS: Trial registries are important tools for research transparency and identifying and preventing outcome switching and selective outcome reporting bias. Published IPV studies often differ from their records in trial registries. Researchers should pay close attention to the accuracy of trial registry records.