Insights Into Patients Questions Over Bunion Treatments: A Google Study.

Background: Approximately 1 in 4 adults will develop hallux valgus (HV). Up to 80% of adult Internet users reference online sources for health-related information. Overall, with the high prevalence of HV combined with the numerous treatment options, we believe patients are likely turning to Internet search engines for questions relevant to HV. Using Google's people also ask (PAA) or frequently asked questions (FAQs) feature, we sought to classify these questions, categorize the sources, as well as assess their levels of quality and transparency. Methods: On October 9, 2022, we searched Google using these 4 phrases: "hallux valgus treatment," "hallux valgus surgery," "bunion treatment," and "bunion surgery." The FAQs were classified in accordance with the Rothwell Classification schema and each source was categorized. Lastly, transparency and quality of the sources' information were evaluated with the Journal of the American Medical Association's (JAMA) Benchmark tool and Brief DISCERN, respectively. Results: Once duplicates and FAQs unrelated to HV were removed, our search returned 299 unique FAQs. The most common question in our sample was related to the evaluation of treatment options (79/299, 26.4%). The most common source type was medical practices (158/299, 52.8%). Nearly two-thirds of the answer sources (184/299; 61.5%) were lacking in transparency. One-way analysis of variance revealed a significant difference in mean Brief DISCERN scores among the 5 source types, F(4) = 54.49 (P < .001), with medical practices averaging the worst score (12.1/30). Conclusion: Patients seeking online information concerning treatment options for HV search for questions pertaining to the evaluation of treatment options. The source type encountered most by patients is medical practices; these were found to have both poor transparency and poor quality. Publishing basic information such as the date of publication, authors or reviewers, and references would greatly improve the transparency and quality of online information regarding HV treatment. Level of Evidence: Level V, mechanism-based reasoning.

Influencing the Crystalline Domains of Poly(vinylidenedifluoride) Composites Using Fluorinated Silica Nanoparticles as Drop-In Modifiers.

Improvements to fluoropolymer processing techniques by way of utilizing nanoparticles as drop-in processing aids have pronounced effects on bulk composite properties. In this work, we prepared fluoroalkyl-silanized silica nanoparticles (F-SiNPs, ca. 200 nm) that were solvent-blended with polyvinylenedifluoride (PVDF) in order to prepare composites with varying weight fractions. We demonstrated that the ability to functionalize SiNPs with long fluoroalkylchains that induced co-crystallization with the PVDF matrix, resulting in uniform particle dispersion and improved interlaminate adhesion. This was quantitatively investigated using calorimetry and thermogravimetric analysis, which showed a decrease in the bulk crystallinity of the virgin PVDF from 37% to 10% with minimal 10 wt % F-SiNP loading, rendering a nearly amorphous PVDF. Additional discussions in this work include the effects of various bare and fluoroalkyl-functionalized SiNP loadings on the amorphous and crystalline domains of the PVDF matrix, as well as thermal decomposition.

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.