[Predatory journals in Orthopedics and Traumatology]. / Revistas depredadoras en Ortopedia y Traumatología.

Predatory journals are distinguished from legitimate journals by their lack of adequate reviews and editorial processes, compromising the quality of published content. These journals do not conduct peer reviews or detect plagiarism, and accept manuscripts without requiring substantial modifications. Their near 100% acceptance rate is driven by profit motives, regardless of the content they publish. While they boast a prestigious editorial board composed of renowned researchers, in most cases, it is a facade aimed at impressing and attracting investigators. Furthermore, these journals lack appropriate ethical practices and are non-transparent in their editorial processes. Predatory journals have impacted multiple disciplines, including Orthopedics and Traumatology, and their presence remains unknown to many researchers, making them unwitting victims. Their strategy involves soliciting articles via email from authors who have published in legitimate journals, promising quick, easy, and inexpensive publication. The implications and negative consequences of predatory journals on the scientific community and researchers are numerous. The purpose of this work is to provide general information about these journals, specifically in the field of Orthopedics and Traumatology, offering guidelines to identify and avoid them, so that authors can make informed decisions when publishing their manuscripts and avoid falling into the hands of predatory journals or publishers.

Las revistas depredadoras se diferencian de las revistas legítimas por su falta de adecuadas revisiones y procesos editoriales, lo que compromete la calidad del contenido publicado. Estas revistas no llevan a cabo revisiones por pares ni realizan acciones que detecten y prevengan el plagio y aceptan manuscritos sin exigir modificaciones sustanciales. Su tasa de aceptación cercana al 100% se debe a su enfoque lucrativo, sin importarles el contenido que publican. Aunque presumen tener un comité editorial compuesto por investigadores destacados, en la mayoría de los casos es una simulación destinada a impresionar y atraer a los investigadores. Además, estas revistas carecen de prácticas éticas adecuadas y no son transparentes en sus procesos editoriales. Las revistas depredadoras han afectado a múltiples disciplinas, incluida la Ortopedia y Traumatología y su presencia es aún desconocida para muchos investigadores, lo que los convierte en víctimas sin saberlo. Su estrategia consiste en solicitar artículos por correo electrónico a autores que han publicado en revistas legítimas, prometiendo una publicación rápida, sencilla y económica. Las implicaciones y consecuencias negativas de las revistas depredadoras en la comunidad científica y los investigadores son numerosas. El propósito de este trabajo es proporcionar información general sobre estas revistas y específicamente en el campo de la Ortopedia y Traumatología, brindando pautas para identificarlas y evitarlas, para que los autores puedan tomar decisiones informadas al publicar sus manuscritos y evitar caer en manos de revistas o editoriales depredadoras.

Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the prehospital and mass casualty research Delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2016 trauma system report recommended a National Trauma Research Action Plan to strengthen and guide future trauma research. To address this recommendation, 11 expert panels completed a Delphi survey process to create a comprehensive research agenda, spanning the continuum of trauma care. We describe the gap analysis and high-priority research questions generated from the National Trauma Research Action Plan panel on prehospital and mass casualty trauma care. METHODS: We recruited interdisciplinary national experts to identify gaps in the prehospital and mass casualty trauma evidence base and generate prioritized research questions using a consensus-driven Delphi survey approach. We included military and civilian representatives. Panelists were encouraged to use the Patient/Population, Intervention, Compare/Control, and Outcome format to generate research questions. We conducted four Delphi rounds in which participants generated key research questions and then prioritized the questions on a 9-point Likert scale to low-, medium-, and high-priority items. We defined consensus as ≥60% agreement on the priority category and coded research questions using a taxonomy of 118 research concepts in 9 categories. RESULTS: Thirty-one interdisciplinary subject matter experts generated 490 research questions, of which 433 (88%) reached consensus on priority. The rankings of the 433 questions were as follows: 81 (19%) high priority, 339 (78%) medium priority, and 13 (3%) low priority. Among the 81 high-priority questions, there were 46 taxonomy concepts, including health systems of care (36 questions), interventional clinical trials and comparative effectiveness (32 questions), mortality as an outcome (30 questions), prehospital time/transport mode/level of responder (24 questions), system benchmarks (17 questions), and fluid/blood product resuscitation (17 questions). CONCLUSION: This Delphi gap analysis of prehospital and mass casualty care identified 81 high-priority research questions to guide investigators and funding agencies for future trauma research.

Multidisciplinary, multisite trauma team training during COVID-19: lessons from the first virtual E-S.T.A.R.T.T. course.

Trauma care delivery is a complex team-based task that requires deliberate practice. The COVID-19 pandemic has not diminished the importance of excellent trauma team dynamics. However, the pandemic hampers our ability to gather safely and train together. A mitigating solution is the provision of high-fidelity simulation training in a virtual setting. The Simulated Trauma and Resuscitation Team Training (S.T.A.R.T.T.) course has provided multidisciplinary trauma team members with skills in crisis resource management (CRM) for nearly 10 years. It has promoted collaborative learning from coast to coast, as the course typically runs at our national surgical and trauma meetings. In response to COVID-19 challenges, the course content has been modified to virtually connect 2 centres in different provinces simultaneously. High participant satisfaction suggests that the new virtual E-S.T.A.R.T.T course is able to continue to help providers develop important CRM skills in a multidisciplinary setting while remaining compliant with COVID-19 safety precautions.

NASA-TLX assessment of workload in resident physicians and faculty surgeons covering trauma, surgical intensive care unit, and emergency general surgery services.

BACKGROUND: Higher workload is associated with burnout and lower performance. Therefore, we aim to assess shift-related factors associated with higher workload on EGS, ICU, and trauma surgery services. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, faculty surgeons and surgery residents completed a survey after each EGS, ICU, or trauma shift, including shift details and a modified NASA-TLX. RESULTS: Seventeen faculty and 12 residents completed 174 and 48 surveys after working scheduled 12-h and 24-h shifts, respectively (response rates: faculty - 62%, residents - 42%). NASA-TLX was significantly increased with a higher physician subjective fatigue level. Further, seeing more consults or performing more operations than average significantly increased workload. Finally, NASA-TLX was significantly higher for faculty when they felt their shift was more difficult than expected. CONCLUSIONS: Higher volume clinical responsibilities and higher subjective fatigue levels are independently associated with higher workload. Designing shift coverage to expand on busier days may decrease workload, impacting burnout and shift performance.

COVID-19: lessons learnt and priorities in trauma and orthopaedic surgery.

The COVID-19 pandemic is the most serious health crisis of our time. Global public measures have been enacted to try to prevent healthcare systems from being overwhelmed. The trauma and orthopaedic (T&O) community has overcome challenges in order to continue to deliver acute trauma care to patients and plan for challenges ahead. This review explores the lessons learnt, the priorities and the controversies that the T&O community has faced during the crisis. Historically, the experience of major incidents in T&O has focused on mass casualty events. The current pandemic requires a different approach to resource management in order to create a long-term, system-sustaining model of care alongside a move towards resource balancing and facilitation. Significant limitations in theatre access, anaesthetists and bed capacity have necessitated adaptation. Strategic changes to trauma networks and risk mitigation allowed for ongoing surgical treatment of trauma. Outpatient care was reformed with the uptake of technology. The return to elective surgery requires careful planning, restructuring of elective pathways and risk management. Despite the hope that mass vaccination will lift the pressure on bed capacity and on bleak economic forecasts, the orthopaedic community must readjust its focus to meet the challenge of huge backlogs in elective caseloads before looking to the future with a robust strategy of integrated resilient pathways. The pandemic will provide the impetus for research that defines essential interventions and facilitates the implementation of strategies to overcome current barriers and to prepare for future crises.

Effect of malpractice claims on orthopedic and traumatology physicians in Turkey: A survey study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the malpractice claims experienced by orthopedic and traumatology physicians and to determine their effects on burnout, job satisfaction, and clinical practice. METHODS: A questionnaire survey was conducted on orthopedic and traumatology specialists between May 2019 and February 2020. Data collection was carried out via e-survey at "turk-ortopedi" mail group, which is an electronic communication network of orthopedic and traumatology physicians. For data collection, sociodemographic data forms were used including the general characteristics, working conditions, and the malpractice claim events along with the Maslach Burnout Inventory scale to evaluate burnout and the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire to investigate job satisfaction. RESULTS: In total, 353 orthopedic and traumatology physicians (348 men, 5 women), including 37 professors, 41 associate professors, and 275 surgeons, completed the questionnaire. In total, 65.4% of the participants (231 physicians and 471 relevant dossiers) stated that they were currently facing a malpractice claim. Emotional burnout and hesitant behavior in medical practices were significantly higher among the physicians who had undergone an investigation/trial with the claim of malpractice (p<0.05), whereas intrinsic job satisfaction was significantly lower (p<0.05). It was determined that orthopedic and traumatology physicians dealing with arthroplasty, vertebral surgery, hand surgery, and foot/ankle surgeries had undergone significantly more trials (p<0.05). In the evaluation of the burnout levels and job satisfaction scores of the physicians according to the age, academic title, seniority, and institution, it was determined that burnout level decreased with age, those between the ages of 25 and 34 years were exhausted the most, and job satisfaction increased with age. It was also found that burnout level decreased and job satisfaction increased as the academic title became higher, and attending physicians were the most exhausted. Moreover, burnout level decreased as seniority increased, the most senior ones were the ones most exhausted, and job satisfaction increased with seniority. CONCLUSION: Evidence from this study has revealed that malpractice claims cause emotional burnout, low intrinsic job satisfaction, and a hesitant behavior in medical practice for the orthopedic and traumatology physicians. The concept of malpractice alone may result in unnecessary analyses/examinations for patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, Diagnostic Study.

Trauma quality indicators: internationally approved core factors for trauma management quality evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Quality in medical care must be measured in order to be improved. Trauma management is part of health care, and by definition, it must be checked constantly. The only way to measure quality and outcomes is to systematically accrue data and analyze them. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic revision of the literature about quality indicators in trauma associated to an international consensus conference RESULTS: An internationally approved base core set of 82 trauma quality indicators was obtained: Indicators were divided into 6 fields: prevention, structure, process, outcome, post-traumatic management, and society integrational effects. CONCLUSION: Present trauma quality indicator core set represents the result of an international effort aiming to provide a useful tool in quality evaluation and improvement. Further improvement may only be possible through international trauma registry development. This will allow for huge international data accrual permitting to evaluate results and compare outcomes.

An alphanumeric classification of osteoporotic pelvic ring injuries.

INTRODUCTION: Classification and management of osteoporotic pelvic ring injuries (OPRI) continue to pose a considerable challenge to orthopaedic traumatologists. The currently used fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFP) classification of OPRI has recently been shown to have significant weaknesses. The aim of this study therefore was to propose a new, simple, yet comprehensive alphanumeric classification (ANC) of OPRI and to assess its intra- and interobserver reliability. Furthermore, its potential advantages over the FFP classification are discussed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred consecutive CT scans from patients with OPRI were evaluated by three orthopaedic traumatologists with varying levels of experience and one musculoskeletal radiologist. Intra- and interobserver reliability of the proposed classification system was assessed using weighted kappa (κ) statistics and percentage agreement. In addition, the Fleiss' kappa statistic was computed to assess interobserver agreement among all four raters. RESULTS: Overall intraobserver reliability of the proposed ANC was substantial [κ ranging from 0.71 to 0.80; percentage agreement: 70% (range, 67-76%)]. Overall interobserver reliability between pairs of raters was substantial as well [κ ranging from 0.61 to 0.68; percentage agreement: 58% (range, 53-61%)]. For ANC types, groups and subgroups, intra- and interobserver reliability were substantial to almost perfect. Interobserver agreement among all four raters was moderate to substantial, with Fleiss' kappa values of 0.48, 0.69, 0.71 and 0.52 for ANC overall, types, groups and subgroups, respectively. CONCLUSION: The proposed ANC of OPRI demonstrated overall reliability comparable to that of the FFP classification. The ANC, however, is simple, more comprehensive, and consistently relates to injury severity.

Recommendations from the Italian Society of Pediatric Orthopaedics and Traumatology for the management of pediatric orthopaedic patients during the COVID19 pandemic and post-pandemic period in Italy.

The rapid spread of the COVID-19 outbreak in Italy has dramatically impacted the National Healthcare System, causing the sudden congestion of hospitals, especially in Northern Italy, thus imposing drastic restriction of almost all routine medical care. This exceptional adaptation of the Italian National Healthcare System has also been felt by non-frontline settings such as Pediatric Orthopaedic Units, where the limitation or temporary suspension of most routine care activities met with a need to maintain continuity of care and avoid secondary issues due to the delay or suspension of the routine clinical practice. The Italian Society of Pediatric Orthopaedics and Traumatology formulated general and specific recommendations to face the COVID-19 outbreak, aiming to provide essential care for children needing orthopaedic treatments during the pandemic and early post-peak period, ensure safety of children, caregivers and healthcare providers and limit the spread of contagion.

Enfermedad por Coronavirus - 2019 (COVID-19) y Traumatología: Revisión de la literatura / Coronavirus Disease - 2019 (COVID-19) and Traumatology: Review of Literature

The Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) triggered a global health emergency, and as a response, institutions and medical services have implemented different measures regarding the management of these patients in order to maintain medical care, and reduce the spread of the virus in patients and medical staff. The following review aims to present the current recommendations made by international, national and local societies regarding medical action from Traumatology and Orthopaedics. A literature review was done on Medline / Pubmed platforms, The Journal Bone and Joint Surgery (JBJS), Journal of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (JAAOS), Sociedad Chilena de Ortopedia y Traumatología (SCHOT). The literature was in Spanish and English, comparing it with reality on a local level. The current COVID-19 pandemic led to the complete reform of the trauma care units, starting with the development of subspecialty teams that rotate periodically, which are in charge of the emergency area, treating patients with all personal protection elements (PPE) and categorizing those patients who require emergency trauma surgery, from those that can be managed in a delayed manner. Regarding patients who are hospitalized, a COVID-19 PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) test is taken as screening, except for emergency surgeries where all intraoperative protection measures are taken. In addition, for greater safety, all elective surgery was suspended, which reduces the flow of patients in the ward and in the inpatient unit. Outpatient care was optimized in order to protect patients in their periodic check-ups.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on orthopaedic and trauma surgery training in Europe.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on orthopaedic and trauma surgery training in Europe by conducting an online survey among orthopaedic trainees. METHODS: The survey was conducted among members of the Federation of Orthopaedic and Trauma Trainees in Europe (FORTE). It consisted of 24 questions (single-answer, multiple-answer, Likert scales). Orthopaedic trainees' demographic data (six questions), clinical role changes (four questions), institutional changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic (nine questions), and personal considerations (five questions) were examined. RESULTS: Three hundred and twenty-seven trainees from 23 European countries completed the survey. Most trainees retained their customary clinical role (59.8%), but a significant number was redeployed to COVID-19 units (20.9%). A drastic workload decrease during the pandemic was reported at most institutions. Only essential activities were performed at 57.1% of institutions and drastic disruptions were reported at 36.0%. Of the respondents, 52.1% stated that faculty-led education was restricted and 46.3% pursued self-guided learning, while 58.6% stated that surgical training was significantly impaired. Concerns about the achievement of annual training goals were expressed by 58.2% of the participants, while 25.0% anticipated the need for an additional year of training. CONCLUSIONS: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic significantly affected orthopaedic and trauma training in Europe. Most trainees felt the decrease in clinical, surgical, and educational activities would have a detrimental effect on their training. Many of them consulted remote learning options to compensate training impairment, stating that after the COVID-19 pandemic electronic educational approaches may become more relevant in future.

The trauma and acute care surgeon in the COVID-19 pandemic era.

The World Health Organization recognized in March 2020 the existence of a pandemic for the new coronavirus that appeared in China, in late 2019, and whose disease was named COVID-19. In this context, the SBAIT (Brazilian Society of Integrated Care for Traumatized Patients) conducted a survey with 219 trauma and emergency surgeons regarding the availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) and the role of the surgeon in this pandemic by means of an electronic survey. It was observed that surgeons have been acting under inadequate conditions, with a lack of basic supplies as well as more specific equipment such as N95 masks and facial shields for the care of potential victims who may be contaminated. The latter increases the risk of contamination of professionals, resulting in potential losses in the working teams. Immediate measures must be taken to guarantee access to safety equipment throughout the country, since all trauma victims and/or patients with emergency surgical conditions must be treated as potential carriers of COVID-19.

Management of orthopaedic and traumatology patients during the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic in northern Italy.

PURPOSE: This article aims to share northern Italy's experience in hospital re-organization and management of clinical pathways for traumatic and orthopaedic patients in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Authors collected regional recommendations to re-organize the healthcare system during the initial weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic in March, 2020. The specific protocols implemented in an orthopaedic hospital, selected as a regional hub for minor trauma, are analyzed and described in this article. RESULTS: Two referral centres were identified as the hubs for minor trauma to reduce the risk of overload in general hospitals. These two centres have specific features: an emergency room, specialized orthopaedic surgeons for joint diseases and trauma surgeons on-call 24/7. Patients with trauma without the need for a multi-disciplinary approach or needing non-deferrable elective orthopaedic surgery were moved to these hospitals. Authors report the internal protocols of one of these centres. All elective surgery was stopped, outpatient clinics limited to emergencies and specific pathways, ward and operating theatre dedicated to COVID-19-positive patients were implemented. An oropharyngeal swab was performed in the emergency room for all patients needing to be admitted, and patients were moved to a specific ward with single rooms to wait for the results. Specific courses were organized to demonstrate the correct use of personal protection equipment (PPE). CONCLUSION: The structure of the orthopaedic hubs, and the internal protocols proposed, could help to improve the quality of assistance for patients with musculoskeletal disorders and reduce the risk of overload in general hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 coronavirus: recommended personal protective equipment for the orthopaedic and trauma surgeon.

PURPOSE: With the COVID-19 crisis, recommendations for personal protective equipment (PPE) are necessary for protection in orthopaedics and traumatology. The primary purpose of this study is to review and present current evidence and recommendations for personal protective equipment and safety recommendations for orthopaedic surgeons and trauma surgeons. METHODS: A systematic review of the available literature was performed using the keyword terms "COVID-19", "Coronavirus", "surgeon", "health-care workers", "protection", "masks", "gloves", "gowns", "helmets", and "aerosol" in several combinations. The following databases were assessed: Pubmed, Cochrane Reviews, Google Scholar. Due to the paucity of available data, it was decided to present it in a narrative manner. In addition, participating doctors were asked to provide their guidelines for PPE in their countries (Austria, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Germany, UK) for consideration in the presented practice recommendations. RESULTS: World Health Organization guidance for respiratory aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) such as intubation in a COVID19 environment was clear and included the use of an FFP3 (filtering face piece level 3) mask and face protection. However, the recommendation for surgical AGPs, such as the use of high-speed power tools in the operating theatre, was not clear until the UK Public Health England (PHE) guidance of 27 March 2020. This guidance included FFP3 masks and face protection, which UK surgeons quickly adopted. The recommended PPE for orthopaedic surgeons, working in a COVID19 environment, should consist of level 4 surgical gowns, face shields or goggles, double gloves, FFP2-3 or N95-99 respirator masks. An alternative to the mask, face shield and goggles is a powered air-purifying respirator, particularly if the surgeons fail the mask fit test or are required to undertake a long procedure. However, there is a high cost and limited availabilty of these devices at present. Currently available surgical helmets and toga systems may not be the solution due to a permeable top for air intake. During the current COVID-19 crisis, it appeared that telemedicine can be considered as an electronic personal protective equipment by reducing the number of physical contacts and risk contamination. CONCLUSION: Orthopaedic and trauma surgery using power tools, pulsatile lavage and electrocautery are surgical aerosol-generating procedures and all body fluids contain virus particles. Raising awareness of these issues will help avoid occupational transmission of COVID-19 to the surgical team by aerosolization of blood or other body fluids and hence adequate PPE should be available and used during orthopaedic surgery. In addition, efforts have to be made to improve the current evidence in this regard. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Are plain radiographs reliable in Lichtman classification?

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to investigate the reliability of the Lichtman classification among residents, orthopedic surgeons, and hand surgeons. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was carried out with 30 male observers (mean age 37.8 years; range, 26 to 62 years) who agreed to participate in the study. All observers were orthopedic surgeons. The observers were separated into three groups that consist of 10 residents, 10 orthopedic surgeons, and 10 hand surgeons. The anteroposterior and lateral wrist radiographs of 20 patients (12 males, 8 females; mean age 49 years; range, 38 to 74 years) diagnosed as Kienböck's disease were sent to observers via e-mail as a survey. All 40 radiographs were asked to be kept classified. RESULTS: The classification of Kienböck's disease was analyzed by 30 observers on 40 digital radiographs. The overall agreement with the Lichtman classification was fair within all of the observers (kappa=0.203). When groups were evaluated within themselves, the agreement level was found poor in group 1 (kappa=0.162) and fair in group 2 (kappa=0.210) and group 3 (kappa=0.252). CONCLUSION: A useful classification system in orthopedics and traumatology should classify the type of musculoskeletal disorder reliably, facilitate communication in clinical practice, guide preoperative planning, and enable comparison of results between studies. The Lichtman classification alone is insufficient and should be supported by other imaging and measurement techniques.

Evaluation and management of blunt cerebrovascular injury: A practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma.

BACKGROUND: Blunt cerebrovascular injuries (BCVIs) are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. This guideline evaluates several aspects of BCVI diagnosis and management including the role of screening protocols, criteria for screening cervical spine injuries, and the use of antithrombotic therapy (ATT) and endovascular stents. METHODS: Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, a taskforce of the Practice Management Guidelines Committee of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of currently available evidence. Four population, intervention, comparison, and outcome questions were developed to address diagnostic and therapeutic issues relevant to BCVI. RESULTS: A total of 98 articles were identified. Of these, 23 articles were selected to construct the guidelines. In these studies, the detection of BCVI increased with the use of a screening protocol versus no screening protocol (odds ratio [OR], 4.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.76-12.78; p = 0.002), as well as among patients with high-risk versus low-risk cervical spine injuries (OR, 12.7; 95% CI, 6.24-25.62; p = 0.003). The use of ATT versus no ATT resulted in a decreased risk of stroke (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06-0.65; p < 0.0001) and mortality (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.08-0.34; p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the risk of stroke among patients with Grade II or III injuries who underwent stenting as an adjunct to ATT versus ATT alone (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.2-12.14; p = 0.63). CONCLUSION: We recommend using a screening protocol to detect BCVI in blunt polytrauma patients. Among patients with high-risk cervical spine injuries, we recommend screening computed tomography angiography to detect BCVI. For patients with low-risk risk cervical injuries, we conditionally recommend performing a computed tomography angiography to detect BCVI. We recommend the use of ATT in patients diagnosed with BCVI. Finally, we recommend against the routine use of endovascular stents as an adjunct to ATT in patients with Grade II or III BCVIs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Guidelines, Level III.

Elderly adults with isolated hip fractures- orthogeriatric care versus standard care: A practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma.

BACKGROUND: Elderly patients commonly suffer isolated hip fractures, causing significant morbidity and mortality. The use of orthogeriatrics (OG) management services, in which geriatric specialists primarily manage or co-manage patients after admission, may improve outcomes. We sought to provide recommendations regarding the role of OG services. METHODS: Using GRADE methodology with meta-analyses, the Practice Management Guidelines Committee of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma conducted a systematic review of the literature from January 1, 1900, to August 31, 2017. A single Population, Intervention, Comparator and Outcome (PICO) question was generated with multiple outcomes: Should geriatric trauma patients 65 years or older with isolated hip fracture receive routine OG management, compared with no-routine OG management, to decrease mortality, improve discharge disposition, improve functional outcomes, decrease in-hospital medical complications, and decrease hospital length of stay? RESULTS: Forty-five articles were evaluated. Six randomized controlled trials and seven retrospective case-control studies met the criteria for quantitative analysis. For critical outcomes, retrospective case-control studies demonstrated a 30-day mortality benefit with OG (OR, 0.78 [0.67, 0.90]), but this was not demonstrated prospectively or at 1 year. Functional outcomes were superior with OG, specifically improved score on the Short Physical Performance Battery at 4 months (mean difference [MD], 0.78 [0.28, 1.29]), and improved score on the Mini Mental Status Examination with OG at 12 months (MD, 1.57 [0.40, 2.73]). Execution of activities of daily living was improved with OG as measured by two separate tests at 4 and 12 months. There was no difference in discharge disposition. Among important outcomes, the OG group had fewer hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (OR, 0.30 [0.15, 0.60]). There was no difference in other complications or length of stay. Overall quality of evidence was low. CONCLUSION: In geriatric patients with isolated hip fracture, we conditionally recommend an OG care model to improve patient outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review/meta-analysis, level III.