Reporting and Analyzing Race and Ethnicity in Orthopaedic Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The distinction between race and ethnicity should be carefully understood and described for demographic data collection. Racial healthcare differences have been observed across many orthopaedic subspecialties. However, the frequency of reporting and analyzing race and ethnicity in orthopaedic clinical trials has not been determined. Therefore, the primary purpose of this systematic review was to determine how frequently race and ethnicity are reported and analyzed in orthopaedic clinical trials. METHODS: The top 10 journals by impact factor in the field of orthopaedics were manually screened from 2015 to 2019. All randomized controlled trials related to orthopaedics and assessing clinical outcomes were included. Eligible studies were evaluated for bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and for whether the trial reported and analyzed several demographics, including age, sex, height, weight, race, and ethnicity. The frequency of reporting and analyzing by each demographic was accessed. In addition, comparisons of reporting and analyzing race/ethnicity were made based on orthopaedic subspecialty and journal of publication. RESULTS: A total of 15,488 publications were screened and 482 met inclusion criteria. Of these 482 trials, 460 (95.4%) reported age and 456 (94.6%) reported sex, whereas 35 (7.3%) reported race and 15 (3.1%) reported ethnicity for the randomized groups; 79 studies (16.4%) analyzed age and 72 studies (14.9%) analyzed sex, whereas 6 studies (1.2%) analyzed race and 1 study (0.2%) analyzed ethnicity. The orthopaedic subspecialty of spine was found to report race (23.5%) and ethnicity (17.6%) more frequently than all the other subspecialties, whereas sports medicine reported race and/or ethnicity in only 3 of 150 trials (2.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Race and ethnicity are not frequently reported or analyzed in orthopaedic randomized controlled trials. Social context, personal challenges, and economic challenges should be considered while analyzing the effect of race and ethnicity on outcomes.

Levels of Evidence in Orthopaedic Trauma Literature.

OBJECTIVE: To review and critically assess trends observed regarding the levels of evidence in published articles in orthopaedic traumatology literature. DATA SOURCES: The Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American, and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. STUDY SELECTION: All articles from the years 1998, 2003, 2008, and 2013 in The Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma (JOT) and orthopaedic trauma-related articles from The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American (JBJS-A) and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (CORR) were analyzed. Articles were categorized by type and ranked for level of evidence according to guidelines from the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. DATA EXTRACTION: Study type and standardized level of evidence were determined for each article. Articles were subcategorized as high-level evidence (I, II), moderate-level evidence (III), and low-level evidence (IV, V). DATA SYNTHESIS: During the study period, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American reduced its low-level studies from 80% to 40% (P = 0.00015), Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research decreased its low-level studies from 70% to 27%, and Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma decreased its low-level studies from 78% to 45%. Level IV and V therapeutic, prognostic, and diagnostic studies demonstrated significant decreases during the study period (P = 0.0046, P < 0.0001, P = 0.026). The percentage of high-level studies increased from 13% to 19%; however, this was not significant (P = 0.42). There was a trend showing an increase in level I and II studies for therapeutic, prognostic, and diagnostic studies (P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: There has been a statistically significant decrease in lower level of evidence studies published in the orthopaedic traumatology literature over the past 15 years.

Eminence-based medicine versus evidence-based medicine: when can the athlete with a sprained ankle return to play?

When can the athlete with a sprained ankle to return to play? The medical literature provides no definitive answer to this question, so we surveyed 500 experts in sports medicine, and asked them if they agree with the following statement: "For patients with an acute ankle injury, the ability to hop on the sidelines is sufficient evidence to allow the athlete to return to the field." Overall, the experts did not endorse this statement. Further, a review of the medical literature failed to lend support for the statement. Taken together, some level V (expert opinion) evidence emerges, namely, that a patient's ability to successfully complete the hop test is not necessarily sufficient evidence to allow a return to play. That finding does not mean that a physician must shun the test; rather, the conclusion is that it cannot be relied on in isolation. The hop test, used in context with other findings, along with a consideration of the risks and benefits of continued play, may help the physician on the field reach a reasonable conclusion. To date, however, there is no single, easily applied test that can correctly determine whether an athlete is safe to return to the field.

Eminence-based medicine versus evidence-based medicine: it's okay for 12-year-old pitchers to throw curveballs; it's the pitch count that matters.

Working from a prior investigation, we sought to determine the validity of the claim: "It's okay for 12-year-old pitchers to throw curveballs; it's the pitch count that matters." Our previous expert opinion survey demonstrated that this statement was most probably false. The purpose of this report was to investigate the validity of this statement, and to determine if our sports medicine experts "got it right." Using the most current sports medicine literature, this statement was critically examined so that an evidence-based opinion could be given and compared with the results of our prior study.