Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become the gold standard for imaging neurological tissues including the spinal cord. The use of MRI for imaging in the acute management of patients with spinal cord injury has increased significantly. This paper used a vigorous literature review with Downs and Black scoring, followed by a Delphi vote on the main conclusions. MRI is strongly recommended for the prognostication of acute spinal cord injury. The sagittal T2 sequence was particularly found to be of value. Four prognostication patterns were found to be predictive of neurological outcome (normal, single-level edema, multi-level edema, and mixed hemorrhage and edema). It is recommended that MRI be used to direct clinical decision making. MRI has a role in clearance, the ruling out of injury, of the cervical spine in the obtunded patient only if there is abnormality of the neurological exam. Patients with cervical spinal cord injuries have an increased risk of vertebral artery injuries but the literature does not allow for recommendation of magnetic resonance angiography as part of the routine protocol. Finally, time repetition (TR) and time echo (TE) values used to evaluate patients with acute spinal cord injury vary significantly. All publications with MRI should specify the TR and TE values used.

Rhabdomyosarcoma is the most common soft‐tissue sarcoma in children and adolescents and accounts for 3% of all pediatric tumors. Subtypes include alveolar, spindle cell, embryonal, mixed‐type, pleomorphic, and rhabdomyosarcoma with ganglionic differentiation. The National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database was queried for patients diagnosed with any type of rhabdomyosarcoma between 1973 and 2014. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and incidence were studied with χ2 analysis. Survival was modeled with Kaplan–Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the effect of age and gender on survival. Pleomorphic subtype had higher grade and larger sized tumors compared to other subtypes (p < 0.05). Pleomorphic and alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma had the worst overall survival with a 26.6% and 28.9% 5‐year survival, respectively. Embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma had the highest 5‐year survival rate (73.9%). Tumor size was negatively correlated with survival months, indicating patients with larger tumors had shorter survival times (p < 0.05). Presence of higher‐grade tumors and metastatic disease at presentation were negatively correlated with survival months (p < 0.05). No significant differences in the survival were found between gender or race between all of the subtypes (p > 0.05). This study highlights key differences in the demographic and survival rates of the different types of rhabdomyosarcoma that can be used for more tailored patient counseling. We also demonstrate that large, population‐level databases provide sufficient data that can be used in the analysis of rare tumors. © 2019 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 37:2226–2230, 2019

BackgroundThe annual number of retracted publications in the scientific literature is rapidly increasing. The objective of this study was to determine the frequency and reason for retraction of cancer publications and to determine how journals in the cancer field handle retracted articles.MethodsWe searched three online databases (MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library) from database inception until 2015 for retracted journal publications related to cancer research. For each article, the reason for retraction was categorized as plagiarism, duplicate publication, fraud, error, authorship issues, or ethical issues. Accessibility of the retracted article was defined as intact, removed, or available but with a watermark over each page. Descriptive data was collected on each retracted article including number of citations, journal name and impact factor, study design, and time between publication and retraction. The publications were screened in duplicated and two reviewers extracted and categorized data.ResultsFollowing database search and article screening, we identified 571 retracted cancer publications. The majority (76.4%) of cancer retractions were issued in the most recent decade, with 16.6 and 6.7% of the retractions in the prior two decades respectively. Retractions were issued by journals with impact factors ranging from 0 (discontinued) to 55.8. The average impact factor was 5.4 (median 3.54, IQR 1.8–5.5). On average, a retracted article was cited 45 times (median 18, IQR 6–51), with a range of 0–742. Reasons for retraction include plagiarism (14.4%), fraud (28.4%), duplicate publication (18.2%), error (24.2%), authorship issues (3.9%), and ethical issues (2.1%). The reason for retraction was not stated in 9.8% of cases. Twenty-nine percent of retracted articles remain available online in their original form.ConclusionsRetractions in cancer research are increasing in frequency at a similar rate to all biomedical research retractions. Cancer retractions are largely due to academic misconduct. Consequences to cancer patients, the public at large, and the research community can be substantial and should be addressed with future research. Despite the implications of this important issue, some cancer journals currently fall short of the current guidelines for clearly stating the reason for retraction and identifying the publication as retracted.

ObjectiveIntra-articular (IA) injections represent a commonly used modality in the treatment of hip osteoarthritis (OA). Commonly used injections include corticosteroids (CCS), hyaluronic acid (HA) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP). A network meta-analysis allows for comparison among more than two treatment arms and uses both direct and indirect comparisons between interventions. The objective of this network meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy of the various IA injectable treatments in treating hip OA at up to 6 months of follow-up.DesignThis is a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Bayesian random-effects model was performed to assess the direct and indirect comparisons of all treatment options.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus and Web of Science, from inception to October 2019.Eligibility criteria for selected studiesRandomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy of CCS, HA, PRP and placebo in the form of IA saline injection for patients with hip OA.ResultsEleven randomised controlled trials comprising 1353 patients were included. For pain outcomes at both 2–4 and 6 months, no intervention significantly outperformed placebo IA injection. For functional outcomes at both 2–4 and 6 months, no intervention significantly outperformed placebo IA injection. Regarding change from baseline at 2–4 months and 6 months, pooled data demonstrated that all interventions (including placebo), with the exception of HA+PRP, led to a clinically important improvement in both pain, exceeding the minimal clinically important difference.ConclusionEvidence suggests that IA hip saline injections performed as well as all other injectable options in the management of hip pain and functional outcomes.