An Assessment of the Methodological Quality of Research Published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine

Brophy, Robert H.; Gardner, Michael J.; Saleem, Omar; Marx, Robert G.

doi:10.1177/0363546505278304

Cited by 16 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Efforts to evaluate the quality of therapeutic studies published in medical and surgical specialty journals have been reported [3,5,11,17,24,32]. The primary purpose of our study was to quantitatively analyze the orthopaedic subspecialty literature before, around, and after the introduction of LOE to orthopaedics to determine if the overall number and proportion of high-quality publications (Levels I and II) had improved.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Have Levels of Evidence Improved the Quality of Orthopaedic Research?

Cunningham

Harmsen

Kweon

et al. 2013

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Since 2003 many orthopaedic journals have adopted grading systems for levels of evidence (LOE). It is unclear if the quality of orthopaedic literature has changed since LOE was introduced. Questions/purposes We asked three questions: (1) Have the overall number and proportion of Level I and II studies increased in the orthopaedic literature since the introduction of LOE? (2) Is a similar pattern seen in individual orthopaedic subspecialty journals? (3) What is the interobserver reliability of grading LOE? Methods We assigned LOE to therapeutic studies published in 2000, 2005, and 2010 in eight major orthopaedic subspecialty journals. Number and proportion of Level I and II publications were determined. Data were evaluated using log-linear models. Twenty-six reviewers (13 residents and 13 attendings) graded LOE of 20 blinded therapeutic articles from the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery for 2009. Interobserver agreement relative to the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery was assessed using a weighted kappa.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(2) Is a similar pattern seen in each specific subspecialty journal? (3) What is the interobserver reliability of grading LOE?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Have Levels of Evidence Improved the Quality of Orthopaedic Research?

Cunningham

Harmsen

Kweon

et al. 2013

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…46,52,78,105 These are not unique problems to those using the STROBE checklist, as other groups have identified reporting of bias and funding as substandard and have used other criteria, such as the Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) and custom checklists. 11,15,97 The STROBE Statement was originally designed to give "guidance to authors about how to improve reporting of observational studies and [facilitate] critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. "…”

Section: Strobementioning

confidence: 99%

Case-control studies in neurosurgery

Nesvick¹,

Thompson

Boop

et al. 2014

JNS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Object Observational studies, such as cohort and case-control studies, are valuable instruments in evidence-based medicine. Case-control studies, in particular, are becoming increasingly popular in the neurosurgical literature due to their low cost and relative ease of execution; however, no one has yet systematically assessed these types of studies for quality in methodology and reporting. Methods The authors performed a literature search using PubMed/MEDLINE to identify all studies that explicitly identified themselves as “case-control” and were published in the JNS Publishing Group journals (Journal of Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics, Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, and Neurosurgical Focus) or Neurosurgery. Each paper was evaluated for 22 descriptive variables and then categorized as having either met or missed the basic definition of a case-control study. All studies that evaluated risk factors for a well-defined outcome were considered true case-control studies. The authors sought to identify key features or phrases that were or were not predictive of a true case-control study. Those papers that satisfied the definition were further evaluated using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist. Results The search detected 67 papers that met the inclusion criteria, of which 32 (48%) represented true case-control studies. The frequency of true case-control studies has not changed with time. Use of odds ratios (ORs) and logistic regression (LR) analysis were strong positive predictors of true case-control studies (for odds ratios, OR 15.33 and 95% CI 4.52–51.97; for logistic regression analysis, OR 8.77 and 95% CI 2.69–28.56). Conversely, negative predictors included focus on a procedure/intervention (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.13–0.998) and use of the word “outcome” in the Results section (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.082–0.65). After exclusion of nested case-control studies, the negative correlation between focus on a procedure/intervention and true case-control studies was strengthened (OR 0.053, 95% CI 0.0064–0.44). There was a trend toward a negative association between the use of survival analysis or Kaplan-Meier curves and true case-control studies (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.015–1.12). True case-control studies were no more likely than their counterparts to use a potential study design “expert” (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.57–3.95). The overall average STROBE score was 72% (range 50–86%). Examples of reporting deficiencies were reporting of bias (28%), missing data (55%), and funding (44%). Conclusions The results of this analysis show that the majority of studies in the neurosurgical literature that identify themselves as “case-control” studies are, in fact, labeled incorrectly. Positive and negative predictors were identified. The authors provide several recommendations that may reverse the incorrect and inappropriate use of the term “case-control” and improve the quality of design and reporting of true case-control studies in neurosurgery.

show abstract

“…The purpose of this manuscript is to review the best available evidence to answer the following clinical questions for treating the patient with an initial anterior shoulder dislocation: (1) does the data support a particular method of reducing a dislocated shoulder? (2) what is the best way to premedicate patients before reducing the shoulder?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Treating the Initial Anterior Shoulder Dislocation—An Evidence-based Medicine Approach

Kuhn

2006

Sports Medicine and Arthroscopy Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This manuscript presents the best available evidence to answer questions regarding the treatment of the patient with an initial anterior shoulder dislocation. The highest levels of evidence available offer the following conclusions: (1) of the many methods to reduce the dislocated shoulder, little data exist to identify the best method. Recommendations are based on low levels of evidence (levels 4 and 5). (2) Premedication with intra-articular lidocaine has fewer complications and requires a shorter time in the emergency room than intravenous sedation with no detectable differences in reduction success rates (level 1). (3) Postreduction immobilization in external rotation may reduce recurrence (level 2), but immobilization in internal rotation does not (level 1). (4) Arthroscopic surgery significantly reduces recurrence compared to a nonoperative approach (level 1), and (5) there are limited data on features that would allow a safe return to play. Expert opinion suggests that return is allowed when motion and strength are nearly normal, and the athletes can engage in sport-specific activities, however, the athlete is at risk for recurrence while playing (levels 4 and 5).

show abstract

An Assessment of the Methodological Quality of Research Published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine

Abstract: Overall, there was a shift toward more prospective and randomized research designs published in The American Journal of Sports Medicine during 2001-2003 compared to 1991-1993, demonstrating an improvement in the methodological quality of published research.

Cited by 16 publications

References 23 publications

Have Levels of Evidence Improved the Quality of Orthopaedic Research?

Have Levels of Evidence Improved the Quality of Orthopaedic Research?

Case-control studies in neurosurgery

Treating the Initial Anterior Shoulder Dislocation—An Evidence-based Medicine Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About