Level of Evidence: Does It Change the Rate of Publication and Time to Publication of American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Presentations?

Voleti, Pramod B.; Donegan, Derek J.; Kim, Tae Won B.; Lee, Gwo Chin

doi:10.2106/jbjs.l.00046

Cited by 45 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Donegen et al [7] reported that AAOS presentations have only a 49% publication rate in peer-reviewed journals after 5 years. Voleti et al [28] found that at 5 years. 72% of Level I and II presentations and 46% of Level III and IV presentations were published.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

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: 95%

“…This would suggest that the proportion of high-quality publications will further increase with time. However, when translated to number of publications, this represented 44 high-quality articles and 105 lesser-quality papers [28]. publications in the pediatric orthopaedic subspecialty [4].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

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

“…The publication rate of presentations at the AAOS meetings was assessed for the time periods 1990–1992, 1993, 1996, and 2001. The publication rates of presentations over those time periods were respectively reported as 46%, 44%, 34%, and 49% (Voleti et al 2013; Bhandari et al 2002; Hamlet et al 1997; Murrey et al 1999). The publication rate of presentations at the Society of Military Orthopaedic Surgeons meetings from 1999 to 2003 was reported as 44% (Fuller et al 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The rate of publication of free papers at the 2008 and 2010 European Society of Sports Traumatology Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy congresses

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the frequency with which free papers presented at the 2008 and 2010 European Society of Sports Traumatology Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy (ESSKA) congress were ultimately published in peer-reviewed journals. Moreover, this study evaluated whether any correlations exist between the level of evidence of the free papers and their frequency of publication or the impact factor of the journals in which they are published.MethodsFree papers presented at the 2008 and 2010 ESSKA congresses were included for assessment. Clinical papers (observational studies and trials involving direct interaction between an investigator and human subjects) were graded for level of evidence by two independent reviewers. A comprehensive strategy was used to search the databases PubMed, Ovid (MEDLINE), and EMBASE for all publications corresponding to the included free papers.ResultsThree hundred-ninety presentations were evaluated, of which 215 (55%) were ultimately published in a peer-reviewed journal within five years of the presentation date. The mean time from presentation to publication was 16 months (SD 25 months). There was no significant difference in the distribution of the level of evidence between studies that were ultimately published, versus those that were not published (n.s.). The level of evidence of the published study was not a significant predictor of the impact factor of the journal in which it was published (n.s.). Presentations were most commonly published in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy (24%) and The American Journal of Sports Medicine (22%).ConclusionFree papers at the 2008 and 2010 ESSKA congress were published at a frequency that is comparable to that at other orthopaedic meetings. The publication rate was similar across all levels of evidence. Further encouragement of manuscript preparation and submission following these meetings could help to ensure important research findings are disseminated to large audiences.

show abstract

“…Afterwards the eligibility assessments were crosschecked. All included studies have been described using following criteria: type of study (multi-center vs. single-center vs. case report), type of data collection (prospective vs. retrospective), level of evidence (assessment using the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery ranking system) [24], patient cohort (number of patients who underwent TAR, number of replaced ankles), ankle prosthesis type used in the mentioned study, and the follow-up duration. We used the score of Coleman et al [6,22] (commonly known as the Coleman Methodology Score (CMS)), which has been modified by Gougoulias et al [10] to assess the quality including patients who underwent TAR.…”

Section: Identification Of Relevant Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%