Are Orthopaedic Systematic Reviews Overly Prevalent?

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning May Resolve Health Care Information Overload

Biomedical information doubles almost every 2 months, and this very rate is expected to double by 2025. The result is information overload for clinicians and researchers. Today, artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) research contribute to the deluge of information. In addition, AI large language models, although capable of automating scientific writing, are flawed. They hallucinate (make things up), are trained primarily on non-peer-reviewed content, raise ethical and legal issues, and lack human empathy. Still, when it comes to AI including ML, we are optimistic. The technology is improving rapidly. In the future, AI will help us manage unwieldy information by processing data, determining diagnoses, recommending treatments, and predicting outcomes. In research, AI and ML similarly promise efficient data analysis and literature review and will create new content in response to our instructions. Human touch will be required, and we will disclose use of AI proactively, including rationale for its use, our data input, our level of confidence in the output, and the patients or populations to whom the output may be applied. In addition, we will ensure data quality is high and bias is minimized. Most of all, we will provide essential reasoning, clinical and research guidance, and diligent oversight. Humans will remain accountable.

Cemented vs Uncemented hemiarthroplasties for femoral neck fractures: An overlapping systematic review and evidence appraisal

BACKGROUND

The purpose of our study is to assess the methodology of overlapping systematic reviews related to cemented vs uncemented hip hemiarthroplasties for the treatment of femoral neck fractures to find the study with the best evidence. Also, we assess the gaps in methodology and information to help with direction of future studies.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in September 2022 using Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Clinical outcome data and characteristics of each study were extracted to see which treatment had better favorability. The outcomes and characteristics extracted from each study includes, first author, search date, publication journal and date, number of studies included, databases, level of evidence, software used, subgroup analyses that were conducted, and heterogeneity with the use of I2 statistics Methodological quality information was extracted from each study using four different methodologic scores (Oxford Levels of Evidence; Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR); Quality of reporting of meta-analyses (QUROM); Oxman and Guyatt. After that, the Jadad decision algorithm was used to identify which studies in our sample contained the best available evidence. Finally, overlap of each systematic review was assessed using Corrected Covered Area (CCA) to look at redundancy and research waste among the systematic reviews published on the topic.

RESULTS

After screening, 12 studies were included in our sample. For the Oxford Levels of Evidence, we found that all the studies were Level I evidence. For the QUORUM assessment, we had 1 study with the highest score of 18. Additionally, we did the Oxman and Guyatt assessment, where we found 4 studies with a maximum score of 6. Finally, we did an AMSTAR assessment and found 2 studies with a score of 9. After conducting the methodological scores; the authors determined that Li. L et al 2021 had the highest quality. In addition, it was found that the CCA found among the primary studies in each systematic review calculated to .22. Any CCA above .15 is considered "very high overlap".

CONCLUSIONS

The best available evidence suggests that Cemented HAs are better at preventing Prosthesis-related complications. Conversely, the best evidence also suggests that Cemented HA also results in longer operative time and increased intraoperative blood loss. When conducting future systematic reviews related to the topic, we ask that authors restrict conducting another systematic review until new evidence emerges so as not to confuse the clinical decision-making of physicians.

An Evaluation of Publication Bias in High-Impact Orthopaedic Literature

Background:

Statistical analysis of systematic reviews allows the results of previous studies to be combined and synthesized to assess the overall health effect of the intervention in question. Systematic reviews can also be used to guide the creation of clinical practice guidelines and are considered to have a high level of evidence. Thus, it is important that their methodological quality is of the highest standard. Publication bias presents 2 problems: (1) studies with significant results may be overrepresented in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (“false positives”) and (2) studies without significant results may not be included in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (“false negatives”) because each study, on its own, was underpowered, meaning that some treatment options that may have clinical benefit will not be adopted.

Methods:

We performed a study to evaluate the techniques used by authors to report and evaluate publication bias in the top 10 orthopaedic journals as well as 3 orthopaedic-related Cochrane groups. Two authors independently screened the titles and abstracts to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We assessed publication bias in the systematic reviews that did not assess publication bias themselves.

Results:

Our final sample included 694 systematic reviews or meta-analyses that met our inclusion criteria. Our review included 502 studies (72%) that focused on clinical outcomes, with the majority of the remaining studies focused on predictive and prognostic accuracy (20%) or diagnostic accuracy (5%). Publication bias was discussed in 295 (42.5%) of the included studies and was assessed in 135 (19.5%). Of the studies that assessed publication bias, 31.9% demonstrated evidence of publication bias. Only 43% and 22% of studies that involved use of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines discussed and assessed publication bias, respectively.

Conclusions:

Publication bias is infrequently discussed and assessed in the high-impact orthopaedic literature. Furthermore, nearly one-third of the studies that assessed for publication bias demonstrated evidence of publication bias. In addition to these shortcomings, fewer than half of these studies involved use of the PRISMA guidelines and yet only one-fourth of the studies assessed for publication bias.

Clinical Relevance:

By understanding the degree to which publication bias is discussed and presented in high-impact orthopaedic literature, changes can be made by journals and researchers alike to improve the overall quality of research produced and reported.

"Publish or Perish" Promotes Medical Literature Quantity Over Quality

When it comes to medical research, incentives align to promote "publish or perish." This results in quantity over quality. A solution is to change the goal of medical scientist and clinician training from bolstering a curriculum vitae to mastering scientific research methods. In addition, the metric for scholarly authorship should be quality, for which validated measurement tools exist, rather than number of publications.

Editorial Commentary: Hype, Hope and Everything in Between. What Produces the Real Effect for Blood-derived Products Including Platelet-Rich Plasma?

Biological approaches have a promising future in the orthopaedic field because of their potential benefits that include their minimal invasiveness, potential for accelerated healing, and promise for rapid recovery. However, as the initial hype for these therapies starts to fade, it should be replaced by solid basic and clinical science research to tailor each compound to a determined patient/pathology. Blood contains several products that can be both beneficial and detrimental for every specific tissue, and therefore a one-fits-all approach should be avoided. Although beneficial effects have been consistently reported for certain pathologies such as lateral elbow tendinopathy, as an adjunct for rotator cuff repairs and the symptomatic treatment of osteoarthritis, other conditions' outcomes with biologic treatment remain nebulous such as for Achilles tendinopathy. To determine the real effect of these therapies, it is important to maintain strict inclusion criteria in an attempt to isolate the effect of one biologic product that already has many inherent intrinsic variables per se.

Quality Submissions and Editorial Commentaries Require Heavy Lifting: Journal Growth Risks Information Overload

Our journal has grown in pages including more articles plus commentary. On the one hand, we see this as a subscriber benefit, but we also recognize that more is not always better. We risk information overload resulting in fatigue and the inability to read every word of every article. The challenge of information overload has expanded since the explosion of the internet and electronic communications. We could increase our already high rejection rates, but at the risk of rejecting high-quality research, which we do not prefer. In the end, guided by our Journal Board of Trustees and the Arthroscopy Association of North America Board of Directors, our Editors and Associate Editors will continue to grapple with the positive challenge of robust growth.

Where Do Arthroscopy Editors Stand on Systematic Reviews of the Literature?

Systematic reviews seem overly prevalent and often inconclusive. Yet, well-performed reviews provide powerful answers to clinical questions, whereas the results of a single clinical trial may not be reliably reproducible. Thus, in balance, we rest highly in favor of rigorously performed synthetic studies that stand at the top of the evidence-based medicine hierarchy.

Research Pearls: The Significance of Statistics and Perils of Pooling. Part 3: Pearls and Pitfalls of Meta-analyses and Systematic Reviews

Within the health care environment, there has been a recent and appropriate trend towards emphasizing the value of care provision. Reduced cost and higher quality improve the value of care. Quality is a challenging, heterogeneous, variably defined concept. At the core of quality is the patient's outcome, quantified by a vast assortment of subjective and objective outcome measures. There has been a recent evolution towards evidence-based medicine in health care, clearly elucidating the role of high-quality evidence across groups of patients and studies. Synthetic studies, such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses, are at the top of the evidence-based medicine hierarchy. Thus, these investigations may be the best potential source of guiding diagnostic, therapeutic, prognostic, and economic medical decision making. Systematic reviews critically appraise and synthesize the best available evidence to provide a conclusion statement (a "take-home point") in response to a specific answerable clinical question. A meta-analysis uses statistical methods to quantitatively combine data from single studies. Meta-analyses should be performed with high methodological quality homogenous studies (Level I or II) or evidence randomized studies, to minimize confounding variable bias. When it is known that the literature is inadequate or a recent systematic review has already been performed with a demonstration of insufficient data, then a new systematic review does not add anything meaningful to the literature. PROSPERO registration and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines assist authors in the design and conduct of systematic reviews and should always be used. Complete transparency of the conduct of the review permits reproducibility and improves fidelity of the conclusions. Pooling of data from overly dissimilar investigations should be avoided. This particularly applies to Level IV evidence, that is, noncomparative investigations. With proper technique, systematic reviews and meta-analyses have the potential to be powerful investigations that efficiently assist clinicians in decision making.

Research Pearls: The Significance of Statistics and Perils of Pooling

A series of articles on statistics are intended for an audience of clinicians, as well as statisticians and authors. Statistical significance is different than clinical significance. Understanding of clinical outcomes, value, quality, or generalizability requires critical analysis of medical research literature to ensure that statistical analyses have been properly applied and interpreted.

Editorial Commentary: Limited Data Shows How Little We Know

Lateral compartment osteoarthritis of the knee can be a challenging problem to address in the younger, active population. The challenge is compounded by limited treatment options and high patient expectations, with patients often desiring a return to impact high intensity activity. Distal femoral osteotomy has been reported to be one potential treatment option; however, a highly heterogeneous literature exists for both opening and closing wedge distal femoral osteotomies for the treatment of isolated lateral compartment osteoarthritis with valgus malalignment. The literature does not provide significant direction for surgeons on the appropriate surgical approach; however, opening wedge osteotomies allow for fine adjustment and maintain leg length and joint alignment, and are our preferred approach.

Editorial Commentary: Book? … Book Report? … or Just a New Chapter in an Ongoing Story?: Knee Partial Meniscectomy Has Limited Benefit for "Nonobstructive" Meniscal Tears, but We Need to Know if Patients Have Osteoarthritis

Knee partial meniscectomy has limited benefit for "nonobstructive" meniscal tears, but we need to know if included patients have osteoarthritis. Research on outcomes of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus nonsurgical treatment must consider not only signs and symptoms but also imaging findings, to determine the indications for surgical versus nonsurgical in a selected patient.