Do Some Patients Count More Than Others? Reporting Outcomes of the Same Patient in More Than One Study Requires Disclosure

Strategies to Mitigate Against Least-Publishable Units in Medical and Scientific Research Publications

Least-publishable units, aka minimal publishable units, smallest publishable units, fractions of scholarly effort, and "salami slicing" divide a single research publication into a number of papers with small amounts of information in each paper. This results in quantity rather than quality; is ethically inappropriate; creates extra work for readers, future authors, reviewers, and editors; and can result in redundancy, self-plagiarism, publication overlap, and duplicate reporting of patient data that can result in inaccurate conclusions in systematic reviews. Increased awareness and actionable intervention can help to reverse this growing trend.

Authors Dichotomize Medical Research Findings as Significant Versus Not Significant, Creating a False Sense of Certainty, and Report Outcomes on Patients Whose Results Have Been Previously Reported Without Proper Disclosure

Statistical significance dichotomizes research findings into significant versus not significant, creating a false sense of certainty. It is insufficient to mindlessly report results as significant versus not significant without providing a quantitative estimate of the uncertainty of the data. Authors could provide a confidence interval, draw a P value function graph, or run a Bayesian analysis. Authors could calculate and report a Surprise or S value. Most importantly, authors could thoughtfully consider how the uncertainty within their research data informs the results of their study. And, clinical databases allow researchers to test multiple hypotheses. This could result in reporting outcomes on the same patient or patients in more than 1 study. Such "double-dipping" is not a dilemma in and of itself, but a problem occurs if multiple reporting of outcomes on the same patient or patients is not disclosed in the methods of a study. Absent clarifying disclosure of multiple reporting, a single patient might then be counted twice in future systematic reviews or meta-analyses, resulting in a biased and incorrect review of the literature. Authors using databases to report clinical outcomes must absolutely and explicitly clarify in their methods if the results of 1 or more patients included in their study have been reported in previous publications.

Circumferential Labral Reconstruction for Irreparable Labral Tears in the Primary Setting: Minimum 2-Year Outcomes With a Nested Matched-Pair Labral Repair Control Group

PURPOSE

(1) To report minimum 2-year patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores of primary circumferential acetabular labral reconstruction using anterior tibialis allograft and the knotless pull-through technique in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) and irreparable labral tears and (2) to compare these PROs with a matched-pair primary labral repair group.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed. Patients were included if they underwent primary circumferential labral reconstruction with anterior tibialis tendon allograft during February 2016 to April 2017 for irreparable labral tears and FAIS and had preoperative and minimum 2-year follow-up for modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale, Non-arthritic Hip Score, International Hip Outcome Tool 12 (iHOT-12), 12-Item Short Form Health Survey physical component and mental component, Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey physical component and mental component, and visual analog scale for pain. The exclusion criteria were previous ipsilateral hip conditions or surgical procedures, Tönnis grade 2 or higher, or dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle ≤ 18°). Labral tears were considered irreparable if the labrum appeared (1) to be mostly or completely calcified and (2) to be inadequate (nonviable) and not amenable for labral repair. The reconstruction group was matched 1:3 based on age, sex, and body mass index to a benchmark control group of hips undergoing labral repair from the same period. The minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptomatic state for the mHHS and iHOT-12 score were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 37 hips (37 patients) underwent circumferential labral reconstruction. There were 19 female patients (51.4%) and 18 male patients (48.6%). The mean age was 45.6 ± 11.6 years, and the average body mass index was 27.1 ± 5. At minimum 2-year follow-up, the circumferential labral reconstruction group showed statistically significant improvements in the mHHS, Non-arthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale, iHOT-12 score, and visual analog scale score. All hips in the reconstruction group were successfully matched to 111 labral repair hips. At latest follow-up, improvements in all PROs between the 2 groups were comparable. The revision rates were 0% and 3.6% in the reconstruction and repair groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

After primary hip arthroscopy, primary circumferential labral reconstruction using anterior tibialis allograft and the knotless pull-through technique in the setting of FAIS and irreparable labral tears resulted in significant improvements in several PROs at minimum 2-year follow-up and high patient satisfaction. Primary circumferential labral reconstruction reached comparable functional outcomes to those of a benchmark matched-pair primary labral repair control group.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, case-control study.