Manuscript Submission Patterns of Authors Publishing in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Journals

Evaluation of Commercially Available Knee Cartilage Restoration Techniques Stratified by FDA Approval Pathway

BACKGROUND

Commercially available products used in knee cartilage reconstructive and restorative surgical practices fall under unique US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory pathways that determine the level of evidence required to market each product.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the levels of evidence in the literature supporting commercially available cartilage repair procedures stratified by FDA regulatory pathway (section 351 vs section 361 of "Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products" [HCT/P] in the Code of Federal Regulation) with the hypothesis that products requiring approval under a stringent regulatory pathway (351 HCT/P) have higher levels of evidence in the literature supporting use and that products with a less stringent regulatory pathway (361 HCT/P) have a higher number of products available for use in the United States.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A search of the PubMed database was performed to identify all peer-reviewed articles pertaining to either allograft or autologous cartilage repair technologies. Predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to find clinical, preclinical, and laboratory studies while excluding duplicates, systematic reviews, and products not available in the United States. Articles were categorized by regulatory pathway (351 and 361 HCT/P), and variables including publication year, type of publication, level of evidence, and number of publications were analyzed.

RESULTS

After application of predefined criteria, 470 of 1924 articles were included in this study. The 351 HCT/P group was composed entirely of autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) technology; 94% of the 361 HCT/P group was composed of osteochondral allografts (OCA). The articles regarding 351 HCT/P were more likely to be clinical in nature than the articles on 361 HCT/P (80% vs 48%, respectively; P = .0001) and entailed significantly more level 1 studies (25 vs 0, respectively; P < .0001). Twice as many articles in the 351 HCT/P group were published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine compared with the 361 HCT/P group (71 vs 38, respectively; P = .18).

CONCLUSION

Both ACI and OCA have robust evidence supporting their use, whereas the remaining regulated products have little or no supporting evidence. Technologies regulated by 351 HCT/P were more likely to be level 1 clinical studies and published in the highest impact journal. The 361 HCT/P pathway regulated many more products, with fewer articles supporting their use.

Causal Language in Observational Orthopaedic Research

With the increasing availability of large clinical registries and administrative data sets, observational (i.e., nonexperimental) orthopaedic research is being performed with increased frequency. While this research substantially advances our field, there are fundamental limitations to what can be determined through a single observational study. Avoiding overstatements and misstatements is important for the sake of accuracy, particularly for ensuring that clinical care is not inadvertently swayed by how an observational study is written up and described. We have noticed that causal language is frequently misused in observational orthopaedic research-that is, language that says or implies that 1 variable definitively causes another, despite the fact that causation can generally only be determined with randomization. In this data-backed commentary, we examine the prevalence of causal language in a random sample of 400 observational orthopaedic studies; we found that causal language was misused in 60% of them. We discuss the implications of these results and how to report observational findings more accurately: the word "association" (and its derivatives) can almost always replace or reframe a causal phrase.

Orthopaedic Randomized Controlled Trials Published in General Medical Journals Are Associated With Higher Altmetric Attention Scores and Social Media Attention Than Nonorthopaedic Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

To (1) compare the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) and citation rates between orthopaedic and nonorthopaedic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from 5 high-impact medical journals and (2) identify general characteristics of these articles associated with greater exposure on social media platforms.

METHODS

Articles published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Lancet, The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Annals of Internal Medicine, and Archives of Internal Medicine between January 2011 and December 2016 were analyzed. These journals were selected based on retaining high impact factors with rigorous publication standards and availability of the AAS for their publications. The queried time frame was chosen to balance the inception of the AAS with an optimal period for citation accrual. A total of 14 article characteristics, in addition to number of Tweets, Facebook shares, news mentions, and the AAS, were extracted. Inclusion criteria were orthopaedic RCTs reporting on outcomes after surgical intervention. Linear regression was used to assess the relationship between publication characteristics and the AAS and social media attention.

RESULTS

A total of 9 orthopaedic and 59 nonorthopaedic RCTs were included. The mean AASs were significantly different (574 ± 565.7 versus 256.9 ± 222.3, P = .003), whereas citation rate was not (192.2 ± 117.1 versus 382.3 ± 560.3, P = .317). Orthopaedic RCTs had a significantly greater number of mentions on Twitter and Facebook (P < .001). A higher AAS significantly associated with a greater number of citations (β = 0.75, P = .019) for orthopaedic RCTs. The mean AAS of orthopaedic RCTs favoring nonoperative management (809.6 ± 676.3) was greater than those favoring operative treatment (292.0 ± 248.9) but was not statistically significant (P = .361).

CONCLUSION

Orthopaedic RCTs published in 5 high-impact general medical journals had a significantly greater mean AAS relative to nonorthopaedic RCTs, with no differences in citation rates. Additionally, there was a strong association between the AAS and citation rate of orthopaedic RCTs. Orthopaedic RCTs had greater social media exposure on both Twitter and Facebook.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Orthopaedic surgeons, researchers, and providers who publish RCTs in high-impact medical journals can anticipate extensive social media attention for their articles relative to other nonorthopaedic RCTs in the same journals. Social media attention may be related to operative versus nonoperative management topics. This study provides further evidence for the increasing use of the AAS and its association with citation accrual.

What Is the Predictive Ability and Academic Impact of the Altmetrics Score and Social Media Attention?

BACKGROUND

Citation rate and journal impact factor have traditionally been used to assess research impact; however, these may fail to represent impact beyond the sphere of academics. Given that social media is now used to disseminate research, alternative web-based metrics (altmetrics) were recently developed to better understand research impact on social media. However, the relationship between altmetrics and traditional bibliometrics in orthopaedic literature is poorly understood.

PURPOSE

To (1) assess the extent that altmetrics correlate with traditional bibliometrics and (2) identify publication characteristics that predict greater altmetrics scores.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

METHODS

Articles published in The American Journal of Sports Medicine (AJSM), The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, Acta Orthopaedica, and Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy between January 2016 and December 2016 were analyzed. Among the extracted publication characteristics were journal, number of authors, geographic region of origin, highest degree of first author, study subject and design, sample size, conflicts of interest, and level of evidence; number of references, institutions, citations, tweets, Facebook mentions, and news mentions; and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS). Multivariate regressions were used to determine (1) publication characteristics predictive of AAS and social media attention (mentions on Twitter, Facebook, and the news) and (2) the relationship between AAS and citation rate.

RESULTS

A total of 496 published articles were included, with a mean AAS of 8.6 (SD, 31.7; range, 0-501) and a mean citation rate of 15.0 (SD, 16.1; range, 0-178). Articles in AJSM (β = 19.9; P < .001), publications from North America (β = 8.5; P = .033), and studies concerning measure validation/reliability (β = 25.5; P = .004) were independently associated with higher AAS. Greater AAS score significantly predicted a greater citation rate (β = 0.16; P < .0001). The citation rate was an independent predictor of greater social media attention on Twitter, Facebook, and the news (odds ratio range, 1.02-1.03; P < .05 all).

CONCLUSION

AAS had a significant positive association with citation rates of articles in 5 high-impact orthopaedic journals. Articles in AJSM, studies concerning measure validation and reliability, and publications from North America were positively associated with greater AAS. A greater number of citations was consistently associated with publication attention received on social media platforms.