Orthopaedic trial networks

Teaching Science to the Next Generation

Teaching science to the next generation begins with foundations laid in podiatric medical school. Interest and immersion in research continues to develop through residency as trainees prepare for cases, participate in journal clubs, present posters and articles, and attend conferences. Having adequate training is essential to production of quality research. Although challenges and barriers exist, numerous resources are available at all levels of practice to guide those who are interested in contributing to the body of literature that supports the profession. Ensuring a robust pipeline of future clinician scientists is critical to the future of the profession.

The role of biomechanical factors in models of intervertebral disc degeneration across multiple length scales

Low back pain is the leading cause of disability, producing a substantial socio-economic burden on healthcare systems worldwide. Intervertebral disc (IVD) degeneration is a primary cause of lower back pain, and while regenerative therapies aimed at full functional recovery of the disc have been developed in recent years, no commercially available, approved devices or therapies for the regeneration of the IVD currently exist. In the development of these new approaches, numerous models for mechanical stimulation and preclinical assessment, including in vitro cell studies using microfluidics, ex vivo organ studies coupled with bioreactors and mechanical testing rigs, and in vivo testing in a variety of large and small animals, have emerged. These approaches have provided different capabilities, certainly improving the preclinical evaluation of these regenerative therapies, but challenges within the research environment, and compromises relating to non-representative mechanical stimulation and unrealistic test conditions, remain to be resolved. In this review, insights into the ideal characteristics of a disc model for the testing of IVD regenerative approaches are first assessed. Key learnings from in vivo, ex vivo, and in vitro IVD models under mechanical loading stimulation to date are presented alongside the merits and limitations of each model based on the physiological resemblance to the human IVD environment (biological and mechanical) as well as the possible feedback and output measurements for each approach. When moving from simplified in vitro models to ex vivo and in vivo approaches, the complexity increases resulting in less controllable models but providing a better representation of the physiological environment. Although cost, time, and ethical constraints are dependent on each approach, they escalate with the model complexity. These constraints are discussed and weighted as part of the characteristics of each model.

Perspective On Excellence in Forensic Mental Health Services: What We Can Learn From Oncology and Other Medical Services

We propose that excellence in forensic and other mental health services can be recognized by the abilities necessary to conduct randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and equivalent forms of rigorous quantitative research to continuously improve the outcomes of treatment as usual (TAU). Forensic mental health services (FMHSs) are growing, are high cost, and increasingly provide the main access route to more intensive, organized, and sustained pathways through care and treatment. A patient newly diagnosed with a cancer can expect to be enrolled in RCTs comparing innovations with the current best TAU. The same should be provided for patients newly diagnosed with severe mental illnesses and particularly those detained and at risk of prolonged periods in a secure hospital. We describe FMHSs in four levels 1 to 4, basic to excellent, according to seven domains: values or qualities, clinical organization, consistency, timescale, specialization, routine outcome measures, and research. Excellence is not elitism. Not all centers need to achieve excellence, though all should be of high quality. Services can provide each population with a network of centers with access to one center of excellence. Excellence is the standard needed to drive the virtuous circle of research and development that is necessary for teaching, training, and the pursuit of new knowledge and better outcomes. Substantial advances in treatment of severe mental disorders require a drive at a national and international level to create services that meet these standards of excellence and are focused, active, and productive to drive better functional outcomes for service users.

Clinical trial networks in orthopaedic surgery

The aim of this study was to review the role of clinical trial networks in orthopaedic surgery. A total of two electronic databases (MEDLINE and EMBASE) were searched from inception to September 2013 with no language restrictions. Articles related to randomised controlled trials (RCTs), research networks and orthopaedic research, were identified and reviewed. The usefulness of trainee-led research collaborations is reported and our knowledge of current clinical trial infrastructure further supplements the review. Searching yielded 818 titles and abstracts, of which 12 were suitable for this review. Results are summarised and presented narratively under the following headings: 1) identifying clinically relevant research questions; 2) education and training; 3) conduct of multicentre RCTs and 4) dissemination and adoption of trial results. This review confirms growing international awareness of the important role research networks play in supporting trials in orthopaedic surgery. Multidisciplinary collaboration and adequate investment in trial infrastructure are crucial for successful delivery of RCTs.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:169–74.

Design and execution of clinical trials in orthopaedic surgery

High-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating surgical therapies are fundamental to the delivery of evidence-based orthopaedics. Orthopaedic clinical trials have unique challenges; however, when these challenges are overcome, evidence from trials can be definitive in its impact on surgical practice. In this review, we highlight several issues that pose potential challenges to orthopaedic investigators aiming to perform surgical randomised controlled trials. We begin with a discussion on trial design issues, including the ethics of sham surgery, the importance of sample size, the need for patient-important outcomes, and overcoming expertise bias. We then explore features surrounding the execution of surgical randomised trials, including ethics review boards, the importance of organisational frameworks, and obtaining adequate funding. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:161-8.

What are the levels of evidence on which we base decisions for surgical management of lower extremity bone tumors?

BACKGROUND

Benign and malignant lower extremity primary bone tumors are among the least common conditions treated by orthopaedic surgeons. The literature supporting their surgical management has historically been in the form of observational studies rather than prospective controlled studies. Observational studies are prone to confounding bias, sampling bias, and recall bias.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What are the overall levels of evidence of articles published on the surgical management of lower extremity bone tumors? (2) What is the overall quality of reporting of studies in this field based on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist? (3) What are the most common pitfalls in reporting that authors might improve on?

METHODS

All studies describing the surgical management of lower extremity primary bone tumors from 2002 to 2012 were systematically reviewed. Two authors independently appraised levels of evidence. Quality of reporting was assessed with the STROBE checklist. Pitfalls in reporting were quantified by determining the 10 most underreported elements of research study design in the group of studies analyzed, again using the STROBE checklist as the reference standard. Of 1387 studies identified, 607 met eligibility criteria.

RESULTS

There were no Level I studies, two Level II studies, 47 Level III studies, 308 Level IV studies, and 250 Level V studies. The mean percentage of STROBE points reported satisfactorily in each article as graded by the two reviewers was 53% (95% confidence interval, 42%-63%). The most common pitfalls in reporting were failures to justify sample size (2.2% reported), examine sensitivity (2.2%), account for missing data (9.8%), and discuss sources of bias (14%). Followup (66%), precision of outcomes (64%), eligibility criteria (55%), and methodological limitations (53%) were variably reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Observational studies are the dominant evidence for the surgical management of primary lower extremity bone tumors. Numerous deficiencies in reporting limit their clinical use. Authors may use these results to inform future work and improve reporting in observational studies, and treating surgeons should be aware of these limitations when choosing among the various options with their patients.

Work of the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Review Group: making sense of complexity

This article examines the ways in which members of the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Review Group have tackled the intrinsic complexity of a large clinical area. This features a diversity of injuries in people of all ages, predominantly physical and surgical interventions that are inherently complex interventions, and a huge array of outcome measures. The methods described include a purposeful focus on common injuries, such as fragility fractures in older people; and the generation of groups of "all intervention" reviews whose structure is informed by a systematic approach, incorporating knowledge of clinical pathways and categorization of interventions. The article concludes with some thoughts about the challenges ahead, particularly in terms of selecting the scopes of future reviews.

Strategies to improve clinical research in surgery through international collaboration

More than 235 million patients undergo surgery every year worldwide, but less than 1% are enrolled in surgical clinical trials--few of which are international collaborations. Several levels of action are needed to improve this situation. International research collaborations in surgery between developed and developing countries could encourage capacity building and quality improvement, and mutually enhance care for patients with surgical disorders. Low-income and middle-income countries increasingly report much the same range of surgical diseases as do high-income countries (eg, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and the surgical sequelae of metabolic syndrome); collaboration is therefore of mutual interest. Large multinational trials that cross cultures and levels of socioeconomic development might have faster results and wider applicability than do single-country trials. Surgeons educated in research methods, and aided by research networks and trial centres, are needed to foster these international collaborations. Barriers to collaboration could be overcome by adoption of global strategies for regulation, health insurance, ethical approval, and indemnity coverage for doctors.