46
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      CHAracteristics of research studies that iNfluence practice: a GEneral survey of Canadian orthopaedic Surgeons (CHANGES): a pilot survey

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) is increasingly being applied to inform clinical decision-making in orthopaedic surgery. Despite the promotion of EBM in Orthopaedic Surgery, the adoption of results from high quality clinical research seems highly unpredictable and does not appear to be driven strictly by randomized trial data. The objective of this study was to pilot a survey to determine if we could identify surgeon opinions on the characteristics of research studies that are perceived as being most likely to influence clinical decision-making among orthopaedic surgeons in Canada.

          Methods

          A 28-question electronic survey was distributed to active members of the Canadian Orthopaedic Association (COA) over a period of 11 weeks. The questionnaire sought to analyze the influence of both extrinsic and intrinsic characteristics of research studies and their potential to influence practice patterns. Extrinsic factors included the perceived journal quality and investigator profiles, economic impact, peer/patient/industry influence and individual surgeon residency/fellowship training experiences. Intrinsic factors included study design, sample size, and outcomes reported. Descriptive statistics are provided.

          Results

          Of the 109 members of the COA who opened the survey, 95 (87%) completed the survey in its entirety. The overall response rate was 11% (95/841). Surgeons achieved consensus on the influence of three key designs on their practices: 1) randomized controlled trials 94 (99%), 2) meta-analysis 83 (87%), and 3) systematic reviews 81 (85%). Sixty-seven percent of surgeons agreed that studies with sample sizes of 101–500 or more were more likely to influence clinical practice than smaller studies (n = <100). Factors other than design influencing adoption included 1) reputation of the investigators (99%) and 2) perceived quality of the journal (75%).

          Conclusion

          Although study design and sample size (i.e. minimum of 100 patients) have some influence on clinical decision making, surgeon respondents are equally influenced by investigator reputation and perceived journal quality. At present, continued emphasis on the generation of large, methodologically sound clinical trials remains paramount to translating research findings to clinical practice changes. Specific to this pilot survey, strategies to solicit more widespread responses will be pursued.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          National plastic surgery survey: face lift techniques and complications.

          The purpose of this study was to assess trends in technique and philosophy of face lifting, associated procedures, and the incidence and management of complications. Surveys were sent to 3800 members of the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (ASPRS); 570 surveys (15 percent) were returned. Numerous very specific technique and philosophy questions were asked. Details of demographics, techniques, incidence of complications, management of complications, and basic philosophy are presented. Three basic conclusions can be gleaned from this study: (1) Surgeons perform more tried and true methods of aesthetic surgery, rather than the many new methods that seem to get the most attention in the media and at the meetings. (2) It seems that less-experienced surgeons tend to be generally more conservative in their approach to aesthetic surgery. (3) Complication rates reported by the plastic surgery community at large coincide with previous complication rates, as outlined in other nonsurvey studies. The authors expect to report additional data from the survey--on brow surgery (part II) and facility and ancillary procedures (part III)--in forthcoming publications.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery. A systematic review of their methodologies.

            The number and quality of well-designed scientific studies in the orthopaedic literature are limited. The purpose of this review was to determine the methodological qualities of published meta-analyses on orthopaedic-surgery-related topics. A systematic review of meta-analyses was conducted. A search of the Medline database provided lists of meta-analyses in orthopaedics published from 1969 to 1999. Extensive manual searches of major orthopaedic journals, bibliographies of major orthopaedic texts, and personal files identified additional studies. Of 601 studies identified, forty met the criteria for eligibility. Two investigators each assessed the quality of the studies under blinded conditions, and they abstracted relevant data. More than 50% of the meta-analyses included in this review were published after 1994. We found that 88% had methodological flaws that could limit their validity. The main deficiency was a lack of information on the methods used to retrieve and assess the validity of the primary studies. Regression analysis revealed that meta-analyses authored in affiliation with an epidemiology department and those published in nonsurgical journals were associated with higher scores for quality. Meta-analyses with lower scores for quality tended to report positive findings. The meta-analyses that focused upon fracture treatment and degenerative disease (hip, knee, or spine) had significantly lower mean quality scores than did meta-analyses that examined thrombosis prevention and diagnostic tests (p < 0.05). The majority of meta-analyses on orthopaedic-surgery-related topics have methodological limitations. Limitation of bias and improvement in the validity of the meta-analyses can be achieved by adherence to strict scientific methodology. However, the ultimate quality of a meta-analysis depends on the quality of the primary studies on which it is based. A meta-analysis is most persuasive when data from high-quality randomized trials are pooled.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Citation analysis of orthopaedic literature; 18 major orthopaedic journals compared for Impact Factor and SCImago

              Background One of the disadvantages of the Impact Factor (IF) is self-citation. The SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) indicator excludes self-citations and considers the quality, rather than absolute numbers, of citations of a journal by other journals. The present study re-evaluated the influence of self-citation on the 2007 IF for 18 major orthopaedic journals and investigated the difference in ranking between IF and SJR. Methods The journals were analysed for self-citation both overall and divided into a general group (n = 8) and a specialized group (n = 10). Self-cited and self-citing rates, as well as citation densities and IFs corrected for self-citation (cIF), were calculated. The rankings of the 18 journals by IF and by SJR were compared and the absolute difference between these rankings (ΔR) was determined. Results Specialized journals had higher self-citing rates (p = 0.01, Δmedian = 9.50, 95%CI -19.42 to 0.42), higher self-cited rates (p = 0.0004, Δmedian = -10.50, 95%CI -15.28 to -5.72) and greater differences between IF and cIF (p = 0.003, Δmedian = 3.50, 95%CI -6.1 to 13.1). There was no significant correlation between self-citing rate and IF for both groups (general: r = 0.46, p = 0.27; specialized: r = 0.21, p = 0.56). When the difference in ranking between IF and SJR was compared between both groups, sub-specialist journals were ranked lower compared to their general counterparts (ΔR: p = 0.006, Δmedian = 2.0, 95%CI -0.39 to 4.39). Conclusions Citation analysis shows that specialized orthopaedic journals have specific self-citation tendencies. The correlation between self-cited rate and IF in our sample was large but, due to small sample size, not significant. The SJR excludes self-citations in its calculation and therefore enhances the underestimation in ranking of specialized journals.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                darren.desa@medportal.ca
                patrick.thornley@medportal.ca
                nathan.evaniew@medportal.ca
                maddenk@mcmaster.ca
                bhandam@mcmaster.ca
                ghert@hhsc.ca
                Journal
                Springerplus
                Springerplus
                SpringerPlus
                Springer International Publishing (Cham )
                2193-1801
                5 February 2015
                5 February 2015
                2015
                : 4
                : 62
                Affiliations
                [ ]Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, HHS Hamilton General Hospital, 237 Barton Street, Hamilton, ON Canada L8L 2X2
                [ ]Faculty of Health Sciences, Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON Canada
                [ ]Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario Canada
                Article
                855
                10.1186/s40064-015-0855-4
                4320200
                25674510
                39f67867-dcbe-48d4-a27f-fe75de8ebfb8
                © de SA et al.; licensee Springer. 2015

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.

                History
                : 22 December 2014
                : 26 January 2015
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2015

                Uncategorized
                evidence-based medicine,orthopaedic surgery,clinical practice,patient care
                Uncategorized
                evidence-based medicine, orthopaedic surgery, clinical practice, patient care

                Comments

                Comment on this article