Information de reference pour ce titreAccession Number: | 01241398-201109000-00019.
|
Author: | Cashin, Megan S. MD, FRCSC *; Kelley, Simon P. MBChB, FRCS (Tr and Orth) *; Douziech, Jeffery R. MD +; Varghese, Renjit A. MBBS, MS (Ortho), MHSc (Epi) *; Hamilton, Quinn P. BHK *; Mulpuri, Kishore MBBS, MS (Ortho), MHSc (Epi) *,+,++
|
Institution: | (*)Department of Orthopaedics (+)The Office of Pediatric Surgical Evaluation and Innovation, British Columbia Children's Hospital (++)Department of Orthopaedics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
|
Title: | |
Source: | Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics. 31(6):721-725, September 2011.
|
Abstract: | Background: In recent years, it has become common to publish a level of evidence grading for orthopaedic journal publications. Our primary research question is: is there an improvement in levels of evidence of articles published in pediatric orthopaedic journals over time? In addition, what is the current status of levels of evidence in pediatric orthopaedic journals?
Methods: All articles in Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics-A (JPO-A) and Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics-B (JPO-B) for 2001, 2002, 2007, and 2008 and those in Journal of Children's Orthopaedics (JCO) for 2007 and 2008, were collected by an independent reviewer. Of the 1039 articles identified, animal, cadaveric and basic science studies, expert opinion and review articles were excluded. Seven hundred fifty remaining articles were blinded and randomized with respect to journal, title, publication date, author, and institution. According to the currently accepted grading system, study type and level of evidence was assigned to each article. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability were investigated. Statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS software.
Results: There were no statistically significant differences in study type or levels of evidence in articles published before and after 2003. Of articles published during 2007/2008, 3.0% were graded as level I, 5.0% as level II, 24.1% as level III, and 58.0% as level IV. Analysis of the separate journals for all 4 years revealed that JPO-A published 2.6% (13 of 503) level I studies, whereas JPO-B published 4.3% (7 of 163) and JCO published 1.2% (1 of 84). The intraobserver reliability was high for study type (, 0.842) and substantial for level of evidence (, 0.613).The interobserver reliability for study type and level of evidence was high ( 0.921 and 0.860, respectively).
Conclusions: Since the introduction of levels of evidence to orthopaedic journals in 2003, there has been minimal change in the quality of evidence in pediatric orthopaedic publications. We note a modest increase in level III articles and a corresponding decrease in level IV articles. Articles can be reliably graded by nonepidemiologically trained individuals.
Level of Evidence: Not applicable.
(C) 2011 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.
|
References: | 1. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM, et al. Evidence-based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. Br Med J. 1996;312:71-72
2. Wright JG, Swiontkowski MF, Heckman JD. Introducing levels of evidence to the journal. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A:1-3
3. Reider B. Read early and often. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33:21-22
4. Sackett DL. Rules of evidence and clinical recommendations on the use of antithrombotic agents. Chest. 1986;89-2(suppl):2S-3S
5. Phillips B, Ball C, Sackett D, et al. [Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Website]. November 1998. Updated by Jeremy Howick March 2009. Available at: http://www.cebm.net/?o=1025- ouverture dans une nouvelle fenêtre. Accessed December 22, 2009.
6. Bhandari M, Swiontkowski MF, Einhorn TA, et al. Interobserver agreement in the application of levels of evidence to scientific papers in the American volume of the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A-87:1717-1720
7. Obremskey WT, Pappas N, Attallah-Wasif E, et al. Level of evidence in orthopaedic journals. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87-12:2632-2638
8. Bhandari M, Richards RR, Sprague S, et al. The quality of reporting of randomized trials in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery from 1988 to 2000. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84-A:388-396
9. Dulai SK, Slobogean BL, Beauchamp RD, et al. A quality assessment of randomized clinical trials in pediatric orthopaedics. J Pediatr Orthop. 2007;27-5:573-581
10. Moss RL, Henry MCW, Dimmitt RA, et al. The role of prospective randomized clinical trial in pediatric surgery:state of the art?. J Pediatr Surg. 2001;6:1182-1364
11. Thakur A, Wang EC, Chiu TT, et al. Methodology standards associated with quality reporting in clinical studies in pediatric surgery journals. J Pediatr Surg. 2001;36:1160-1164
12. Curry JI, Reeves B, Stringer MD. Randomized controlled trials in pediatric surgery: could we do better?. J Pediatr Surg. 2003;38:556-559
13. Poolman RW, Struijs PAA, Krips R, et al. Does a "level I evidence" rating imply high quality of reporting in orthopaedic randomized trials?. BMC Med Res Method. 2006;6:44-51
14. Wupperman R, Davis R, Obremskey WT. Level of evidence in spine compared to other orthopedic journals. Spine. 2007;32:388-393
15. Hanzlik S, Mahabir RC, Baynosa RC, et al. Levels of evidence in research published in The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume) over the last thirty years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91-2:425-428
16. Brighton B, Bhandari M, Tornetta P, et al. Part 1. Methodological issues in the design of orthopaedic studies. Hierarchy of evidence: from case reports to randomized controlled trials. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 2003;413:19-24
17. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33-1:159-174
18. Simera I, Altman DG. Writing a research article that is "fit for purpose": EQUATOR network and reporting guidelines. Evid Based Med. 2009;14-5:132-134
19. Altman DG, Bland JM. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Aust Vet J. 1996;74:311
|
Language: | English.
|
Document Type: | Selected Topics.
|
Journal Subset: | Clinical Medicine.
|
ISSN: | 0271-6798
|
DOI Number: | https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0...- ouverture dans une nouvelle fenêtre
|
Annotation(s) | |
|
|