Randomised Trial Support for Orthopaedic Surgical Procedures

Hyeung C. Lim · Sam Adie · Justine Naylor · Ian Andrew Harris

42 citations0/0 files storedPLoS ONE

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Health Sciences Research and Education Clinical practice guidelines implementation

Abstract

We investigated the proportion of orthopaedic procedures supported by evidence from randomised controlled trials comparing operative procedures to a non-operative alternative. Orthopaedic procedures conducted in 2009, 2010 and 2011 across three metropolitan teaching hospitals were identified, grouped and ranked according to frequency. Searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) were performed to identify RCTs evaluating the most commonly performed orthopaedic procedures. Included studies were categorised as "supportive" or "not supportive" of operative treatment. A risk of bias analysis was conducted for included studies using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool. A total of 9,392 orthopaedic procedures were performed across the index period. 94.6% (8886 procedures) of the total volume, representing the 32 most common operative procedure categories, were used for this analysis. Of the 83 included RCTs, 22.9% (19/83) were classified as supportive of operative intervention. 36.9% (3279/8886) of the total volume of procedures performed were supported by at least one RCT showing surgery to be superior to a non-operative alternative. 19.6% (1743/8886) of the total volume of procedures performed were supported by at least one low risk of bias RCT showing surgery to be superior to a non-operative alternative. The level of RCT support for common orthopaedic procedures compares unfavourably with other fields of medicine.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 42 citations exist upstream.

References

2011The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials 1995Empirical Evidence of Bias 1995Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials 2000Randomized, Controlled Trials, Observational Studies, and the Hierarchy of Research Designs 2008Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study 2001Reported Methodologic Quality and Discrepancies between Large and Small Randomized Trials in Meta-Analyses 2002Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions 2007Impact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from meta-analyses of randomized trials

Cited by

2015The evidence base for orthopaedics and sports medicine 2019Risk of bias assessment of randomised controlled trials referenced in the 2015 American Heart Association guidelines update for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care: a cross-sectional review 2016The evidence base for orthopaedics and sports medicine: scandalously poor in parts

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.