Levels of Evidence at the Orthopaedic Trauma Association Annual Meetings

Gerard P. Slobogean · Cassandra Dielwart · Herman S. Johal · Jesse Alan Slade Shantz · Kishore Mulpuri

10 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Orthopaedic Trauma

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 Academic Writing and Publishing Health Sciences Research and Education

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the strength of evidence presented at the Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) annual meetings before and after the level of evidence guidelines became popular in the literature. DATA SOURCES: 10 years of abstracts from OTA podium presentations, preguidelines (1998-2002), and postguidelines (2007-2011). STUDY SELECTION: All abstracts were blinded and randomized for review. Only therapeutic, diagnostic, prognostic, and economic study types were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Study type and level of evidence were determined for each abstract. DATA SYNTHESIS: Five hundred thirteen abstracts were included, primarily consisting of therapeutic studies (63%). The distribution of study types between the pre- and postguideline periods was similar (P = 0.37). The levels of evidence for podium presentations in the preguideline period were as follows: level I, 10%; level II, 16%; level III, 14%; and level IV, 60%. The distribution in the postguideline period was as follows: level I, 13%; level II, 2%; level III, 29%; and level IV, 36%. The differences between the pre- and postguideline presentations were significant (P < 0.0001), indicating an improvement in the strength of evidence presented at the annual meetings. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of podium presentations at the OTA annual meetings are level IV studies; however, there has been a measurable decrease in the number of uncontrolled case series presented at more recent meetings. Encouraging reporting of levels of evidence at future annual meetings has the potential to positively influence the orthopaedic trauma community by improving readers' understanding of the strength of evidence presented, the study design hierarchy, and encouraging investigators to conduct controlled study designs when possible.

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 — 10 citations exist upstream.

References

1977The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data 1996Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?1981A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial 1992Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis 2004Interobserver Agreement in the Application of Levels of Evidence to Scientific Papers in the American Volume of The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2007A Practical Guide to Assigning Levels of Evidence 2012Introducing Levels of Evidence to the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 2007Level of Evidence in Spine Compared to Other Orthopedic Journals

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.