Advertisement

Current Status of Evidence-Based Sports Medicine

      Purpose

      The purpose of this investigation is to determine the proportion of sports medicine studies that are labeled as Level I Evidence in 5 journals and compare the quality of surgical and nonsurgical studies using simple quality assessment tools (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT] and Jadad).

      Methods

      By use of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines over the prior 2 years in the top 5 (citation and impact factor based) sports medicine journals, only Level I Evidence studies were eligible for inclusion and were analyzed. All study types (therapeutic, prognostic, diagnostic, and economic) were analyzed. Study quality was assessed with the level of evidence, Jadad score, and CONSORT 2010 guidelines. Study demographic data were compared among journals and between surgical and nonsurgical studies by use of χ2, 1-way analysis of variance, and 2-sample Z tests.

      Results

      We analyzed 190 Level I Evidence studies (10% of eligible studies) (119 randomized controlled trials [RCTs]). Therapeutic, nonsurgical, single-center studies from the United States were the most common studies published. Sixty-two percent of studies reported a financial conflict of interest. The knee was the most common body part studied, and track-and-field/endurance sports were the most common sports analyzed. Significant differences (P < .05) were shown in Jadad and CONSORT scores among the journals reviewed. Overall, the Jadad and CONSORT scores were 2.71 and 77%, respectively. No differences (P > .05) were shown among journals based on the proportion of Level I studies or appropriate randomization. Significant strengths and limitations of RCTs were identified.

      Conclusions

      This study showed that Level I Evidence and RCTs comprise 10% and 6% of contemporary sports medicine literature, respectively. Therapeutic, nonsurgical, single-center studies are the most common publications with Level I Evidence. Significant differences across sports medicine journals were found in study quality. Surgical studies appropriately described randomization, blinding, and patient enrollment significantly more than nonsurgical studies.

      Level of Evidence

      Level I, systematic review of Level I studies.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Arthroscopy
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Sackett D.L.
        Rules of evidence and clinical recommendations on the use of antithrombotic agents.
        Chest. 1986; 89: 2S-3S
        • Katz J.N.
        • Wright J.G.
        • Losina E.
        Clinical trials in orthopaedics research. Part II. Prioritization for randomized controlled clinical trials.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93: e30
        • Bowles R.J.
        • Mauffrey C.
        • Seligson D.
        Analysis of performance metrics reporting in papers comparing treatments or materials/devices in four important orthopaedic journals for the year 2009.
        Injury. 2011; 42: 1480-1483
        • Jakobsen R.
        • Engebretsen L.
        • Slauterbeck J.
        An analysis of the quality of cartilage repair studies.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87: 2232-2239
        • Wright J.G.
        • Katz J.N.
        • Losina E.
        Clinical trials in orthopaedics research. Part I. Cultural and practical barriers to randomized trials in orthopaedics.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93: e15
        • Samuelsson K.
        • Desai N.
        • McNair E.
        • et al.
        Level of evidence in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction research: A systematic review.
        Am J Sports Med. 2013; 41: 924-934
        • Poolman R.W.
        • Struijs P.A.
        • Krips R.
        • Sierevelt I.N.
        • Lutz K.H.
        • Bhandari M.
        Does a “Level I Evidence” rating imply high quality of reporting in orthopaedic randomised controlled trials?.
        BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006; 6: 44
        • Bhandari M.
        • Richards R.R.
        • Sprague S.
        • Schemitsch E.H.
        The quality of reporting of randomized trials in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery from 1988 through 2000.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002; 84: 388-396
        • Hanzlik S.
        • Mahabir R.C.
        • Baynosa R.C.
        • Khiabani K.T.
        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: 425-428
        • Qureshi A.
        • Ibrahim T.
        Study design in clinical orthopaedic trials.
        Orthop Trauma. 2010; 24: 229-240
        • Suk M.
        • Hanson B.
        • Helfet D.L.
        Evidence-based orthopedic surgery: Is it possible?.
        Orthop Clin North Am. 2010; 41: 139-143
        • Moher D.
        • Liberati A.
        • Tetzlaff J.
        • Altman D.G.
        Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement.
        Int J Surg. 2010; 8: 336-341
      1. Scimago Lab. SJR SCImago Journal & Country Rank. Available from: http://www.scimagojr.com. Accessed November 3, 2012.

      2. Thomson Reuters. JCR (Journal Citation Reports)—ISI Web of Knowledge. Available from: http://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com.ezproxy.rush.edu/JCR/JCR. Accessed November 1, 2012.

        • Obremskey W.T.
        • Pappas N.
        • Attallah-Wasif E.
        • Tornetta III, P.
        • Bhandari M.
        Level of evidence in orthopaedic journals.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87: 2632-2638
      3. Trials-The Consort Group-Transparent Reporting Of Trials. The CONSORT statement. January 20, 2012. Available from: http://www.consort-statement.org/consort-statement/overview0/#checklist. Accessed November 3, 2012.

      4. Jadad A. Enkin M. Randomized controlled trials: Questions, answers, and musings. Ed 2. Blackwell Publishing, Malden (MA)2007
        • Fischgrund J.S.
        Conflict of interest in orthopaedic journals.
        J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2012; 20: 263-264
        • Puttgen H.A.
        • Mirski M.A.
        The level of evidence 5 blues: Investigating medicine when experience trumps equipoise.
        Crit Care Med. 2013; 41: 359-361
        • Moseley B.
        • O'Malley K.
        • Petersen N.
        • et al.
        A controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee.
        N Engl J Med. 2002; 347: 81-88
        • Khan S.N.
        • Mermer M.J.
        • Myers E.
        • Sandhu H.S.
        The roles of funding source, clinical trial outcome, and quality of reporting in orthopedic surgery literature.
        Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2008; 37 (Discussion E212): E205-E212
        • Fisher C.G.
        • DiPaola C.P.
        • Noonan V.K.
        • Bailey C.
        • Dvorak M.F.
        Physician-industry conflict of interest: Public opinion regarding industry-sponsored research.
        J Neurosurg Spine. 2012; 17: 1-10
        • Chahal J.
        • Tomescu S.S.
        • Ravi B.
        • et al.
        Publication of sports medicine-related randomized controlled trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov.
        Am J Sports Med. 2012; 40: 1970-1977
        • Parsons N.R.
        • Price C.L.
        • Hiskens R.
        • Achten J.
        • Costa M.L.
        An evaluation of the quality of statistical design and analysis of published medical research: results from a systematic survey of general orthopaedic journals.
        BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012; 12: 60
        • Sprague S.
        • Matta J.M.
        • Bhandari M.
        • et al.
        Multicenter collaboration in observational research: Improving generalizability and efficiency.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009; 91: 80-86
        • Parsons N.R.
        • Hiskens R.
        • Price C.L.
        • Achten J.
        • Costa M.L.
        A systematic survey of the quality of research reporting in general orthopaedic journals.
        J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011; 93: 1154-1159