Advertisement

Instructions for Authors

        Introduction

        All submissions to Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery must comply with these Instructions for Authors. Studies should be in compliance with human studies committees and animal welfare regulations at the authors’ institutions and also in compliance with Food and Drug Administration guidelines. All manuscripts will be subject to peer review. Letters to the Editor and comments on the Journal’s content or policies are always welcome and encouraged.
        All manuscripts are to be submitted electronically through the Arthroscopy online submission and review system website http://ees.elsevier.com/arth/ (details in Submission section below).

        Submission Declaration and Author Warranties

        Submission of a manuscript to Arthroscopy for peer review implies that:
        • It is original work, has been written by the stated authors, and has not been published elsewhere, including electronically, in the same form, in any language. Likewise, a similar manuscript has not been submitted to or published by any other journal, by any of the authors.
        • Any manuscript submitted to Arthroscopy is not currently being considered for publication by any other journal and will not be submitted for such review while under review by this Journal.
        • If the submission is accepted, it will not be published elsewhere, including electronically in the same form, in any language, without the written consent of the copyright holder.

        Before You Begin

        Disclosure of Potential Conflict of Interest

        Arthroscopy uses the ICMJE disclosure for authors. Each author of a manuscript must complete the form and save it using his or her name. The corresponding author will upload all the authors’ completed forms at the time of submission. Access the Arthroscopy Journal ICMJE form at http://cdn.elsevier.com/promis_misc/arthroscopy_icmje.doc

        Authorship

        Arthroscopy generally limits the number of authors to 7. If there are more than 7 authors, we ask the corresponding author to justify each author’s participation using the ICMJE criteria for authorship:
        • 1.
          Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
        • 2.
          Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
        • 3.
          Final approval of the version to be published; AND
        • 4.
          Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

        Copyright

        Copyright to all published articles will be held by the Arthroscopy Association of North America. Copyright forms are handled by the production department of the publisher once a manuscript is accepted and scheduled for publication.

        Registration of Clinical Trials

        Clinical trial registration (prospective publication of clinical research study authors, title, purpose, hypothesis, methods including statistical methods, and confirmation of Institutional Review Board approval) mitigates against bias resulting from selective reporting of results. Clinical trials beginning patient enrollment after January 1, 2012, will not be accepted for publication in Arthroscopy without prospective registration of the trial (i.e., before enrollment of the first patient). Trials may be registered in any national or international registry. Include details on the separate title page only.
        Except in rare circumstances where the temporal effect of the outcome being measured is brief, clinical trials will not be accepted for publication in Arthroscopy without 24 months’ minimum follow-up for all subjects who are enrolled and reported. The Journal strongly encourages the use of the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) guidelines when designing and reporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The criteria outlined by the CONSORT group are meant to assist in improving the overall quality of RCTs, and provides a minimum set of recommendations for reporting on RCTs. There is a 25-item checklist designed to facilitate study setup, reporting, and interpretation. The overall goal of using the CONSORT criteria is to facilitate the study design from the outset, and provide for a high-quality and prudently conceived RCT. The guidelines can be found at http://www.consort-statement.org/Media/Default/Downloads/CONSORT%202010%20Checklist.doc

        Submission

        After registering as an author through the Arthroscopy online submission and review system website (http://ees.elsevier.com/arth), you will be guided step by step through the uploading of your own files and approving of the single PDF that will be created from them. You can track the progress of your manuscript through our website. Communications about a manuscript will be handled through e-mail. Please access the website for more specifics about online submission, including a tutorial for authors, artwork guidelines, and a link to author support by e-mail that is monitored around the clock.

        Preparation

        General

        Manuscripts should be typed double-spaced with continuous line numbering. Submit in this order; see details in the following sections: Separate (unblinded) title page, blinded title page, blinded text, references, figure and video legends, tables, figures, and conflict of interest forms. Arthroscopy follows style points for text and references of the AMA Manual of Style.

        Separate Title Page

        A separate (unblinded) title page of each manuscript should include the following essential information:
        • Title. Concise and informative. Titles are often used in information-retrieval systems. Avoid abbreviations and formulae where possible.
        • All Authors’ full names, degrees, and affiliations. Where the family name may be ambiguous (e.g., a double name), please indicate this clearly. Present each author’s affiliation and address below the names.
        • Corresponding Author. Clearly indicate who will handle correspondence at all stages of reviewing and publication, and after publication. Ensure that telephone numbers (with country and area code) are provided in addition to the e-mail address and the complete postal address. Contact details must be kept up to date by the corresponding author.
        • In addition, include IRB and RCT information, as well as a short running title (maximum of 45 characters and spaces). Include any acknowledgment of persons who provided help during the research/writing (e.g., language help, writing assistance, or proof reading the manuscript, etc.).

        Blinding the Manuscript

        Tabled 1Recommended Maximums for Manuscripts Submitted to Arthroscopy
        Type of ArticleNumber of Words
        Maximum number of words is exclusive of the title page, blind title page, references, and figure legends.
        Figures (Figure Parts)Tables
        Original Article4,0007 (15)4
        Level V Evidence
        Level V Evidence articles are submitted at the invitation of the Editor-in-Chief or Assistant Editor-in-Chief.
        1,60000
        Systematic Review4,5007 (15)4
        Meta-analysis4,0007 (15)4
        Technical Note
        Technical Notes are now published only in Arthroscopy Techniques. Video is required for submission. The video must be narrated and list disclosures on an opening slide. Submit as for Arthroscopy at http://eee.elsevier.com/arth
        4,000
        Technical Notes are now published only in Arthroscopy Techniques. Video is required for submission. The video must be narrated and list disclosures on an opening slide. Submit as for Arthroscopy at http://eee.elsevier.com/arth
        no limit
        Technical Notes are now published only in Arthroscopy Techniques. Video is required for submission. The video must be narrated and list disclosures on an opening slide. Submit as for Arthroscopy at http://eee.elsevier.com/arth
        4
        Case Report (rarely accepted)
        Letter to Editor & Reply5002 (2)0
        Maximum number of words is exclusive of the title page, blind title page, references, and figure legends.
        Level V Evidence articles are submitted at the invitation of the Editor-in-Chief or Assistant Editor-in-Chief.
        Technical Notes are now published only in Arthroscopy Techniques. Video is required for submission. The video must be narrated and list disclosures on an opening slide. Submit as for Arthroscopy at http://eee.elsevier.com/arth

        Manuscript Structure

        Abstract

        Original Articles, abstracts should be a maximum of 300 words and structured to include the following sections: Purpose: One or 2 sentences that simply state the purpose with no background information or hypothesis. Methods: Provide, with sufficient detail, the methods of the study including selection criteria. Results: Provide results, with data, P values, and standard deviation of mean or 95% confidence intervals. Present most important findings first. Please provide exact P values (not P <) and numbers to support your methods findings. Conclusions: State only what your study found; do not include extraneous information not backed up by the results. Level of Evidence (for human studies) or Clinical Relevance (basic science or in vitro study: why is this study important from a clinical standpoint?).
        Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses, the abstract and text should be structured as an Original Article.
        Technical Notes for Arthroscopy Techniques, the abstract should be an unstructured summary (maximum length, 200 words). The body of these manuscripts should consist of unstructured summary abstract, Introduction, Technique, and Discussion, plus references and figure legends and video legend.
        Case Reports, the text should consist of unstructured summary abstract, Introduction, Case Report, and Discussion, plus references and figure legends.
        Level V Evidence articles, the abstract should be an unstructured summary (maximum length, 300 words). See the Levels of Evidence table.

        Introduction

        The introduction of an Original Article should succinctly state the problem or controversy that led you to undertake the study, including a concise review of only the most relevant literature. Conclude the introduction by stating the purpose of the study and your hypothesis. The purpose in the Introduction should match that of the Abstract.

        Methods

        Describe the study design (prospective or retrospective, inclusion and exclusion criteria, duration). If prospective or a cadaver study, the number of enrolled subjects is reported in Methods. If retrospective, the study population (numbers, demographics, length of follow-up) should be in Results.
        Include IRB and animal studies information. IRB approval is required for all human studies except retrospective and cadaver studies (unless the institution where the study was performed requires it).
        The statistics that you have used to analyze the data should be described in detail. You cannot make the statement, “We found no significant difference between the two groups” unless a power study was done and you include in the text the value of alpha, beta, and standard deviation. Use of the word significant requires your reporting an exact P value. Confidence intervals of 95% are required whenever the results of survivorship analysis are given in the text, tables, or figures. Use of the word correlation requires you to report the correlation coefficient.
        Arthroscopy encourages the use of validated outcome instruments. The use of both a general health outcome measure and a joint-specific, limb-specific, or condition-specific measure is encouraged. If an outcome instrument leads to a categorical ranking (e.g., excellent or good or poor), the aggregate outcome score for each patient should be provided.

        Results

        Describe in detail the data obtained during the study following the order of the Methods to include final number of subjects, demographics, length of follow-up (mean and range). The overall final patient follow-up should be 80% or greater (less than 20% drop-out) in order to minimize follow-up bias. In general, scientific studies will not be accepted for publication without meeting this criterion. Results obtained with less than two years of follow-up are rarely accepted for publication by the Journal. All data in the text must be consistent with the rest of the manuscript, including data in tables, figures, and legends. Present comparison data in tables and present as mean ± standard error of the mean with confidence intervals.

        Discussion

        Be concise. The Discussion should start with the most important findings of your study. Is your hypothesis affirmed or refuted? Compare and contrast your study with others in the most relevant world literature, particularly the recent literature. A complete literature review is unnecessary.
        At the end of the Discussion, under the subheading “Limitations,” review the limitations of your study.

        Conclusions

        Briefly state your new (or verified) view of the problem you outlined in the Introduction. Take special care to draw your conclusions only from your results and verify that your conclusions are firmly supported by your data. Most importantly, do not make concluding statements that are not supported by your data, lie beyond the scope of your study, or are unnecessary (e.g., “further studies are warranted”). The conclusions in the text must match those in the abstract.

        References

        The Journal follows the reference style in “Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals” (see http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/manuscript-preparation/preparing-for-submission. html#g). Provide all authors’ names when 6 or fewer; when 7 or more, list the first 3 and add et al. Provide article titles and inclusive page numbers (321-328, not 321-8). References to online-only material must list author, title, the URL, and the date accessed by the author. For abbreviations of journal names, refer to PubMed. Please ensure that every reference cited in the text is present in the reference list (and vice versa). The accuracy of reference data is the responsibility of all authors.
        Reference style
        In text: Number references in the order in which they appear in the text. Unpublished results and personal communications (only if essential to your message) should be mentioned in the body of the text at the end the statement with the appropriate information in parentheses. For example: (J. Karlsson, M.D., personal communication, [month and year of communication]).
        Formatting Examples
        Periodical
        Jackson TJ, Lindner D, El-Bitar YF, Domb BG. Effect of femoral anteversion on clinical outcomes after hip arthroscopy. Arthroscopy 2015;31:35-41.
        Chapter in a book
        Ruch DS, Poehling GG. Operative arthroscopy of the wrist. In: Andrews JR, Timmerman LA, eds. Diagnostic and operative arthroscopy. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1997;199-205.
        Book
        Burkhart SS, Lo IKY, Brady PC, Denard PJ. The cowboy’s companion: A trail guide for the arthroscopic shoulder surgeon. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Williams, 2012.
        Article in Press
        Note: Citation of an ‘in press’ article is permitted only if it has been accepted for publication.
        Rosso F, Bisicchia S, Bonasia DE, Amendola A. Meniscal allograft transplantation: A systematic review. Am J Sports Med in press, available online 13 June, 2014. doi:10.1177/0363546514536021.
        For further detail and examples you are referred to the AMA Manual of Style.

        Figure and Video Legends

        Ensure that each illustration and each part of a multipart illustration has a legend (caption). Supply legends separately, not attached to the figure. Figure legends must be robust and “stand alone” (i.e., contain a complete, take-home, educational message, as if a reader viewed only that Figure without looking at any other Figure or with-out reading the text). Orient the reader to the image by mentioning patient position, side, and viewing portal or MRI orientation as appropriate. Keep text in the illustrations themselves to a minimum but explain in the legend all symbols and abbreviations used.

        Tables

        Number tables consecutively in accordance with their appearance in the text. Include a short descriptive title with the table number. Place footnotes to tables below the table body and indicate them according to the symbol hierarchy (i.e., asterisk, dagger, double dagger, etc.). Define all abbreviations. Avoid vertical rules. Do not give the same information in tables that you give in the text or in figures.

        10 Figures

        Number figures consecutively in accordance with their appearance in the text. Figures must be submitted separately from the text. Arrows and labels should be added to figures as appropriate to orient the reader to the arthroscopic images. Previously published figures may be used if permission has been received from the source publisher. Arrows and labels should be added to figures as appropriate to orient the reader to the arthroscopic images.

        11 Disclosures

        After the figures, you will upload a single PDF that includes each author’s completed Arthroscopy ICMJE form. These forms must be completed, signed, and submitted with the manuscript.

        Systematic Reviews (with and without meta-analysis)

        Refer to Harris JD, Brand JC, Cote MP, Dhawan A; Research Pearls: The Significance of Statistics of Perils of Pooling: Pearls and Pitfalls of Meta-analyses and Systematic Reviews; Arthroscopy 2017;33:1594-1602 for guidance in design, conduct, reporting, and publishing systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MA) in Arthroscopy.

        General

        Review authors are encouraged, but not required, to register the SR on PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/) after the review topic is conceived, but before the conduct of the review begins. Submission of a SR should follow the 27-item PRISMA checklist (http://www.prisma-statement.org/). The following guidelines incorporate key elements of the PRISMA checklist and are intended to improve the quality of SR submissions:

        Introduction

        • Rationale for why a SR is needed should be clearly described. What is already known about the topic, current gaps in knowledge, and why a SR is likely to produce evidence that will serve to address these gaps should be clearly stated. If a similar or identical SR/MA has been published in last 5 to 10 years, then the submitted SR/MA must show that the evidence has changed.
        • Define the specific research question, preferably in PICO format (Participants, Interventions, Comparisons, and Outcomes).
          • Example: In collision athletes, does open Bankart repair, in comparison to arthroscopic Bankart repair, result in lower rates of recurrent instability?

        Methods

        Study Eligibility (Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria)
        • Eligibility criteria should follow the PICO question defined in the Introduction.
          • Example: Studies that included collision athletes with a Bankart lesion undergoing primary repair, compared open to arthroscopic treatment, and reported recurrent instability rates at two years or greater follow up were eligible for inclusion.
        • Other pertinent criteria for determining eligibility including type of studies (Level of Evidence, study design, etc.) that was reviewed.
          • Example: Case series (Level IV evidence) or studies that did not specifically compare open to arthroscopic treatment were excluded.
          • Consult CEBM (http://www.cebm.net/ocebm-levels-of-evidence/) for thorough descriptions of level of evidence in therapeutic, diagnostic, prognostic, and economic studies.
        Literature Search
        • The search strategy (terms, string) should be described with enough detail that it could be reproduced.
        • Indicate which databases were searched. Two or more databases should be used (the combination of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane will capture 97% of all relevant studies in Orthopedic Surgery SR/MA).
        • The search should be performed independently by two or more study authors to ensure no omission of potentially relevant subjects and resolution of disagreement in the setting of possible study inclusion.
        Study Selection and Data Abstraction
        • The process for selecting studies, indicating who screened the studies and how were disagreements managed should be clearly described.
        • The specific data that were extracted from each study and information on who abstracted the data, what tools (data collections forms, etc.) were used to facilitate abstraction, and how were disagreements managed should be described.
        Risk of Bias Assessment
        • The process used to appraise the methodological quality or risk of bias including the tools use for appraisal should be clearly described.
        • The tools used to evaluate the studies should be appropriate for the design of the included studies. Common tools include Cochrane’s Risk of Bias for randomized clinical trials, Coleman, Modified Coleman, CONSORT, Newcastle-Ottawa or MINORS for observational non-randomized studies.
        • Multiple, independent raters for the risk of bias assessment are recommended. Rater statistics (kappa, ICC) should be reported to quantify the degree agreement between the raters and a description of how disagreements were handled, i.e. how the final score was arrived at, should be included.
        Data Analysis
        • The primary outcome measure(s) should be clearly stated.
          • Example: The primary outcome measure was the rate of recurrent instability. Risk ratios (rate in open group divided by the rate in arthroscopic) were calculated for each study.
        • If a meta-analysis is performed, the rationale or criteria used for determining that pooling data was appropriate should be provided.
        • In nearly all situations, meta-analysis should only be performed with level I or II evidence studies.
        • The methods used to analyze the data (fixed versus random effects) and measures of heterogeneity or consistency (I2) should be clearly described.
        • For a meta-analysis using a random effect model, prediction intervals are strongly recommended.
        • Plans for exploring heterogeneity or inconsistency between studies, including subgroup analyses and meta-regressions should be clearly described.
        • Any additional analyses (sensitivity, publication bias) should also be clearly described.

        Results

        • Presentation of the results should follow the Methods section.
        • The study selection process should be depicted in a PRISMA flow chart.
        • Risk of Bias scores should be presented for each item on the selected tools. Reporting aggregate scores is OK however scores for each item are needed to determine the specific areas where studies were at risk for bias.
        • For SR without a meta-analysis, forest plots with the summary estimate suppressed are recommend as they allow the effects of the individual studies and their relative size and weight to be displayed together in the same figure.
        Discussion and Conclusion should follow the Journal’s guidelines for original research.

        Common Errors

        • Including studies with duplicate patient populations. In some instances a SR turns up studies on the same patient group. Including these studies in any statistical analysis artificially inflates the number of patients and should be avoided.
        • Pooling diverse, heterogeneous studies with different designs. Combining non-randomized studies with randomized trials is typically not appropriate as these designs carry different risks of bias and are apt to distort the results. If a SR includes studies with different designs (randomize trials, cohort studies, etc.) these should be pooled separately. Typically, these are level III or IV evidence studies.
        • No rationale for provided for pooling non-randomized studies. If the available literature is limited to observational studies, a rationale for why a meta-analysis will produce valid results that contribute to the understanding of the problem under question is needed. If one can not be reached, a meta-analysis should be avoided.
        • Quantifying heterogeneity but not failing to explore or discuss it. Reporting of the I2 statistic has become more frequent however it’s important to discuss its impact on the results. If the results are heterogeneous efforts should be undertaken to explore this inconsistency. Techniques like subgroup analysis can be used to determine if I2 values change when grouped according to co-variants. For example, I2 values may change when the studies are analyzed according to a clinical characteristic (those that included patients with bone loss vs. those that did not) or a risk of bias item (those that adequately randomized patients versus those that did not). Lastly, I2 is a relative measure. As recommended above, providing a prediction interval will assist in interpreting the effect of heterogeneity. A prediction interval provides a range of probable effects that reflects the variation in the different studies and settings, including what would be expected in future patients.

        Submission Checklist

        The following checklist will be useful before sending a manuscript to the journal for review. Ensure that the following items are present:
        One author has been designated as the corresponding author with the following contact details:
        • E-mail address
        • Full postal address
        • Telephone numbers
        All necessary files have been uploaded, and contain:
        • All figure legends
        • All tables (including title, description, footnotes)
        • Separate files for figures
        • ICMJE forms for all authors, combined into a single PDF
        Tabled 1Levels of Evidence For Primary Research Question
        Level-I through IV studies may be graded downward on the basis of study quality, imprecision, indirectness, or inconsistency between studies or because the effect size is very small; these studies may be graded upward if there is a dramatic effect size. For example, a high-quality randomized controlled trial (RCT) should have >80% follow-up, blinding, and proper randomization. The Level of Evidence assigned to systematic reviews reflects the ranking of studies included in the review (i.e., a systematic review of Level-II studies is Level II). A complete assessment of the quality of individual studies requires critical appraisal of all aspects of study design.
        Reprinted with permission. Copyright © 2015 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.
        Study TypeQuestionLevel ILevel IILevel IIILevel IVLevel V
        Diagnostic –Investigating a diagnostic testIs this (early detection) test worthwhile?

        Is this diagnostic or monitoring test accurate?
        • Randomized controlled trial
        • Testing of previously developed diagnostic criteria (consecutive patients with consistently applied reference standard and blinding)
        • Prospective
          Investigators formulated the study question before the first patient was enrolled.
          cohort
          In these studies, “cohort” refers to a nonrandomized comparative study. For therapeutic studies, patients treated one way (e.g., cemented hip prosthesis) are compared with those treated differently (e.g., cementless hip prosthesis).
          study
        • Development of diagnostic criteria (consecutive patients with consistently applied reference standard and blinding)
        • Retrospective
          Investigators formulated the study question after the first patient was enrolled.
          cohort
          In these studies, “cohort” refers to a nonrandomized comparative study. For therapeutic studies, patients treated one way (e.g., cemented hip prosthesis) are compared with those treated differently (e.g., cementless hip prosthesis).
          study
        • Case-control
          Patients identified for the study on the basis of their outcome (e.g., failed total hip arthroplasty), called “cases,” are compared with those who did not have the outcome (e.g., successful total hip arthroplasty), called “controls.”
          study
        • Nonconsecutive patients
        • No consistently applied reference standards
        • Case series
        • Poor or non-independent reference standards
        • Mechanism-based reasoning
        Prognostic –Investigating the effect of a patient characteristic on the outcome of a diseaseWhat is the natural history of the condition?
        • Inception
          Investigators formulated the study question before the first patient was enrolled.
          cohort study (all patients enrolled at an early uniform point in the course of their disease)
        • Prospective
          Investigators formulated the study question before the first patient was enrolled.
          cohort
          In these studies, “cohort” refers to a nonrandomized comparative study. For therapeutic studies, patients treated one way (e.g., cemented hip prosthesis) are compared with those treated differently (e.g., cementless hip prosthesis).
          study (patients enrolled at different points in their disease)
        • Control arm of randomized trial
        • Retrospective
          Investigators formulated the study question after the first patient was enrolled.
          cohort
          In these studies, “cohort” refers to a nonrandomized comparative study. For therapeutic studies, patients treated one way (e.g., cemented hip prosthesis) are compared with those treated differently (e.g., cementless hip prosthesis).
          study
        • Case-control
          Patients identified for the study on the basis of their outcome (e.g., failed total hip arthroplasty), called “cases,” are compared with those who did not have the outcome (e.g., successful total hip arthroplasty), called “controls.”
          study
        • Case series
        • Mechanism-based reasoning
        Therapeutic – Investigating the results of a treatmentDoes this treatment help? What are the harms
        Sufficient numbers are required to rule out a common harm (affects >20% of participants). For long-term harms, follow-up duration must be sufficient.
        • Randomized controlled trial
        • Prospective
          Investigators formulated the study question before the first patient was enrolled.
          cohort
          In these studies, “cohort” refers to a nonrandomized comparative study. For therapeutic studies, patients treated one way (e.g., cemented hip prosthesis) are compared with those treated differently (e.g., cementless hip prosthesis).
          study
        • Observational study with dramatic effect
        • Retrospective
          Investigators formulated the study question after the first patient was enrolled.
          cohort
          In these studies, “cohort” refers to a nonrandomized comparative study. For therapeutic studies, patients treated one way (e.g., cemented hip prosthesis) are compared with those treated differently (e.g., cementless hip prosthesis).
          study
        • Case-control
          Patients identified for the study on the basis of their outcome (e.g., failed total hip arthroplasty), called “cases,” are compared with those who did not have the outcome (e.g., successful total hip arthroplasty), called “controls.”
          study
        • Case series
        • Historically controlled study
        • Mechanism-based reasoning
        EconomicDoes the intervention offer good value for dollars spent?Computer simulation model (Monte Carlo simulation, Markov model) with inputs derived from level I studies, lifetime time duration, outcomes expressed in dollars per quality-adjusted life year’s (QALYs) and uncertainty examined using probabilistic sensitivity analysesComputer simulation model (Monte Carlo simulation, Markov model) with inputs derived from level II studies, lifetime time duration, outcomes expressed in QALYs and uncertainty examined using probabilistic sensitivity analysisComputer simulation model (Monte Carlo simulation, Markov model) with inputs derived from level II studies, relevant time horizon, less than lifetime, outcomes expressed in QALYs and uncertainty examined using stochastic multilevel sensitivity analysisDecision tree over the short time horizon with inputs data for original level-II and III studies and uncertainty as examined by univariate sensitivity analysisDecision tree over the short time horizon with inputs data informed by prior economic evaluation and uncertainty as examined by univariate sensitivity analysis
        1 Level-I through IV studies may be graded downward on the basis of study quality, imprecision, indirectness, or inconsistency between studies or because the effect size is very small; these studies may be graded upward if there is a dramatic effect size. For example, a high-quality randomized controlled trial (RCT) should have >80% follow-up, blinding, and proper randomization. The Level of Evidence assigned to systematic reviews reflects the ranking of studies included in the review (i.e., a systematic review of Level-II studies is Level II). A complete assessment of the quality of individual studies requires critical appraisal of all aspects of study design.
        2 Investigators formulated the study question before the first patient was enrolled.
        3 In these studies, “cohort” refers to a nonrandomized comparative study. For therapeutic studies, patients treated one way (e.g., cemented hip prosthesis) are compared with those treated differently (e.g., cementless hip prosthesis).
        4 Investigators formulated the study question after the first patient was enrolled.
        5 Patients identified for the study on the basis of their outcome (e.g., failed total hip arthroplasty), called “cases,” are compared with those who did not have the outcome (e.g., successful total hip arthroplasty), called “controls.”
        6 Sufficient numbers are required to rule out a common harm (affects >20% of participants). For long-term harms, follow-up duration must be sufficient.
        Arthroscopy encourages authors to submit a video to be published on the Journal’s web site at www.arthroscopyjournal.org as an illustration incorporated in an article that the author is submitting for publication or as video paired with a journal cover illustration. All videos are subject to peer review. A sound track is highly desirable and is requested.
        These formats for video will be accepted
        • MPEG-1 or MPEG-2 (.mpg)
        • MP4 (.mp4)
        • QuickTime (.mov)
        Arthroscopy will not edit any video, but a reviewer may suggest that the author make changes.
        Requirements
        • Each video must start with a slide listing the authors’ conflicts of interest.
        • Submit a single video per manuscript, not multi-part videos.
        • Maximum length of videos is 4.5 minutes.
        • Video file may not exceed 100 MB.
        • Please ZIP the file and upload the zipped file to hasten the upload time.
        • A complete legend for the video must be included in the manuscript.
        • Video must be cited in the text of your manuscript just like a figure.
        • A sound track is highly desirable and is requested.