x
Filter:
Filters applied
- Research Pearls
- Review ArticleRemove Review Article filter
- Rapid CommunicationRemove Rapid Communication filter
Publication Date
Please choose a date range between 2017 and 2021.
Author
- Brand, Jefferson C6
- Cote, Mark P6
- Hohmann, Erik4
- Dhawan, Aman3
- Harris, Joshua D3
- Brand, Jefferson1
- Cole, Brian J1
- D'Agostino, Ralph B Jr1
- Difiori, John1
- Faucett, Scott C1
- Feldman, Michael1
- Hardy, Richard1
- Herzog, Mackenzie M1
- Hunt, Timothy J1
- Kartus, Jüri1
- Lubowitz, James H1
- Maak, Travis G1
- Mack, Christina D1
- Meisel, Peter1
- Monroe, Emily1
- Rossi, Michael J1
- Wetzler, Merrick J1
Research Pearls
11 Results
- Systematic Review
Nearly One-Third of Published Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Yield Inconclusive Conclusions: A Systematic Review
ArthroscopyVol. 37Issue 9p2991–2998Published online: April 19, 2021- Joshua D. Harris
- Mark P. Cote
- Aman Dhawan
- Erik Hohmann
- Jefferson C. Brand
Cited in Scopus: 6To perform a systematic review that determines the percentage of published orthopedic surgery and sports medicine systematic reviews and meta-analyses that have a conclusive conclusion. - Level V Evidence
Sports Performance and Injury Research: Methodologic Limitations and Recommendations for Future Improvements
ArthroscopyVol. 36Issue 11p2938–2941Published online: October 9, 2020- Travis G. Maak
- Christina D. Mack
- Brian J. Cole
- Mackenzie M. Herzog
- John Difiori
- Peter Meisel
Cited in Scopus: 10Evidence-based research has resulted in incredible advances in sports medicine and is an important component of minimizing injury risk. Such research is similarly important when applied to care delivery to athletes after injury. For research into injury reduction and treatment outcomes to be most impactful, however, the methods must be of sufficient rigor to generate high-quality evidence. Two recent trends in sports injury research have led to specific concerns about evidence quality: 1) use of athletic performance metrics as an injury or treatment outcome and 2) use of publicly available data for injury or treatment research. - Level V Evidence
Research Pearls: Checklists and Flowcharts to Improve Research Quality
ArthroscopyVol. 36Issue 7p2030–2038Published online: March 10, 2020- Jefferson Brand
- Richard Hardy
- Emily Monroe
Cited in Scopus: 2To instill quality in published clinical research, reporting guidelines, consisting of checklists and flowcharts, were developed to protect against reporting poorly designed research, and researchers should be aware of the available instruments and their appropriate use. With the popularity of synthetic reviews, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews, there is a greater need to assess risk of bias and study quality. This review highlights the most frequently used guidelines and checklists, risk-of-bias scales, and quality rating scales that can assist researchers with improving their research and its eventual publication. - Level V Evidence
Journal Article Titles Impact Their Citation Rates
ArthroscopyVol. 36Issue 7p2025–2029Published online: February 25, 2020- Michael J. Rossi
- Jefferson C. Brand
Cited in Scopus: 8A journal article’s title gives authors one chance to make a first impression and communicate succinctly the findings from their important research. The goal of a research article rests in disseminating information. Both authors and academic journals benefit from increasing the number of times an investigation is cited. A scientific manuscript title accurately summarizes the research using key words that can be identified with search engines. This review aims to condense evidence-based research to improve a scientific manuscript title for both clarity and impact. - Infographic
Medical Research Publication: An Insider’s Guide
ArthroscopyVol. 36Issue 3p627–628Published online: January 22, 2020- James H. Lubowitz
Cited in Scopus: 1Most original scientific articles submitted to high-impact medical journals are not accepted for publication. Reasons for rejection are diverse, and tips and pearls to improve chances for acceptance are manifold. Four essential points could maximize the chance that submission of a scientific article will result in acceptance and publication. First, before initiation of a study, it is valuable to state a hypothesis detailing what one expects the study to show. Second, the conclusion should be based exclusively on, and not overreach, the results. - Level V Evidence
Research Pearls: How Do We Establish the Level of Evidence?
ArthroscopyVol. 34Issue 12p3271–3277Published in issue: December, 2018- Erik Hohmann
- Michael Feldman
- Timothy J. Hunt
- Mark P. Cote
- Jefferson C. Brand
Cited in Scopus: 24Evidence-based medicine (EBM) guidelines were first introduced in 1986 and were defined as the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. The practice of EBM means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research. Level of evidence (LOE) stratifies publications from Level I to Level V and provides the foundation for EBM. Three questions should be asked when an LOE is assigned to a scientific article: (1) What is the research question? (2) What is the study type? and (3) What is the hierarchy of evidence? In cases in which LOE is not appropriate or relevant (basic science and laboratory-based investigations), a clinical relevance statement should be used. - Level V Evidence
Research Pearls: Expert Consensus Based Evidence Using the Delphi Method
ArthroscopyVol. 34Issue 12p3278–3282Published in issue: December, 2018- Erik Hohmann
- Mark P. Cote
- Jefferson C. Brand
Cited in Scopus: 45The evolution of a systematic approach to assessing pertinent investigations is known as evidence-based medicine (EBM). EBM is defined as the conscientious and judicious use of current best evidence from clinical care research and integration of clinical expertise in the management of individual patients. There is no doubt that EBM is important but may not give clinically meaningful guidance on topics with clinical equipoise for individual patient care. When EBM has been insufficiently developed for a specific topic, a consensus opinion of experts can be valuable. - Level V Evidence
Invention Versus Gold Standard: A Hands-On Research Pearl on Study Design and Statistical Concerns
ArthroscopyVol. 34Issue 12p3266–3270Published online: November 7, 2018- Jüri Kartus
- Mark P. Cote
Cited in Scopus: 8This article points out what is important to consider when planning to perform and analyze a commonly seen study involving a comparison of an innovation with something established. A hands-on guide on how to perform this type of research trial and how to choose proper statistical methods is given. - Level V Evidence
Research Pearls: The Significance of Statistics and Perils of Pooling. Part 2: Predictive Modeling
ArthroscopyVol. 33Issue 7p1423–1432Published online: April 27, 2017- Erik Hohmann
- Merrick J. Wetzler
- Ralph B. D'Agostino Jr.
Cited in Scopus: 14The focus of predictive modeling or predictive analytics is to use statistical techniques to predict outcomes and/or the results of an intervention or observation for patients that are conditional on a specific set of measurements taken on the patients prior to the outcomes occurring. Statistical methods to estimate these models include using such techniques as Bayesian methods; data mining methods, such as machine learning; and classical statistical models of regression such as logistic (for binary outcomes), linear (for continuous outcomes), and survival (Cox proportional hazards) for time-to-event outcomes. - Level V Evidence
Research Pearls: The Significance of Statistics and Perils of Pooling. Part 3: Pearls and Pitfalls of Meta-analyses and Systematic Reviews
ArthroscopyVol. 33Issue 8p1594–1602Published online: April 27, 2017- Joshua D. Harris
- Jefferson C. Brand
- Mark P. Cote
- Aman Dhawan
Cited in Scopus: 66Within the health care environment, there has been a recent and appropriate trend towards emphasizing the value of care provision. Reduced cost and higher quality improve the value of care. Quality is a challenging, heterogeneous, variably defined concept. At the core of quality is the patient's outcome, quantified by a vast assortment of subjective and objective outcome measures. There has been a recent evolution towards evidence-based medicine in health care, clearly elucidating the role of high-quality evidence across groups of patients and studies. - Level V Evidence
Research Pearls: The Significance of Statistics and Perils of Pooling. Part 1: Clinical Versus Statistical Significance
ArthroscopyVol. 33Issue 6p1102–1112Published online: April 25, 2017- Joshua D. Harris
- Jefferson C. Brand
- Mark P. Cote
- Scott C. Faucett
- Aman Dhawan
Cited in Scopus: 322Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly being used in today's rapidly evolving health care environment. The value of care provision emphasizes the highest quality of care at the lowest cost. Quality is in the eye of the beholder, with different stakeholders prioritizing different components of the value equation. At the center of the discussion are the patients and their quantification of outcome via PROs. There are hundreds of different PRO questionnaires that may ascertain an individual's overall general health, quality of life, activity level, or determine a body part-, joint-, or disease-specific outcome.