Hierarchy of evidence relating to hand surgery in Brazilian orthopedic journals
Keywords:
Orthopedics, Hand, Epidemiologic methods, Research design, Evidence-based medicineAbstract
CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: There is no systematic assessment of the quality of scientific production in the specialty of hand surgery in our setting. This study aimed to systematically assess the status of evidence generation relating to hand surgery and to evaluate the reproducibility of the classification method based on an evidence pyramid. DESIGN AND SETTING: Secondary study conducted at Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp) and Faculdade Estadual de Medicina de Marília (Famema). METHODS: Two researchers independently conducted an electronic database search for hand surgery studies published between 2000 and 2009 in the two main Brazilian orthopedic journals (Acta Ortopédica Brasileira and Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia). The studies identified were subsequently classified according to methodological design (systematic review of the literature, randomized clinical trial, cohort study, case-control study, case series and other studies) and evidence level (I to V). RESULTS: A total of 1,150 articles were evaluated, and 83 (7.2%) were included in the final analysis. Studies with evidence level IV (case series) accounted for 41 (49%) of the published papers. Studies with evidence level V (other studies) accounted for 12 (14.5%) of the papers. Only two studies (2.4%) were ranked as level I or II. The inter-rater reproducibility was excellent (k = 0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Hand surgery articles corresponded to less than one tenth of Brazilian orthopedic production. Studies with evidence level IV were the commonest type. The reproducibility of the classification stratified by evidence level was almost perfect.
Downloads
References
Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA. 1992;268(17):2420-5.
Bhandari M, Richards RR, Sprague S, Schemitsch EH. The quality of reporting of random- ized trials in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery from 1988 through 2000. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84-A(3):388-96.
Bhandari M, Swiontkowski MF, Einhorn TA, et al. Interobserver agreement in the applica- tion of levels of evidence to scientific papers in the American volume of the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A(8):1717-20.
Hoppe DJ, Bhandari M. Evidence-based orthopaedics: a brief history. Indian J Orthop. 2008;42(2):104-10.
Watts G. Let’s pension off the “major breakthrough”. BMJ. 2007;334 Suppl 1:s4.
Atallah AN. The Cochrane Collaboration: shared evidence for improving decision-making in human health. Sao Paulo Med J. 1999;117(5):183-4.
Poolman RW, Kerkhoffs GM, Struijs PA, Bhandari M, International Evidence-Based Ortho- pedic Surgery Working Group. Don’t be misled by the orthopedic literature: tips for critical appraisal. Acta Orthop. 2007;78(2):162-71.
Dijkman BG, Abouali JA, Kooistra BW, et al. Twenty years of meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery: has quality kept up with quantity? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(1):48-57.
Kiter E, Karatosun V, Günal I. Do orthopaedic journals provide high-quality evidence for clinical practice? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2003;123(2-3):82-5.
Siebelt M, Siebelt T, Pilot P, et al. Citation analysis of orthopaedic literature; 18 major orthopaedic journals compared for Impact Factor and SCImago. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010;11:4.
Amatuzzi MLL. Análise da evolução qualitativa de publicações em Ortopedia e Trauma- tologia: comparação entre a Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia e Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery [Analysis of qualitative evolution from publications in Orthopedics and traumatol- ogy]. Rev Bras Ortop. 2004;39(9):527-35.
Bhandari M, Guyatt GH, Lochner H, Sprague S, Tornetta P 3rd. Application of the Consoli- dated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) in the Fracture Care Literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84-A(3):485-9.
Riera R. Designs of studies published in two Brazilian journals of orthopedics and sports medicine, recently indexed in the ISI Web of Science. Sao Paulo Med J. 2009;127(6):355-8.
Gummesson C, Atroshi I, Ekdahl C. The quality of reporting and outcome measures in randomized clinical trials related to upper-extremity disorders. J Hand Surg Am. 2004;29(4):727-34; discussion 735-7.
Martinoff R, Kreder H. Finding evidence: evidence-based practice. Hand Clin. 2009;25(1):15-27, v.
Lozano-Calderón S, Anthony S, Ring D. The quality and strength of evidence for etiology: example of carpal tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Am. 2008;33(4):525-38.
Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 1998;352(9128):609-13.
Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.4. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2005.
Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-Based Medi- cine: how to practice and teach EBM. 2nd ed. London: Churchill Livingstone; 2000.
Wright JG, Swiontkowski MF, Heckman JD. Introducing levels of evidence to the journal. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A(1):1-3.
Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Bio- metrics. 1977;33(1):159-74.
Hanzlik S, Mahabir RC, Baynosa RC, Khiabani KT. Levels of evidence in research published in The Journal of the Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume) over the last thirty years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(2):425-8.
