Evidence hierarchies relating to hand surgery
current status and improvement. A bibliometric analysis study
Keywords:
Hand, Orthopedics, Evidence-based medicineAbstract
BACKGROUND: Hierarchy of evidence is an important measurement for assessing quality of literature. Information regarding quality of evidence within the Brazilian hand surgery setting is sparse, especially regarding whether research has improved in either quality or quantity. This study aimed to identify and classify hand surgery studies published in the two most important Brazilian orthopedics journals based on hierarchy of evidence, with comparisons with previously published data. DESIGN AND SETTING: Bibliometric analysis study performed in a federal university. METHODS: Two independent researchers conducted an electronic database search for hand surgery studies published between 2010 and 2016 in Acta Ortopédica Brasileira and Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia. Eligible studies were subsequently classified according to methodological design, based on the Haynes pyramid model (HP) and the JBJS/AAOS levels of evidence and grades of recommendations (LOR). Qualitative and quantitative data were gathered regarding all studies. Previous data were considered to assess whether the proportion of high-quality studies had improved over time (2000-2009 versus 2010-2016). RESULTS: The final analysis included 123 studies, mostly originating from the southeastern region (78.8%) and private institutions (65%), with self-funding (91.8%). Methodological assessment showed that 15.4% were classified as level I/II using HP and 16.4% using LOR. No significant difference in proportions of high-quality studies was found between the two periods of time assessed (5% versus 12%; P = 0.13). CONCLUSION: Approximately 15% of hand surgery studies published in two major Brazilian journals were likely to be classified as high-quality through two different systems. Moreover, no trend towards quality-of-evidence improvement was found over the last 15 years.
Downloads
References
Bhandari M. Evidence-based medicine: why bother? Arthroscopy. 2009;25(3):296-7.
Guyatt GH, Rennie D. Users' guides to the medical literature: A manual for evidence-based clinical practice. Chicago: American Medical Association Press; 2001.
Sackett DL, Richardson WS, Rosenberg WM, Haynes RB. Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1997.
Poolman RW, Kerkhoffs GM, Struijs PA, Bhandari M; International Evidence-Based Orthopedic Surgery Working Group. Don't be misled by the orthopedic literature: tips for critical appraisal. Acta Orthop. 2007;78(2):162-71.
Poolman RW, Struijs PA, Krips R, et al. Does a "Level I Evidence" rating imply high quality of reporting in orthopaedic randomised controlled trials? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:44.
Eberlin KR, Labow BI, Upton J 3rd, Taghinia AH. High-impact articles in hand surgery. Hand (N Y). 2012;7(2):157-62.
Moraes VY, Belloti JC, Moraes FY, et al. Hierarchy of evidence relating to hand surgery in Brazilian orthopedic journals. Sao Paulo Med J. 2011;129(2):94-8.
Rosales RS, Reboso-Morales L, Martin-Hidalgo Y, Diez de la Lastra-Bosch I. Level of evidence in hand surgery. BMC Res Notes. 2012;5:665.
Grandizio LC, Huston JC, Shim SS, Graham J, Klena JC. Levels of Evidence for Hand Questions on the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination. Hand (N Y). 2016;11(4):484-8.
Haynes RB. Of studies, syntheses, synopses, summaries, and systems: the "5S" evolution of information services for evidence-based health care decisions. ACP J Club. 2006;145(3):A8.
Wright JG, Swiontkowski MF, Heckman JD. Introducing levels of evidence to the journal. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A(1):1-3.
Burns PB, Rohrich RJ, Chung KC. The levels of evidence and their role in evidence-based medicine. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128(1):305-10.
Jüni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA. 1999;282(11):1054-60.
Sugrue CM, Joyce CW, Sugrue RM, Carroll SM. Trends in the Level of Evidence in Clinical Hand Surgery Research. Hand (N Y). 2016;11(2):211-5.
Amiri AR, Kanesalingam K, Cro S, Casey AT. Level of evidence of clinical spinal research and its correlation with journal impact factor. Spine J. 2013;13(9):1148-53.
Tieman J, Sladek R, Currow D. Changes in the quantity and level of evidence of palliative and hospice care literature: the last century. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(35):5679-83.
Yarascavitch BA, Chuback JE, Almenawer SA, Reddy K, Bhandari M. Levels of evidence in the neurosurgical literature: more tribulations than trials. Neurosurgery. 2012;71(6):1131-7; discussion 1137-8.
