Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Marc F Swiontkowski

Publications and source records attributed to Marc F Swiontkowski.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed2004

Interobserver agreement in the application of levels of evidence to scientific papers in the American volume of the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Since January 2003, all clinical scientific articles published in the American volume of The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (JBJS-A) have included a level-of-evidence rating. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the interobserver agreement among reviewers, with varying levels of epidemiology training, in categorizing the levels of evidence of these clinical studies. METHODS: Fifty-one consecutive clinical papers published in the American volume of JBJS were identified by a computerized search of the table of contents from January 2003 through June 2003. Each paper was blinded so that only the title, abstract (without the level of evidence designated), and methods section were provided to the reviewers. The papers were coded and were randomly organized in a binder. Six surgeons graded each blinded paper for (1) the type of study (therapeutic, prognostic, diagnostic test, or economic or decision analysis), (2) the level of evidence (on a scale of I through V), and (3) the subcategory within the particular level of evidence. Three surgeons were members of JBJS American Editorial Board, two surgeons were reviewers for JBJS-A, and one surgeon was an active researcher not formally associated with JBJS-A. The reviewers did not receive any formal training in the application of the classification system, but each was provided with a detailed description of the classification system used by JBJS-A. Intraclass correlation coefficients with 95% confidence intervals were determined for the reviewers' agreement regarding the type of study, level of evidence, and subcategory within the level of evidence. RESULTS: The majority (69%) of the fifty-one included articles were studies of therapy, and 57% of the studies constituted Level-IV evidence. The intraclass correlation coefficients for the agreement among all reviewers with regard to the study type, level of evidence, and subcategory within the level of evidence ranged from 0.61 to 0.75. Reviewers trained in epidemiology demonstrated greater agreement (range in intraclass correlation coefficients, 0.99 to 1.0), across all aspects of the classification system, than did reviewers who were not trained in epidemiology (range in intraclass correlation coefficients, 0.60 to 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that epidemiology and non-epidemiology-trained reviewers can apply the levels-of-evidence guide to published studies with acceptable interobserver agreement. The validity of this system remains a question for future research.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗
PubMed2004

Staying current.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Certification↗
PubMed2003

Hierarchy of evidence: differences in results between non-randomized studies and randomized trials in patients with femoral neck fractures.

INTRODUCTION: There have been a number of non-randomized studies comparing arthroplasty with internal fixation in patients with femoral neck fractures. However, there remains considerable debate about whether the results of non-randomized studies are consistent with the results of randomized, controlled trials. Given the economic burden of hip fractures, it remains essential to identify therapies to improve outcomes; however, whether data from non-randomized studies of an intervention should be used to guide patient care remains unclear. We aimed to determine whether the pooled results of mortality and revision surgery among non-randomized studies were similar to those of randomized trials in studies comparing arthroplasty with internal fixation in patients with femoral neck fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a Medline search from 1969 to June 2002, identifying both randomized and non-randomized studies comparing internal fixation with arthroplasty in patients with femoral neck fractures. Additional strategies to identify relevant articles included Cochrane database, SCISEARCH, textbooks, annual meeting programs, and content experts. We abstracted information on mortality and revision rates in each study and compared the pooled results between non-randomized and randomized studies. In addition, we explored potential reasons for dissimilar results between the two study designs. RESULTS: We identified 140 citations that addressed the general topic of comparison of arthroplasty and internal fixation for hip fracture. Of these, 27 studies met the eligibility criteria, 13 of which were non-randomized studies and 14 of which were randomized trials. Mortality data was available in all 13 non-randomized studies ( n=3108 patients) and in 12 randomized studies ( n=1767 patients). Non-randomized studies overestimated the risk of mortality by 40% when compared with the results of randomized trials (relative risk 1.44 vs 1.04, respectively). Information on revision risk was available in 9 non-randomized studies ( n=2764 patients) and all 14 randomized studies ( n=1901 patients). Both estimates from non-randomized and randomized studies revealed a significant reduction in the risk of revision surgery with arthroplasty compared with internal fixation (relative risk 0.38 vs 0.23, respectively). The reduction in the risk of revision surgery with arthroplasty compared with internal fixation was 62% for non-randomized studies and 77% for randomized trials. Thus, non-randomized studies underestimated the relative benefit of arthroplasty by 19.5%. Non-randomized studies with point estimates of relative risk similar to the pooled estimate for randomized trials all controlled for patient age, gender, and fracture displacement in their comparisons of mortality. We were unable to identify reasons for differences in the revision rate results between the study designs. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to other reports in medical subspecialties, non-randomized studies provided results dissimilar to randomized trials of arthroplasty vs internal fixation for mortality and revision rates in patients with femoral neck fractures. Investigators should be aware of these discrepancies when evaluating the merits of alternative surgical interventions, especially when both randomized trials and non-randomized comparative studies are available.

Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip↗
PubMed2003

Limiting loss to follow-up in a multicenter randomized trial in orthopedic surgery.

Even the best-designed, randomized controlled trials suffer when patients are lost to follow-up. Incomplete follow-up biases the results of a trial when patients who drop out are different from those who complete follow-up. This is exaggerated further when there are differential dropout rates between study groups. Previous randomized controlled trials in orthopedic trauma have reported up to 28% loss to follow-up. Only by striving to achieve a 0% loss to follow-up rate can we be certain that this type of bias does not affect our results. In our ongoing multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing reamed and nonreamed intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fractures, we have implemented several innovative strategies to minimize loss to follow-up. The exclusion criteria and consent process are designed to minimize losses. Study staff are carefully trained in communication and negotiation with patients. Additionally, a central methods center monitors all patient follow-up and aids in finding lost patients. Through these primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions, we have achieved 94% complete 1-year follow-up for the first 440 patients enrolled in the trial. Eleven patients withdrew consent, and we are unable to locate 17 patients. We have successfully minimized the loss to follow-up rate in our trial by incorporating innovative prevention and retention strategies into its design and conduct. Through planning, organization, and committing time and resources to minimizing loss to follow-up, other orthopedic trauma trials can hope to achieve the same high rates of follow-up.

Bias↗
PubMed2003

A randomized trial of opinion leader endorsement in a survey of orthopaedic surgeons: effect on primary response rates.

BACKGROUND: Opinion leaders have been shown to have significant influence on the practice of health professionals and patient outcomes. METHODS: Using focus groups, key informants, and sampling to redundancy techniques, we developed a questionnaire of surgeons' preferences in the treatment of tibial shaft fractures. Twenty-two well-respected and widely known orthopaedic traumatologists endorsed the questionnaire. We randomized 395 surgeon members of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association to receive either a questionnaire that included a letter informing them of the opinion leaders' endorsement, or a questionnaire without the endorsement. RESULTS: Surgeons who received the letter of endorsement had a significantly lower response rate at 2, 4, and 8 weeks. The absolute difference in response rates was 7.8% (4.6% versus 12.4%, P < 0.05) at 2 weeks, 13.1% at 4 weeks (28.6% versus 41.7% P < 0.02), and 12.3% at 8 weeks (47.5% versus 59.8% P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a letter listing expert surgeons who endorse the survey lead to significantly lower primary response rates. Those interested in influencing physician responses cannot always assume a positive effect from endorsement by opinion leaders

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Methodologic issues in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Systematic reviews of original research are increasing in number. Systematic reviews are distinct from narrative reviews because they address a specific clinical question, require a comprehensive literature search, use explicit selection criteria to identify relevant studies, assess the methodologic quality of included studies, explore differences among study results, and either qualitatively or quantitatively synthesize study results. Systematic reviews that quantitatively pool results of more than one study are called meta-analyses. Several organizations are collaboratively involved in producing high quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Familiarity with how to do a systematic review and meta-analysis will lead to greater skill in using this type of article. For clinicians, teachers, and investigators, systematic reviews and meta-analyses are useful sources of evidence.

Decision Making↗
PubMed2003

Barriers to full-text publication following presentation of abstracts at annual orthopaedic meetings.

BACKGROUND: Oral presentations at national and international meetings offer an excellent forum for the dissemination of current research findings. However, publication rates of full-text articles after presentation of abstracts at international meetings have ranged from 11% to 78%, which suggests that at least 32% of the abstracts presented are never published as complete articles in peer-reviewed journals. In an effort to identify the reasons that surgeons had not had a paper published following presentation of their work at an international orthopaedic meeting, we conducted a survey of a cross section of authors of orthopaedic papers presented at a national meeting. METHODS: We retrieved all abstracts from the 1996 scientific program of the sixty-third Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. A computerized Medline and PubMed search established whether the abstract had been subsequently published as a full-text article. The authors of the abstracts that had not been subsequently published were surveyed to identify the reasons for the failure to publish. RESULTS: A total of 465 abstracts were presented at the sixty-third Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons in 1996. We surveyed the authors of 306 abstracts for which we were unable to locate a subsequent full-text publication on Medline. One hundred and ninety-nine investigators (65%) responded to the questionnaire. At the time of the survey, seventy-two manuscripts had been published, thirty-two had been submitted and rejected, fourteen were under consideration by journals, seven had been accepted for publication or were in press, and three were not recalled by the investigator. In addition, seventy-one abstracts (35.7%) of the 199 had not been submitted for publication. The authors of those abstracts were asked to indicate one or more reasons why they had not submitted a manuscript for publication. Thirty-three investigators (46.5%) indicated that they lacked sufficient time for research activities, twenty-two (31.0%) reported that the study presented at the meeting in 1996 was still in progress, fourteen (19.7%) believed that the responsibility for writing the manuscript belonged to someone else, and twelve (16.9%) reported that difficulties with co-authors who would not participate had impeded the completion of the manuscript. Nine investigators (12.7%) responded that the pursuit of publication was a low priority. CONCLUSIONS: In a survey of investigators who had not had a full-text article published after presenting the abstract at a national meeting, we found that the failure to publish was due to one of three main reasons: (1) they did not have enough time to prepare a manuscript for publication (the reason most frequently given); (2) almost one-third of the studies that had not been submitted for publication were ongoing; and (3) relationships with co-authors sometimes presented a barrier to final publication. Thorough preparation before the study and the establishment of stricter guidelines to limit the presentation of preliminary data at national and international meetings may improve publication rates.

Abstracting and Indexing↗
PubMed2003

Internal fixation compared with arthroplasty for displaced fractures of the femoral neck. A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal choice for the stabilization of displaced femoral neck fractures remains controversial, with alternatives including arthroplasty and internal fixation. Our objective was to determine the effect of arthroplasty (hemiarthroplasty, bipolar arthroplasty, and total hip arthroplasty), compared with that of internal fixation, on rates of mortality, revision, pain, function, operating time, and wound infection in patients with a displaced femoral neck fracture. METHODS: We searched computerized databases for randomized clinical trials published between 1969 and 2002, and we identified additional studies through hand searches of major orthopaedic journals, bibliographies of major orthopaedic textbooks, and personal files. Of 140 citations initially identified, fourteen met all eligibility criteria. Three investigators independently graded study quality and abstracted relevant data, including information on revision and mortality rates. RESULTS: Nine trials, which included a total of 1162 patients, provided detailed information on mortality rates over the first four postoperative months, which ranged from 0% to 20%. We found a trend toward an increase in the relative risk of death in the first four months after arthroplasty compared with the risk in the first four months after internal fixation (relative risk, 1.27). At one year, the relative risk of death was 1.04. The risk of death after arthroplasty appeared to be higher than that after fixation with a compression screw and side-plate but not higher than that after internal fixation with use of screws only (relative risk = 1.75 and 0.86, respectively; p < 0.05). Fourteen trials that included a total of 1901 patients provided data on revision surgery. The relative risk of revision surgery after arthroplasty compared with the risk after internal fixation was 0.23 (p = 0.0003). Pain relief and the attainment of overall good function were similar in patients treated with arthroplasty and those treated with internal fixation (relative risk, 1.12 for pain relief and 0.99 for function). Infection rates ranged from 0% to 18%, and arthroplasty significantly increased the risk of infection (relative risk, 1.81; p = 0.009). In addition, patients who underwent arthroplasty had greater blood loss and longer operative times than those who were treated with internal fixation. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with internal fixation, arthroplasty for the treatment of a displaced femoral neck fracture significantly reduces the risk of revision surgery, at the cost of greater infection rates, blood loss, and operative time and possibly an increase in early mortality rates. Only larger trials will resolve the critical question of the impact on early mortality.

Arthroplasty↗
PubMed2003

Outcomes after treatment of high-energy tibial plafond fractures.

BACKGROUND: Although a number of investigators have documented clinical outcomes and complications associated with tibial plafond, or pilon, fractures, very few have examined functional and general health outcomes associated with these fractures. Our purpose was to assess midterm health, function, and impairment after pilon fractures and to examine patient, injury, and treatment characteristics that influence outcome. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of pilon fractures treated at two centers between 1994 and 1995 was conducted. Patient, injury, and treatment characteristics were recorded from patient interviews and medical record abstraction. Study participants returned to the initial treatment centers for a comprehensive evaluation of their health status. The primary outcomes that were measured included general health, walking ability, limitation of range of motion, pain, and stair-climbing ability. A secondary outcome measure was employment status. RESULTS: Eighty (78%) of 103 eligible patients were evaluated at a mean of 3.2 years after injury. General health, as measured with the Short Form-36 (SF-36), was significantly poorer than age and gender-matched norms. Thirty-five percent of the patients reported substantial ankle stiffness; 29%, persistent swelling; and 33%, ongoing pain. Of sixty-five participants who had been employed before the injury, twenty-eight (43%) were not employed at the time of follow-up; nineteen (68%) of the twenty-eight reported that the pilon fracture prevented them from working. Multivariate analyses revealed that presence of two or more comorbidities, being married, having an annual personal income of less than 25,000 US dollars, not having attained a high-school diploma, and having been treated with external fixation with or without limited internal fixation were significantly related to poorer results as reflected by at least two of the five primary outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: At more than three years after the injury, pilon fractures can have persistent and devastating consequences on patients' health and well-being. Certain social, demographic, and treatment variables seem to contribute to these poor outcomes.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2002

An analysis of outcomes of reconstruction or amputation after leg-threatening injuries.

BACKGROUND: Limb salvage for severe trauma has replaced amputation as the primary treatment in many trauma centers. However, long-term outcomes after limb reconstruction or amputation have not been fully evaluated. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, prospective, observational study to determine the functional outcomes of 569 patients with severe leg injuries resulting in reconstruction or amputation. The principal outcome measure was the Sickness Impact Profile, a multidimensional measure of self-reported health status (scores range from 0 to 100; scores for the general population average 2 to 3, and scores greater than 10 represent severe disability). Secondary outcomes included limb status and the presence or absence of major complications resulting in rehospitalization. RESULTS: At two years, there was no significant difference in scores for the Sickness Impact Profile between the amputation and reconstruction groups (12.6 vs. 11.8, P=0.53). After adjustment for the characteristics of the patients and their injuries, patients who underwent amputation had functional outcomes that were similar to those of patients who underwent reconstruction. Predictors of a poorer score for the Sickness Impact Profile included rehospitalization for a major complication, a low educational level, nonwhite race, poverty, lack of private health insurance, poor social-support network, low self-efficacy (the patient's confidence in being able to resume life activities), smoking, and involvement in disability-compensation litigation. Patients who underwent reconstruction were more likely to be rehospitalized than those who underwent amputation (47.6 percent vs. 33.9 percent, P=0.002). Similar proportions of patients who underwent amputation and patients who underwent reconstruction had returned to work by two years (53.0 percent and 49.4 percent, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with limbs at high risk for amputation can be advised that reconstruction typically results in two-year outcomes equivalent to those of amputation.

Activities of Daily Living↗
PubMed2002

Femoral neck fractures.

Femoral neck fractures in the geriatric patient continue to represent a therapeutic challenge. Despite advances in surgical techniques and medical care, the risk of nonunion and osteonecrosis after fixation have not changed appreciably in the last 50 years. Considerable debate continues to occur with respect to the relative merits of internal fixation versus arthroplasty. The relative benefits and complications of unipolar and bipolar hemiarthroplasty, as well as total hip replacement, continue to be poorly understood. The next decade will bring advances in the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis that may finally decrease the incidence of these fractures. Advances in the use of bone graft substitutes may finally improve the outcome of internal fixation.

Accidental Falls↗
PubMed2002

A lack of consensus in the assessment of fracture healing among orthopaedic surgeons.

BACKGROUND: The assessment of fracture healing is both a clinically relevant and frequently used outcome measure following lower extremity trauma. However, it remains uncertain whether there is a consensus in the assessment of fracture healing among orthopaedic surgeons. Variability in the assessment of healing may have important implications in surgeons' decisions to intervene when they perceive fracture healing is slow to progress. OBJECTIVE: To identify surgeons' approaches in the assessment of tibial fracture healing and the definitions of a delayed union, nonunion, and malunion among orthopaedic surgeons. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of 577 orthopaedic surgeons. METHODS: Focus groups, key informants, and sampling to redundancy strategies were used to develop a survey to examine surgeons' opinions in the assessment of tibial shaft fractures. Surgeons were asked how often the following variables were used in the assessment of fracture healing: (a) callus size; (b) cortical continuity; (c) progressive loss of fracture line; (d) pain with weight bearing; and (e) pain to palpation at the fracture site. Further, surgeons were asked to provide a time point beyond which a delayed union becomes a nonunion. Finally, surgeons specified their limits of acceptable fracture alignment (translation, shortening, rotation, varus/valgus, and procurvatum/recurvatum). The survey was pilot tested for clarity and content validity. This survey was mailed to 577 orthopaedic surgeons who were members of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, and European-AO International-affiliated trauma centers. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 444 surgeons (response rate 77%). For each variable, the proportion of surgeons who always used the criterion ranged from 39.7% to 45.4%, and those who occasionally or never used the criterion ranged from 20.7% to 26.9%. Surgeons' definitions of delayed union ranged from 1 to 8 months, whereas definitions of nonunion ranged from 2 to 12 months. There was also variability in definitions of fracture malunion. Acceptable degrees of fracture shortening and translation ranged from less than 5 mm to greater than 15 mm. Surgeons' definitions of acceptable angular malunions (rotational, varus/valgus, and procurvatum/recurvatum) ranged from less than 5 degrees to 20 degrees. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of consensus in the assessment of fracture healing in tibial shaft fractures among orthopaedic surgeons. Varying definitions of nonunion and malunion may influence the decision to intervene in an effort to promote fracture healing and/or realign the fracture.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Factors influencing the decision to amputate or reconstruct after high-energy lower extremity trauma.

BACKGROUND: Factors thought to influence the decision for limb salvage include injury severity, physiologic reserve of the patient, and characteristics of the patient and their support system. METHODS: Eligible patients were between the ages of 16 and 69 with Gustilo type IIIB and IIIC tibial fractures, dysvascular limbs resulting from trauma, type IIIB ankle fractures, or severe open midfoot or hindfoot injuries. Data collected at enrollment relevant to the decision-making process included injury characteristics and its treatment, and the nature and severity of other injuries. Logistic regression and stepwise modeling were used to determine the effect of each covariate on the variable salvage/ amputation. RESULTS: Of 527 patients included in the analysis, 408 left the hospital with a salvaged limb. Of the 119 amputations performed, 55 were immediate and 64 were delayed. The multivariate analysis confirmed the bivariate analysis: all injury characteristics remained significant predictors of limb status with the exception of bone loss; and soft tissue injury and absence of plantar sensation were the most important factors in accounting for model validity. CONCLUSION: Soft tissue injury severity has the greatest impact on decision making regarding limb salvage versus amputation.

Adolescent↗