Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Mohit Bhandari

Publications and source records attributed to Mohit Bhandari.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
PubMed2005

Discrepancies between proceedings abstracts and posters at a scientific meeting.

The proceedings handbook of abstracts from scientific meetings aims to provide meeting attendees with an accurate summary of scientific presentations. Given that posters are prepared closer to the meeting than the abstracts for the proceedings book, we hypothesized that there is a high rate of inconsistency between abstracts in the proceedings handbook and the corresponding posters. We compared the poster abstracts printed in the proceedings handbook with the actual posters at the 71st annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons in 2004. Our comparison included all 50 trauma posters and 52 adult reconstruction knee posters. This comparison revealed discrepancies in 76% of the presented posters. These changes were detected in all parts of the posters including titles (33%), authorship (49%), methods (8%), results (30%), and conclusions (2%). The sample size changed in 15% of the studies. Discrepancies between the trauma posters versus the adult reconstruction knee posters were similar. Our findings suggest that discrepancies between the poster abstracts in the proceedings handbook and actual poster presentations are common, but changes in conclusions are rare. Meeting attendees should not assume that the proceedings handbook provides an accurate reflection of poster presentations. Visiting the poster section is recommended.

Abstracting and Indexing↗
PubMed2005

Path analysis of factors for delayed healing and nonunion in 416 operatively treated tibial shaft fractures.

UNLABELLED: A prospective observational study was done in 41 trauma centers. Four hundred sixteen patients with tibial shaft fractures were treated operatively and followed up for at least 6 months. Fifty-two (13%) cases of delayed healing or nonunion were reported. In such nonrandomized observational studies, multiple interrelationships exist between prognostic factors and patient outcomes. We used path analyses to investigate prognostic factors associated with the occurrence of delayed healing or nonunion. The most important factors were identified using multivariate regression analyses, and interrelationships between factors were illustrated using a path diagram. Fractures with open injuries less than and greater than 5 cm were 3.6 and 5.7 times as likely, respectively, to have delayed healing or nonunion as fractures with no skin injuries. The Müller-AO classification of fractures did not provide additional prognostic information. The risk of healing problems was doubled for fractures of the distal shaft and for fractures showing a postoperative diastasis. Treatment options showed an indirect effect on outcome with the occurrence of diastasis. A model for predicting delayed healing or nonunion is proposed. We encourage the use of path analysis in orthopaedics as a powerful visual technique to interpret data from observational studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic study, Level II-1 (retrospective study). See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2005

Podium versus poster publication rates at the Orthopaedic Trauma Association.

Original studies at orthopaedic meetings are presented on the podium and in poster format. Publication of those studies in peer-reviewed journals is the standard of communicating scientific data to colleagues. Investigators of previous studies have reported publication rates, but never differentiated between the modes of presentation. We evaluated the annual meeting of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association from 1994-1998 and found that studies presented on the podium were 1.3 times more likely to be published than those presented in a poster format (67% versus 52%). The mean time to publication was similar, 21.6 months for poster presentations and 24.8 months for podium presentations. Podium presentations were more likely to be published in the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, and the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American and British editions). Our findings suggest different rates and distribution of publication between podium and poster presentations at an international trauma meeting. These findings should be considered when evaluating studies of interest at the Orthopaedic Trauma Association meeting.

Humans↗
PubMed2005

A concept for the validation of fracture classifications.

The fracture classification systems currently used most frequently were not developed or validated by rigorous scientific evaluation methods. This paper discusses the classification of fractures from an epidemiological and clinical decision-making perspective and proposes a standardized methodological concept for their development and scientific validation. Classification categories are clinically relevant entities that surgeons should be able to use for diagnosis with sufficient confidence to limit misclassification and associated treatment errors. The process of validation should assess the value of specific clinical information (eg, the use of radiographs or computed tomography scans) in increasing the probability of a correct diagnosis. A 3-phase validation concept is proposed where: 1) classification categories are defined and the classification process using specific diagnostic images is evaluated by experts in a series of agreement studies (reliability, accuracy, likelihood ratios); 2) a multicenter agreement study is conducted among a representative group of future users of the classification; and 3) the classification proposal is applied in the context of a prospective clinical study to assess its clinical usefulness.

Classification↗
PubMed2005

The value of washers in cannulated screw fixation of femoral neck fractures.

BACKGROUND: Given the limited evidence to support the technical aspects of screw placement for treatment of femoral neck fractures, we conducted an observational study to evaluate demographic and radiographic variables associated with fixation failure. METHODS: Eligible patients with femoral neck fractures were treated with multiple cannulated screws across three academic centers during a 6-year period. The following variables were evaluated for their predictive value for fixation failure: age, gender, fracture type, presence of comminution, total number of screws, the absence of a washer, the screw configuration, reduction quality, the distance of the most inferior screw to the inferior neck, and screw alignment. Variables were evaluated separately and in a multivariable regression model. RESULTS: Eighty patients were included in the study. The overall failure rate was 30%. We identified four variables associated with fixation failure. These included the lack of washers (odds ratio [OR], 11.2; p = 0.03), imperfect quality of reduction (OR, 9.7; p < 0.01), age greater than 75 years (OR, 5.1; p = 0.04), and displaced versus undisplaced fracture type (OR, 3.8; p < 0.01). These four variables accounted for 43% of the variability in fixation failure (R(2) = 0.43). All other variables including the distance of the most inferior screw to the inferior/medial neck were found to be not significant. CONCLUSION: This study confirms previous findings in the literature that increased age, a displaced fracture type, and poor reduction increase the risk of fixation failure. Contradictory to current belief, there was no significant association between the distance of the inferior screw to the inferior/medial femoral neck cortex and fixation failure. A novel finding of the present study is that the use of washers significantly decreases the risk of fixation failure.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Lower mortality in patients with scapular fractures.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this research was to compare associated injuries and mortality in multiply injured patients with scapular fractures with those without scapular fractures. METHODS: A prospectively collected database of multiply injured motor vehicle occupants with an Injury Severity Score >12 admitted to a level I regional trauma center during from January 1, 1996, to December 31, 2001, was reviewed to assess skeletal and organ injuries associated with a scapular fracture. RESULTS: Of 2,538 motor vehicle occupants, 94 occupants with concomitant scapular fractures and 2,444 occupants without scapular fractures revealed that 76.6% of motor vehicle occupants who sustained scapular fractures were males with a mean age of 44.3 years (SD=18.9). The presence of a scapular fracture reduced the risk of mortality by 44% (95%CI: 1-75%). Patients with scapular fractures had a greater proportion of flail chest injuries [relative risk (RR), 8.8; p < 0.001], clavicle fractures (RR, 4.5; p < 0.001), rib fractures (RR, 3.1; p < 0.01), spine fractures (RR, 2.7; p < 0.001), and tibia and fibular fractures (RR, 1.7; p < 0.025). The presence of a chest injury, either a pneumothorax (RR, 3.7; p < 0.001) or a pulmonary contusion (RR, 3.5; p < 0.001), was significantly more likely in patients with scapular fractures than control patients. Injuries to the spleen (RR, 2.4; p < 0.01) and liver (RR, 2.2; p < 0.025) were also significantly more common in patients with scapular fractures when compared with those without them. CONCLUSIONS: In an observational study of multiply injured trauma patients from motor vehicle crashes, we report the following: (1) scapular fractures occur 3.7% of the time; (2) the presence of a scapular fracture was associated with a lower mortality; and (3) scapular fractures should alert healthcare personnel to the presence of other injuries, such as chest injuries, clavicle fractures, rib fractures, spine fractures, tibial fractures, and spleen and liver injuries. Our findings should be interpreted cautiously, because the mechanism of the association between scapular fractures and mortality remains unclear.

Accidents, Traffic↗
PubMed2005

Effect of bisphosphonates on periprosthetic bone mineral density after total joint arthroplasty. A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic bone loss following total joint arthroplasty may threaten the survival of the implant. Bisphosphonates are effective in reducing bone loss in conditions associated with accelerated bone turnover. To determine the current understanding of the effect of bisphosphonates on periprosthetic bone mineral density after total joint arthroplasty, we conducted computerized searches for randomized controlled trials evaluating the use of bisphosphonates in patients treated with primary total joint arthroplasty. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the web site of the United Kingdom National Research Register, and the archives of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons annual meetings (1989 through 2003), and we conducted hand searches of the bibliographies of relevant articles. We assessed methodological quality and abstracted relevant data. When necessary, we contacted authors to provide additional information. RESULTS: Of 386 citations that were initially identified, six (five complete papers and one abstract), which included a total of 290 patients, met our inclusion criteria. Those papers showed that significantly less periprosthetic bone loss had occurred in the bisphosphonate-treated patients than in the control patients at three months (152 patients; weighted mean difference, 3.3%; 95% confidence interval, 1.9% to 4.7%; p < 0.01), six months (248 patients; weighted mean difference, 4.5%; 95% confidence interval, 1.6% to 7.4%; p < 0.001), and twelve months (197 patients; weighted mean difference, 4.2%; 95% confidence interval, 1.5% to 6.9%; p = 0.03). Bisphosphonates appeared to have a larger effect on bone loss following arthroplasties with cement than on bone loss following arthroplasties without cement (difference, 0.1%, 5%, and 5.4% at three, six, and twelve months; significant difference [p < 0.001] at one year only) and a larger effect on bone loss following total knee arthroplasties than on bone loss following total hip arthroplasties (difference, 4.1%, 11.5%, and 7.1% at three, six, and twelve months; significant difference [p < 0.001] at six months only). None of the studies related the effects of bisphosphonates on bone mineral density to clinically relevant outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: A meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials suggested that bisphosphonates have a beneficial effect with regard to maintaining more periprosthetic bone mineral density than that in controls. However, the limitations of the available studies and the lack of analyses of clinically relevant outcomes (functional outcomes, revision rates, and quality of life) necessitate the planning and conduct of a sufficiently sized, methodologically sound study with clinically relevant end points. Until this has been done, the current evidence regarding the beneficial effects of bisphosphonates on periprosthetic bone after total joint arthroplasty should be interpreted with caution.

Arthroplasty, Replacement↗
PubMed2005

Level of evidence in orthopaedic journals.

BACKGROUND: The American edition of The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (JBJS-A) has included a level-of-evidence rating for each of its clinical scientific papers published since January 2003. The purpose of this study was to assess the type and level of evidence found in nine different orthopaedic journals by applying this level-of-evidence rating system. METHODS: We reviewed all clinical articles published from January through June 2003 in nine orthopaedic journals. Studies of animals, studies of cadavera, basic-science articles, review articles, case reports, and expert opinions were excluded. The remaining 382 clinical articles were randomly assigned to three experienced reviewers and two inexperienced reviewers, who rated them with the JBJS-A grading system. Each reviewer determined whether the studies were therapeutic, prognostic, diagnostic, or economic, and each rated the level of evidence as I, II, III, or IV. Reviewers were blinded to the grades assigned by the other reviewers. RESULTS: According to the reviewers' ratings, 70.7% of the articles were therapeutic, 19.9% were prognostic, 8.9% were diagnostic, and 0.5% were economic. The reviewers graded 11.3% as Level I, 20.7% as Level II, 9.9% as Level III, and 58.1% as Level IV. The kappa values for the interobserver agreement between the experienced reviewers and the inexperienced reviewers were 0.62 for the level of evidence and 0.76 for the study type. The kappa values for the interobserver agreement between the experienced reviewers were 0.75 for the level of evidence and 0.85 for the study type. The kappa values for the agreement between the reviewers' grades and the JBJS-A grades were 0.84 for the level of evidence and 1.00 for the study type. All kappa values were significantly different from zero (p < 0.0001 for all). The percentage of articles that were rated Level I or II increased in accordance with the 2003 journal impact factors for the individual journals (p = 0.0061). CONCLUSIONS: Orthopaedic journals with a higher impact factor are more likely to publish Level-I or II articles. The type and level of information in orthopaedic journals can be reliably classified, and clinical investigators should pursue studies with a higher level of evidence whenever feasible.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗
PubMed2005

Operative management of displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly patients. An international survey.

BACKGROUND: Hip fractures occur in 280,000 North Americans each year. Although surgeons have reached consensus with regard to the treatment of undisplaced fractures of the hip, the surgical treatment of displaced fractures remains controversial. Identifying surgeons' preferences in techniques, and the rationale for their choices, may aid in focusing educational activities to the orthopaedic community as well as planning future clinical trials. Our objective was to clarify current opinion with regard to the operative treatment of displaced fractures of the femoral neck. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional survey design and a sample-to-redundancy strategy to examine surgeons' preferences in the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures. We mailed this survey to members of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association and European-AO International-affiliated trauma centers. RESULTS: Of 442 surgeons who received the questionnaire, 298 (67%) responded. The typical respondent was a North American man over the age of forty years who was in academic practice, supervised residents, had fellowship training in trauma, and worked in a low-volume center (<100 hip fractures per year), treating an equal proportion of displaced and undisplaced femoral neck fractures. Most surgeons believed that internal fixation was the procedure of choice in younger patients (those who are less than sixty years old) with a displaced fracture (Garden type III or IV). For patients over eighty years old with Garden type-III or IV fractures, almost all surgeons preferred arthroplasty. Respondents varied widely in their preferences for the treatment of patients who were sixty to eighty years old with a displaced fracture (Garden type III or IV) or active patients with a Garden type-III fracture. Many surgeons believed there was no difference between arthroplasty and internal fixation when considering mortality (45%), infection rates (30%), and quality of life (37%). Surgeons also revealed variable preferences in their choice of the optimal approach to arthroplasty for patients between sixty and eighty years old with a type-IV fracture (32% preferred unipolar; 41%, bipolar; and 17%, total hip arthroplasty) and in the optimal choice of implant for internal fixation. CONCLUSIONS: While surgeons prefer internal fixation for younger patients and arthroplasty for older patients, they disagree about the optimal approach to the management of patients between sixty and eighty years old with a displaced fracture and active patients with a Garden type-III fracture. Surgeons also disagree on the optimal implants for internal fixation or arthroplasty.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

An observational study of duplicate presentation rates between two national orthopedic meetings.

BACKGROUND: National meetings such as those of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) and the Canadian Orthopaedic Association (COA) are invaluable in the dissemination of new research findings. Given the limits of meeting agendas, investigators who present the same paper at multiple meetings prevent other presentations on potentially important original research. To determine the incidence of duplicate presentation of research between recent COA and AAOS meetings and between national meetings (AAOS and subspecialty), we conducted an observational study. METHODS: We hand-searched all podium papers and posters from the 2001 COA annual meeting for duplicate presentation at the 2001 and 2002 AAOS annual meetings and subspecialty meetings held in the USA. We evaluated summary data abstracted from the duplicate presentations for consistency. RESULTS: Of 148 presentations at the 2001 COA meeting, 29 presentations (paper and poster) were duplicated at the 2001 or 2002 AAOS meeting: effectively 1 paper in 5 (19.5%). Canadian investigators were significantly more likely to present the same paper at both meetings than Americans (79% v. 13%, respectively; p < 0.01). Those who presented papers at COA altered their AAOS presentations in a variety of ways: by changing the wording in the title of their paper (24% of the time), adding or removing authors (38%), changing authorship order (34%) and changing the sample size (31%). Duplicate presentation rates between AAOS and other orthopedic subspecialty meetings averaged 11.4% (range 3.4%-26.4%). CONCLUSIONS: We identified a 20% duplicate presentation rate between the COA and AAOS annual meetings, and an 11% rate between the AAOS and subspecialty meetings. Stricter enforcement of guidelines and improved dissemination of research findings at both national meetings may limit this practice.

Canada↗
PubMed2005

The undue influence of significant p-values on the perceived importance of study results.

BACKGROUND: Statistically significant differences between treatments (i.e., results typically associated with p < 0.05) may not always correspond to important differences upon which to base orthopedic practice. If the hypothesis that p < 0.05 unduly influences the perception of importance of study results were true, we would expect that presenting such a p-value would lead to 1) greater agreement among clinicians about the importance of a study result, and 2) greater perceived importance of a study result, when compared with presenting the same results omitting the p-value. METHODS: The participants were 3 orthopedics residents, 5 fellows, and 4 attending orthopedic surgeons at a university hospital. We constructed a 40-item questionnaire with the comparison groups, primary outcome of interest, and the results from each of 40 studies. These studies represent a variety of interventions across orthopedic surgery assessed in 2-group comparative intervention studies (randomized trials, observational studies) and were published between 2000 and 2002 in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery--American Volume. For each question, respondents were asked to rate the importance of the study results. Participants answered the questionnaire first without p-values and then, 8 weeks later, with p-values (and a random sample of items without p-values). An intra-class correlation quantified agreement between clinicians when answering items with and without p-values. The difference in mean importance scores between the two presentations was also estimated. RESULTS: Of 40 eligible clinical comparative studies, 30 reported p < 0.05 for their primary comparison. Without presenting p-values, overall agreement regarding clinical significance among reviewers was fair (ICC = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.25-0.49). In the 30 studies with p < 0.05, mean importance scores (1 = low; 3 = high) were greater when p-values were presented (difference 0.6, CI 0.1-1.1). 10 of 12 reviewers perceived results to be more important when presented with significant p-values. INTERPRETATION: When significant, p-values unduly influence the perception of clinicians regarding the importance of study results.

Biomedical Research↗
PubMed2004

Internet versus mailed questionnaires: a controlled comparison (2).

BACKGROUND: Low response rates among surgeons can threaten the validity of surveys. Internet technologies may reduce the time, effort, and financial resources needed to conduct surveys. OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether using Web-based technology could increase the response rates to an international survey. METHODS: We solicited opinions from the 442 surgeon-members of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association regarding the treatment of femoral neck fractures. We developed a self-administered questionnaire after conducting a literature review, focus groups, and key informant interviews, for which we used sampling to redundancy techniques. We administered an Internet version of the questionnaire on a Web site, as well as a paper version, which looked similar to the Internet version and which had identical content. Only those in our sample could access the Web site. We alternately assigned the participants to receive the survey by mail (n=221) or an email invitation to participate on the Internet (n=221). Non-respondents in the mail arm received up to three additional copies of the survey, while non-respondents in the Internet arm received up to three additional requests, including a final mailed copy. All participants in the Internet arm had an opportunity to request an emailed Portable Document Format (PDF) version. RESULTS: The Internet arm demonstrated a lower response rate (99/221, 45%) than the mail questionnaire arm (128/221, 58%) (absolute difference 13%, 95% confidence interval 4%-22%, P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our Internet-based survey to surgeons resulted in a significantly lower response rate than a traditional mailed survey. Researchers should not assume that the widespread availability and potential ease of Internet-based surveys will translate into higher response rates.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Internet versus mailed questionnaires: a randomized comparison (2).

BACKGROUND: Low response rates among surgeons can threaten the validity of surveys. Internet technologies may reduce the time, effort, and financial resources needed to conduct surveys. OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether using Web-based technology could increase the response rates to an international survey. METHODS: We solicited opinions from the 442 surgeon-members of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association regarding the treatment of femoral neck fractures. We developed a self-administered questionnaire after conducting a literature review, focus groups, and key informant interviews, for which we used sampling to redundancy techniques. We administered an Internet version of the questionnaire on a Web site, as well as a paper version, which looked similar to the Internet version and which had identical content. Only those in our sample could access the Web site. We alternately assigned the participants to receive the survey by mail (n=221) or an email invitation to participate on the Internet (n=221). Non-respondents in the mail arm received up to three additional copies of the survey, while non-respondents in the Internet arm received up to three additional requests, including a final mailed copy. All participants in the Internet arm had an opportunity to request an emailed Portable Document Format (PDF) version. RESULTS: The Internet arm demonstrated a lower response rate (99/221, 45%) than the mail questionnaire arm (129/221, 58%) (absolute difference 13%, 95% confidence interval 4%-22%, P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our Internet-based survey to surgeons resulted in a significantly lower response rate than a traditional mailed survey. Researchers should not assume that the widespread availability and potential ease of Internet-based surveys will translate into higher response rates.

Adult↗