OrthoEvidence™: A Clinical Resource for Evidence-Based Orthopedics

Sheila Sprague, Chris Smith, Mohit Bhandari, Sheila Sprague, Chris Smith, Mohit Bhandari

Abstract

The prevalence of musculoskeletal issues in clinical practice, and the limited focus placed upon musculoskeletal conditions by current electronic summary resources, highlights the need for a resource that provides access to simple and concise summaries of top-quality orthopedic literature for orthopedic surgeons and allied healthcare professionals. OrthoEvidence™ is an online clinical resource that addresses the paucity of adequate evidence-based summary tools in the field of orthopedic surgery. OrthoEvidence™ uses a rigorous, transparent, and unique process to review, evaluate, and summarize high quality research studies and their implications for orthopedic clinical practice. Randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses are identified and reviewed by an expert medical writing team, who prepare Advanced Clinical Evidence (ACETM) reports: one or two detailed pages including critical appraisals and synopses of key research. These timely and targeted reports provide a clear understanding about the quality of evidence associated with each summarized study, and can be organized by users to identify trending information. OrthoEvidence™ allows members to use their time efficiently and to stay current by having access to a breadth of timely, high-quality research output. OrthoEvidence™ is easily accessible through the internet and is available at the point-of-care, which allows treating orthopedic surgeons and allied health professionals to easily practice the principles of evidence-based medicine within their clinical practices..

Keywords: Evidence-based medicine; OrthoEvidence™; literature summary tool.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest: SS and CS declare no potential conflict of interest. MB is the owner of OrthoEvidence™.

References

    1. Watts G. Let's pension off the major breakthrough. Br Med J 2007;334:4.
    1. Guyatt G. Evidence-based medicine: past, present and future. McMaster Univ Med J 2003;1:27-32.
    1. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Evidence-based medicine: a new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA 1992;268:2420-5.
    1. Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade M, Cook DJ. Users guide to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. 2nd ed. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Professional; 2008.
    1. Hoppe D, Bhandari M. Evidence-based orthopaedics. A brief history. Indian J Orthop 2008;42:104-10.
    1. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, et al. Evidence-based medicine: what it is and what it is not. Br Med J 1996;312:71-2.
    1. Hurwitz SR, Slaawson D, Slaughnessy A. Orthopaedic information mastery: applying evidence-based information tools to improve patient outcomes while saving orthopaedists' time. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000;82:888-94.
    1. Alper BS, Hand JA, Elliott SG, et al. How much effort is needed to keep up with the literature relevant to primary care? J Med Libr Assoc 2004;92:429-37.
    1. Goodyear-Smith F, Kerse N, Warren J, Arroll B. Evaluation of e-textbooks. DynaMed, MD Consult and UpToDate. Aust Fam Physician 2008;37:878-82.
    1. Turvey S, Hussain N, Banfield L, Bhandari M. Orthopaedic surgical content associated with resources for clinical evidence. JCHLA 2013;34:17-23.
    1. Black P. Chief complaints at a walk-in clinic: an analysis of 3,009 consecutive patient visits. Publ Health Rep 1977;92:150-2.
    1. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928.
    1. Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, et al. Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1992;45:255-65.
    1. Walsh M, Srinathan S, McAuley DF, et al. The statistical significance of randomized controlled trial research is frequently fragile: a case for a Fragility Index. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:622-8.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonner