Information for Medical Professionals

Journals could define 'levels of evidence'

As research in the field of orthopaedics accelerates, scientific journals are increasingly looking for ways to 'score' new papers, giving them a distinct 'usefulness rating'.

According to a recent article on Ortho Supersite written by orthopaedic surgeon Douglas Jackson, a recurrent problem with modern scientific literature is the varying quality of evidence displayed.

"In an attempt to make sense of weak and conflicting data, scientific journals and organisations are trying to define 'levels of evidence' to help us interpret the literature," he said.

Jackson added that "statistical meta-analyses are being used to draw information from weaker, smaller and less definitive studies and make it usable by consensus panels as a basis for evidence-based treatments, [as well as] best practice and clinical-practice guidelines".

He claimed that one of the major issues in modern science was ironing out conflicts of interest in research journals.

Recently, research published in Orthopaedics 2010 found that large meta-analyses are by no means beneficial and in some cases, such as those used to investigate the treatment of hip fractures, they provide conflicting results.

---

<< Back

News provided by Adfero in collaboration with Biomet. Please note that all copy is (c) Adfero Ltd and does not reflect the views or opinions of Biomet unless explicitly stated.