liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Biomechanical studies: Science (f)or common sense?
Orthopaedic Hand and Upper Extremity Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical SchoolBoston, MA, United States.
University of of Amsterdam Orthopaedic Residency Program (PGY 4), Academic Medical CenterAmsterdam, Netherlands.
University of of Amsterdam Orthopaedic Residency Program (PGY 4), Academic Medical CenterAmsterdam, Netherlands.
Orthopaedic Hand and Upper Extremity Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical SchoolBoston, MA, United States.
2014 (English)In: Injury, ISSN 0020-1383, E-ISSN 1879-0267, Vol. 45, no 12, 2035-2039 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Introduction: It is our impression that many biomechanical studies invest substantial resources studying the obvious: that more and larger metal is stronger. The purpose of this study is to evaluate if a subset of biomechanical studies comparing fixation constructs just document common sense. Methods: Using a web-based survey, 274 orthopaedic surgeons and 81 medical students predicted the results of 11 biomechanical studies comparing fracture fixation constructs (selected based on the authors sense that the answer was obvious prior to performing the study). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated according to standard formulas. The agreement among the observers was calculated by using a multirater kappa, described by Siegel and Castellan. Results: The accuracy of predicting outcomes was 80% or greater for 10 of 11 studies. Accuracy was not influenced by level of experience (i.e., time in practice and medical students vs. surgeons). There were substantial differences in accuracy between observers from different regions. The overall categorical rating of inter-observer reliability according to Landis and Koch was moderate (k = 0.55; standard error (SE) = 0.01). Conclusion: The results of a subset of biomechanical studies comparing fracture fixation constructs can be predicted prior to doing the study. As these studies are time and resource intensive, one criterion for proceeding with a biomechanical study should be that the answer is not simply a matter of common sense. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier , 2014. Vol. 45, no 12, 2035-2039 p.
Keyword [en]
Biomechanical; Fixation; Fracture; Orthopaedic
National Category
Clinical Medicine
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-117186DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2014.09.014PubMedID: 25306381Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84922643228OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-117186DiVA: diva2:806765
Note

Additional authors: Science of Variation Group

Lars Adolfsson, LiU

Available from: 2015-04-21 Created: 2015-04-21 Last updated: 2017-12-04

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus
In the same journal
Injury
Clinical Medicine

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 46 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf