Has the Level of Evidence of Podium Presentations at the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Annual Meeting Changed Over Time?

Daniel M. Lerman, Matthew G. Cable, Patrick Thornley, Nathan Evaniew, Gerard P. Slobogean, Mohit Bhandari, John H. Healey, R Randall, Michelle Ghert

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Level of evidence (LOE) framework is a tool with which to categorize clinical studies based on their likelihood to be influenced by bias. Improvements in LOE have been demonstrated throughout orthopaedics, prompting our evaluation of orthopaedic oncology research LOE to determine if it has changed in kind. Questions/purposes: (1) Has the LOE presented at the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) annual meeting improved over time? (2) Over the past decade, how do the MSTS and Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) annual meetings compare regarding LOE overall and for the subset of therapeutic studies? Methods: We reviewed abstracts from MSTS and OTA annual meeting podium presentations from 2005 to 2014. Three independent reviewers evaluated a total of 1222 abstracts for study type and LOE; there were 577 abstracts from MSTS and 645 from OTA. Changes in the distributions of study type and LOE over time were evaluated by Pearson chi-square test. Results: There was no change over time in MSTS LOE for all study types (p = 0.13) and therapeutic (p = 0.36) study types during the reviewed decade. In contrast, OTA LOE increased over this time for all study types (p < 0.01). The proportion of Level I therapeutic studies was higher at the OTA than the MSTS (3% [14 of 413] versus 0.5% [two of 387], respectively), whereas the proportion of Level IV studies was lower at the OTA than the MSTS (32% [134 of 413] versus 75% [292 of 387], respectively) during the reviewed decade. The proportion of controlled therapeutic studies (LOE I through III) versus uncontrolled studies (LOE IV) increased over time at OTA (p < 0.021), but not at MSTS (p = 0.10). Conclusions: Uncontrolled case series continue to dominate the MSTS scientific program, limiting progress in evidence-based clinical care. Techniques used by the OTA to improve LOE may be emulated by the MSTS. These techniques focus on broad participation in multicenter collaborations that are designed in a comprehensive manner and answer a pragmatic clinical question.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)853-860
Number of pages8
JournalClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research
Volume475
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2017
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Orthopedics
Wounds and Injuries
Neoplasms
Chi-Square Distribution
Therapeutics
Research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Has the Level of Evidence of Podium Presentations at the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Annual Meeting Changed Over Time? / Lerman, Daniel M.; Cable, Matthew G.; Thornley, Patrick; Evaniew, Nathan; Slobogean, Gerard P.; Bhandari, Mohit; Healey, John H.; Randall, R; Ghert, Michelle.

In: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, Vol. 475, No. 3, 01.03.2017, p. 853-860.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lerman, Daniel M. ; Cable, Matthew G. ; Thornley, Patrick ; Evaniew, Nathan ; Slobogean, Gerard P. ; Bhandari, Mohit ; Healey, John H. ; Randall, R ; Ghert, Michelle. / Has the Level of Evidence of Podium Presentations at the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Annual Meeting Changed Over Time?. In: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 2017 ; Vol. 475, No. 3. pp. 853-860.
@article{7d9073428e924f6a9ac249400482256c,
title = "Has the Level of Evidence of Podium Presentations at the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Annual Meeting Changed Over Time?",
abstract = "Background: Level of evidence (LOE) framework is a tool with which to categorize clinical studies based on their likelihood to be influenced by bias. Improvements in LOE have been demonstrated throughout orthopaedics, prompting our evaluation of orthopaedic oncology research LOE to determine if it has changed in kind. Questions/purposes: (1) Has the LOE presented at the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) annual meeting improved over time? (2) Over the past decade, how do the MSTS and Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) annual meetings compare regarding LOE overall and for the subset of therapeutic studies? Methods: We reviewed abstracts from MSTS and OTA annual meeting podium presentations from 2005 to 2014. Three independent reviewers evaluated a total of 1222 abstracts for study type and LOE; there were 577 abstracts from MSTS and 645 from OTA. Changes in the distributions of study type and LOE over time were evaluated by Pearson chi-square test. Results: There was no change over time in MSTS LOE for all study types (p = 0.13) and therapeutic (p = 0.36) study types during the reviewed decade. In contrast, OTA LOE increased over this time for all study types (p < 0.01). The proportion of Level I therapeutic studies was higher at the OTA than the MSTS (3{\%} [14 of 413] versus 0.5{\%} [two of 387], respectively), whereas the proportion of Level IV studies was lower at the OTA than the MSTS (32{\%} [134 of 413] versus 75{\%} [292 of 387], respectively) during the reviewed decade. The proportion of controlled therapeutic studies (LOE I through III) versus uncontrolled studies (LOE IV) increased over time at OTA (p < 0.021), but not at MSTS (p = 0.10). Conclusions: Uncontrolled case series continue to dominate the MSTS scientific program, limiting progress in evidence-based clinical care. Techniques used by the OTA to improve LOE may be emulated by the MSTS. These techniques focus on broad participation in multicenter collaborations that are designed in a comprehensive manner and answer a pragmatic clinical question.",
author = "Lerman, {Daniel M.} and Cable, {Matthew G.} and Patrick Thornley and Nathan Evaniew and Slobogean, {Gerard P.} and Mohit Bhandari and Healey, {John H.} and R Randall and Michelle Ghert",
year = "2017",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s11999-016-4763-x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "475",
pages = "853--860",
journal = "Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research",
issn = "0009-921X",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Has the Level of Evidence of Podium Presentations at the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Annual Meeting Changed Over Time?

AU - Lerman, Daniel M.

AU - Cable, Matthew G.

AU - Thornley, Patrick

AU - Evaniew, Nathan

AU - Slobogean, Gerard P.

AU - Bhandari, Mohit

AU - Healey, John H.

AU - Randall, R

AU - Ghert, Michelle

PY - 2017/3/1

Y1 - 2017/3/1

N2 - Background: Level of evidence (LOE) framework is a tool with which to categorize clinical studies based on their likelihood to be influenced by bias. Improvements in LOE have been demonstrated throughout orthopaedics, prompting our evaluation of orthopaedic oncology research LOE to determine if it has changed in kind. Questions/purposes: (1) Has the LOE presented at the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) annual meeting improved over time? (2) Over the past decade, how do the MSTS and Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) annual meetings compare regarding LOE overall and for the subset of therapeutic studies? Methods: We reviewed abstracts from MSTS and OTA annual meeting podium presentations from 2005 to 2014. Three independent reviewers evaluated a total of 1222 abstracts for study type and LOE; there were 577 abstracts from MSTS and 645 from OTA. Changes in the distributions of study type and LOE over time were evaluated by Pearson chi-square test. Results: There was no change over time in MSTS LOE for all study types (p = 0.13) and therapeutic (p = 0.36) study types during the reviewed decade. In contrast, OTA LOE increased over this time for all study types (p < 0.01). The proportion of Level I therapeutic studies was higher at the OTA than the MSTS (3% [14 of 413] versus 0.5% [two of 387], respectively), whereas the proportion of Level IV studies was lower at the OTA than the MSTS (32% [134 of 413] versus 75% [292 of 387], respectively) during the reviewed decade. The proportion of controlled therapeutic studies (LOE I through III) versus uncontrolled studies (LOE IV) increased over time at OTA (p < 0.021), but not at MSTS (p = 0.10). Conclusions: Uncontrolled case series continue to dominate the MSTS scientific program, limiting progress in evidence-based clinical care. Techniques used by the OTA to improve LOE may be emulated by the MSTS. These techniques focus on broad participation in multicenter collaborations that are designed in a comprehensive manner and answer a pragmatic clinical question.

AB - Background: Level of evidence (LOE) framework is a tool with which to categorize clinical studies based on their likelihood to be influenced by bias. Improvements in LOE have been demonstrated throughout orthopaedics, prompting our evaluation of orthopaedic oncology research LOE to determine if it has changed in kind. Questions/purposes: (1) Has the LOE presented at the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) annual meeting improved over time? (2) Over the past decade, how do the MSTS and Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) annual meetings compare regarding LOE overall and for the subset of therapeutic studies? Methods: We reviewed abstracts from MSTS and OTA annual meeting podium presentations from 2005 to 2014. Three independent reviewers evaluated a total of 1222 abstracts for study type and LOE; there were 577 abstracts from MSTS and 645 from OTA. Changes in the distributions of study type and LOE over time were evaluated by Pearson chi-square test. Results: There was no change over time in MSTS LOE for all study types (p = 0.13) and therapeutic (p = 0.36) study types during the reviewed decade. In contrast, OTA LOE increased over this time for all study types (p < 0.01). The proportion of Level I therapeutic studies was higher at the OTA than the MSTS (3% [14 of 413] versus 0.5% [two of 387], respectively), whereas the proportion of Level IV studies was lower at the OTA than the MSTS (32% [134 of 413] versus 75% [292 of 387], respectively) during the reviewed decade. The proportion of controlled therapeutic studies (LOE I through III) versus uncontrolled studies (LOE IV) increased over time at OTA (p < 0.021), but not at MSTS (p = 0.10). Conclusions: Uncontrolled case series continue to dominate the MSTS scientific program, limiting progress in evidence-based clinical care. Techniques used by the OTA to improve LOE may be emulated by the MSTS. These techniques focus on broad participation in multicenter collaborations that are designed in a comprehensive manner and answer a pragmatic clinical question.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84975760213&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84975760213&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11999-016-4763-x

DO - 10.1007/s11999-016-4763-x

M3 - Article

C2 - 26920571

AN - SCOPUS:84975760213

VL - 475

SP - 853

EP - 860

JO - Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research

JF - Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research

SN - 0009-921X

IS - 3

ER -