Response to “Letter to the Editor concerning ‘Evidence-based research in orthopaedics, sports medicine and rehabilitation—Why new studies should rely on earlier work’”

Abstract

Thank you for your great interest and kind letter to the Editor [5] regarding our recent paper, ‘Evidence-based research in orthopaedics, sports medicine, and rehabilitation—Why new studies should rely on earlier work’ [12]. I also read your paper on ‘Systematic reviews versus narrative reviews in clinical anatomy’ with interest [3], and you effectively highlighted its relevance to the field.

I acknowledge that some areas of clinical anatomy research may differ slightly, but the overall approach and general principles remain the same. Whenever sufficient data are published, it must be synthesized transparently and reliably. These evidence syntheses should inform new studies and their results, regardless of whether they are anatomy studies, basic science studies or clinical studies collecting patient data. All disciplines of clinical research should follow this approach to facilitate the production of relevant studies in the field.

You mentioned two anatomy-related systematic reviews that provide insights into first-time and recurrent patella dislocation and anatomical landmarks for predicting patellar instability [2, 15]. Despite the general value of Systematic Reviews and the robustness in contrast to single studies, these systematic reviews either provide quantitative results that can be directly applied in clinical practice, driven by sufficient data, or they highlight a lack of data, thereby encouraging further anatomical studies in the field. This approach helps to determine risk factors and improves diagnostic accuracy in orthopaedics.

Convinced that there is room for improvement in studies within the field, we recently published a series of papers aimed at facilitating further advancements in orthopaedics, Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation [1, 4-11, 13]. We also included the Anatomical Quality Assurance checklist in our checklist collection to facilitate the robustness of new studies [10, 14].

In conclusion, I highly appreciate your efforts in the evidence-based anatomy approach and look forward to seeing further contributions to the field.

The author declares no conflict of interest.