{"title":"尸体生物力学矫形研究至关重要,需要质量和有效性指标。","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.arthro.2024.02.014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Evidence-based medicine is the commanding philosophy of patient care in the field of orthopaedic surgery, and analysis of clinical research is facilitated by instruments and scales developed for assessing methodologic quality and validity of conclusions. In contrast, little consideration has been given to developing metrics to assess the quality and validity of orthopaedic ex vivo and laboratory research. This is easier said than done because these studies may be heterogeneous and complex in design, and methodologic details may not be intuitive to (non-engineer) readers. The recently described Biomechanics Objective Basic Science Quality Assessment Tool (BOBQAT) represents a reliable means to assess cadaveric biomechanical studies. The BOBQAT emphasizes essential study elements including a clinically relevant, answerable purpose; detailed description of the specimens studied; thorough description of surgical technique; and careful consideration of loading conditions including clinically relevant cyclic loading. The BOBQAT provides a logical recipe for the design of future studies, a mechanism of quality assessment for systematic reviews, and a framework for readers to assess biomechanical research consistent with the ethos of evidence-based medicine.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55459,"journal":{"name":"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Editorial Commentary: Cadaveric Biomechanical Orthopaedic Research Is Essential and Requires Quality and Validity Metrics\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.arthro.2024.02.014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Evidence-based medicine is the commanding philosophy of patient care in the field of orthopaedic surgery, and analysis of clinical research is facilitated by instruments and scales developed for assessing methodologic quality and validity of conclusions. In contrast, little consideration has been given to developing metrics to assess the quality and validity of orthopaedic ex vivo and laboratory research. This is easier said than done because these studies may be heterogeneous and complex in design, and methodologic details may not be intuitive to (non-engineer) readers. The recently described Biomechanics Objective Basic Science Quality Assessment Tool (BOBQAT) represents a reliable means to assess cadaveric biomechanical studies. The BOBQAT emphasizes essential study elements including a clinically relevant, answerable purpose; detailed description of the specimens studied; thorough description of surgical technique; and careful consideration of loading conditions including clinically relevant cyclic loading. The BOBQAT provides a logical recipe for the design of future studies, a mechanism of quality assessment for systematic reviews, and a framework for readers to assess biomechanical research consistent with the ethos of evidence-based medicine.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55459,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074980632400149X\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074980632400149X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Editorial Commentary: Cadaveric Biomechanical Orthopaedic Research Is Essential and Requires Quality and Validity Metrics
Evidence-based medicine is the commanding philosophy of patient care in the field of orthopaedic surgery, and analysis of clinical research is facilitated by instruments and scales developed for assessing methodologic quality and validity of conclusions. In contrast, little consideration has been given to developing metrics to assess the quality and validity of orthopaedic ex vivo and laboratory research. This is easier said than done because these studies may be heterogeneous and complex in design, and methodologic details may not be intuitive to (non-engineer) readers. The recently described Biomechanics Objective Basic Science Quality Assessment Tool (BOBQAT) represents a reliable means to assess cadaveric biomechanical studies. The BOBQAT emphasizes essential study elements including a clinically relevant, answerable purpose; detailed description of the specimens studied; thorough description of surgical technique; and careful consideration of loading conditions including clinically relevant cyclic loading. The BOBQAT provides a logical recipe for the design of future studies, a mechanism of quality assessment for systematic reviews, and a framework for readers to assess biomechanical research consistent with the ethos of evidence-based medicine.
期刊介绍:
Nowhere is minimally invasive surgery explained better than in Arthroscopy, the leading peer-reviewed journal in the field. Every issue enables you to put into perspective the usefulness of the various emerging arthroscopic techniques. The advantages and disadvantages of these methods -- along with their applications in various situations -- are discussed in relation to their efficiency, efficacy and cost benefit. As a special incentive, paid subscribers also receive access to the journal expanded website.