Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Orthopedic Traumatology pp 3–19Cite as

Introduction to Evidence-Based Medicine

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 2432 Accesses

Abstract

The goal of evidence-based orthopedics (EBO) is to provide the most efficacious interventions to improve patient quality of life and surgical outcomes. The practice of EBO involves a triumvirate of best available evidence, surgical expertise, and patient preferences. To identify best available evidence one must have knowledge of the hierarchy of surgical evidence and appreciate the rationale for its structure. The development of several evaluative instruments and guidelines have helped surgeons by outlining the key elements of studies that impact the validity of evidence and its magnitude of effect on treatment recommendations. There has been a gradual improvement over the past decade in the methodological quality of the orthopedic literature which has been matched with a growing willingness of surgeons to utilize study results in their surgical decision-making. Thus, over a very short time-span, EBO has improved best practice and accountability of the field and continues to have a growing impact internationally.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Hoppe DJ, Bhandari M. Evidence-based orthopaedics: a brief history. Indian J Orthop. 2008;42:104–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. G Guyatt DR (editor). Users’ guide to the medial literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Cook DJ. Users’ guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. B. What were the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1994;271:59–63.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Sackett DL. Evidence-based medicine. Semin Perinatol. 1997;21:3–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Tilburt JC. Evidence-based medicine beyond the bedside: keeping an eye on context. J Eval Clin Pract. 2008;14:721–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair JC, et al. Users’ guides to the medical literature. IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1995;274:1800–4.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Swiontkowski MF Wright JG. Introducing a new journal section: evidence-based orthopaedics. J Bone Joint Surg. 200;82:759.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bhandari M, Sanders RW. Where’s the evidence? Evidence-based orthopaedic trauma: a new section in the Journal. J Orthop Trauma. 2003;17:87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Weber KL. The AAOS clinical practice guidelines. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009;17:335–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Phillips BBC, Sackett DL, Badenoch D, Straus S, Haynes B, et al. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendation. Oxford: Oxford-Centre For Evidence Based Medicine: GENERIC; 1998

    Google Scholar 

  11. Schunemann HJ, Bone L. Evidence-based orthopaedics: a primer. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;213:117–32.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Group OLoEW. The Oxford 2011 levels of evidence. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Haynes RB. Evidence based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sackett DL. Evidence-based medicine and treatment choices. Lancet. 1997;349:570; author reply 572–3.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bhandari M, Guyatt G, Tornetta III P, et al. Study to prospectively evaluate reamed intramedually nails in patients with tibial fractures (S.P.R.I.N.T.): study rationale and design. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008;9:91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, et al. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996;312:71–2.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Unequal group sizes in randomised trials: guarding against guessing. Lancet. 2002;359:966–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Biedermann R, Martin A, Handle G, et al. Extracorporeal shock waves in the treatment of nonunions. J Trauma. 2003;54:936–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Thoma A, Farrokhyar F, Bhandari M, et al. Users’ guide to the surgical literature. How to assess a randomized controlled trial in surgery. Can J Surg. 2004;47:200–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Urschel JD, Goldsmith CH, Tandan VR, et al. Users’ guide to evidence-based surgery: how to use an article evaluating surgical interventions. Evidence-Based Surgery Working Group. Can J Surg. 2001;44:95–100.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Miller JN, Colditz GA, Mosteller F. How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy. II surgical. Stat Med. 1989;8:455–66.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Bhandari M, Tornetta III P, Ellis T, et al. Hierarchy of evidence: differences in results between non-randomized studies and randomized trials in patients with femoral neck fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2004;124:10–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bhandari M, Morrow F, Kulkarni AV, et al. Meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery. A systematic review of their methodologies. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83-A:15–24.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kuzyk PR, Saccone M, Sprague S, et al. Cross-linked versus conventional polyethylene for total hip replacement: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93:593–600.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Bhandari M, Joensson A. Clinical research for surgeons. New York: Thieme; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Bowling A. Research methods in health: investigating health and health services research. Philadelphia: Open University Press; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hartz A, Marsh JL. Methodologic issues in observational studies. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;213:33–42.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Brighton B, Bhandari M, Tornetta P III, et al. Hierarchy of evidence: from case reports to randomized controlled trials. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;213:19–24.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Singh JA, Murphy S, Bhandari M. Assessment of the methodologic quality of medical and surgical clinical trials in patients with arthroplasty. J Rheumatol. 2009;36:2642–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Boutron I, Tubach F, Giraudeau B, et al. Methodological differences in clinical trials evaluating nonpharmacological and pharmacological treatments of hip and knee osteoarthritis. JAMA. 2003;290:1062–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Gummesson C, Atroshi I, Ekdahl C. The quality of reporting and outcome measures in randomized clinical trials related to upper-extremity disorders. J Hand Surg Am. 2004;29:727–34; discussion 727–35.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Jacobs WC, Clement DJ, Wymenga AB. Retention versus sacrifice of the posterior cruciate ligament in total knee replacement for treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005:CD004803.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Wells GA Shea B, O’Connell D, et al. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa: Ottawa Health Research Institute; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152:726–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Agha R, Cooper D, Muir G. The reporting quality of randomised controlled trials in surgery: a systematic review. Int J Surg. 2007;5:413–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Bhandari M. Evidence-based orthopedics. London: BMJ Books; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Jadad AR, McQuay HJ. A high-yield strategy to identify randomized controlled trials for systematic reviews. Online J Curr Clin Trials. 1993;Doc No 33:[3973 words; 3939 paragraphs].

    Google Scholar 

  39. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 1998;352:609–13.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Bhandari M, Richards RR, Sprague S, et al. Quality in the reporting of randomized trials in surgery: is the Jadad Scale reliable? Control Clin Trials. 2001;22:687–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Chan S, Bhandari M. The quality of reporting of orthopaedic randomized trials with use of a checklist for nonpharmacological therapies. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:1970–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Bhandari M, Richards RR, Sprague S, et al. The quality of reporting of randomized trials in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery from 1988 through 2000. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84-A:388–96.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Foote CJ, Sprague S, Schemitsch EH, et al. Future perspectives: the need for large clinical trials. J Orthop Trauma. 2011;25 Suppl 1:S95–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Bhandari M, Guyatt G, Tornetta III P, et al. Randomized trial of reamed and unreamed intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:2567–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Kallmes D, Buchbinder R, Jarvik J, et al. Response to “randomized vertebroplasty trials: bad news or sham news?”. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009;30:1809–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Noonan P. Randomized vertebroplasty trials: bad news or sham news? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009;30:1808–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Petrisor B, Sun X, Bhandari M, et al. Fluid lavage of open wounds (FLOW): a multicenter, blinded, factorial pilot trial comparing alternative irrigating solutions and pressures in patients with open fractures. J Trauma. 2011;71:596–606.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Petrisor B, Jeray K, Schemitsch E, et al. Fluid lavage in patients with open fracture wounds (FLOW): an international survey of 984 surgeons. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008;9:7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Pagani CH, Bohle C, Potthast W, et al. Short-term effects of a dedicated knee orthosis on knee adduction moment, pain, and function in patients with osteoarthritis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91:1936–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Petrisor B, Lisson S, Sprague S. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy: a systematic review of its use in fracture management. Indian J Orthop. 2009;43:161–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Hopley C, Stengel D, Ekkernkamp A, et al. Primary total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for displaced intracapsular hip fractures in older patients: systematic review. BMJ. 2010;340:c2332.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Atkins D, Eccles M, Flottorp S, et al. Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group. BMC Health Serv Res. 2004;4:38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Atkins D, Briss PA, Eccles M, et al. Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations II: pilot study of a new system. BMC Health Serv Res. 2005;5:25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Handoll HH, Sherrington C, Mak JC. Interventions for improving mobility after hip fracture surgery in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;3:CD001704.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Viveiros H, Mignott T, Bhandari M. Evidence-based orthopaedics: is it possible? J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2007;17:87–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Dijkman BG, Abouali JA, Kooistra BW, et al. Twenty years of meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery: has quality kept up with quantity? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:48–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Hurwitz S. Evidence-based medicine in orthopaedic surgery – a way to the future. Iowa Orthop J. 2003;23:61–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Colton C. Statistical correctness. J Orthop Trauma. 2000;14:527–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Rudicel S, Esdaile J. The randomized clinical trial in orthopaedics: obligation or option? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985;67-A:1284–93.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Dijkman BG, Kooistra BW, Pemberton J, et al. Can orthopedic trials change practice? Acta Orthop. 2010;81:122–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Davidoff F, Haynes B, Sackett D, et al. Evidence based medicine. BMJ. 1995;310:1085–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Bhandari M, Sprague S, Schemitsch EH. Resolving controversies in hip fracture care: the need for large collaborative trials in hip fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2009;23:479–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Swiontkowski MF, et al. Internal fixation compared with arthroplasty for displaced fractures of the femoral neck. A meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A:1673–81.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Hickey M, Farrokhyar F, Deheshi B, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of intralesional versus wide resection for intramedullary grade I chondrosarcoma of the extremities. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:1705–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Montori V, et al. Users’ guide to the surgical literature: how to use a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Can J Surg. 2004;47:60–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. JBJS. “Levels of Evidence for Primary Research Question.” Retrieved April 27, 2012, from http://jbjs.org/public/instructionsauthors.aspx - LevelsEvidence; 2012.

  67. Sprague S, Leece P, Bhandari M, et al. Limiting loss to follow-up in a multicenter randomized trial in orthopedic surgery. Control Clin Trials. 2003;24:719–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Toerien M, Brookes ST, Metcalfe C, et al. A review of reporting of participant recruitment and retention in RCTs in six major journals. Trials. 2009;10:52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Devereaux PJ, Bhandari M, Clarke M, et al. Need for expertise based randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2005;330:88.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Benson K, Hartz AJ. A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;130:688.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Colditz GA, Miller JN, Mosteller F. How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy I: medical. Stat Med. 1989;8:441–54.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Bednarska E, Bryant D, Devereaux PJ. Orthopaedic surgeons prefer to participate in expertise-based randomized trials. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:1734–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Fluid lavage of open wounds (FLOW): design and rationale for a large, multicenter collaborative 2 × 3 factorial trial of irrigating pressures and solutions in patients with open fractures. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010;11:85.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. McMaster University, 2-18 Hill Street, Hamilton, ON, Canada, L8P 1W7

    Clary Foote M.D.

  2. Division of Orthopedic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Mohit Bhandari M.D., Ph.D., F.R.C.S.C.

Authors
  1. Clary Foote M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohit Bhandari M.D., Ph.D., F.R.C.S.C.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Clary Foote M.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Division of Orthopedic Trauma, Vanderbilt University, MCE-South Tower Suite 4200, Nashville, 37232, Tennessee, USA

    Manish K. Sethi

  2. Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Division of Orthopedic Trauma, Vanderbilt University, MCE-South Tower Suite 4200, Nashville, 37232, Tennessee, USA

    A. Alex Jahangir

  3. Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Division of Orthopedic Trauma, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, MCE-South Tower Suite 4200, Nashville, 37232, Tennessee, USA

    William T. Obremskey

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Foote, C., Bhandari, M. (2013). Introduction to Evidence-Based Medicine. In: Sethi, M., Jahangir, A., Obremskey, W. (eds) Orthopedic Traumatology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3511-2_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3511-2_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-3510-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-3511-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation