Analysis of performance metrics reporting in papers comparing treatments or materials/devices in four important orthopaedic journals for the year 2009

PurposeWe propose to look at the quality of performance metrics reporting in papers comparing two or more treatments. Our goal is to provide additional context in the focus on evidence-based medicine.MethodsWe reviewed papers (1082 papers with 98 papers meeting the inclusion criteria) from four important orthopaedic journals published in 2009 to quantify and analyse the quality of papers reporting performance metrics, defined as (1) radiographic evidence; (2) training/experience of surgeon(s); and (3) intra-operative measurements.ResultsOur research revealed that only 32 papers (33%) reported performance metrics. There were no significant differences in the rate of performance metrics reporting amongst the journals included or amongst the different orthopaedic subspecialties topics; however, papers from South Korea and China reported both performance metrics in general and radiographic measurements specifically at a higher rate than papers from the western world.ConclusionsThe low rate of performance metric reporting could have an impact on the reader's ability to determine the reproducibility of the results published. We propose a new section on performance metrics reporting for editors to include in their instructions to authors.