IntroductionBiological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) have revolutionised the treatment of inflammatory arthritis (IA). However, many people with IA still require planned orthopaedic surgery to reduce pain and improve function. Currently, bDMARDs are withheld during the perioperative period due to potential infection risk. However, this predisposes patients to IA flares and loss of disease control. The question of whether to stop or continue bDMARDs in the perioperative period has not been adequately addressed in a randomised controlled trial (RCT).Methods and analysisPERISCOPE is a multicentre, superiority, pragmatic RCT investigating the stoppage or continuation of bDMARDs. Participants will be assigned 1:1 to either stop or continue their bDMARDs during the perioperative period. We aim to recruit 394 adult participants with IA. Potential participants will be identified in secondary care hospitals in the UK, screened by a delegated clinician. If eligible and consenting, baseline data will be collected and randomisation completed. The primary outcome will be the self-reported PROMIS-29 (Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System) over the first 12 weeks postsurgery. Secondary outcome measures are as follows: PROMIS - Health Assessment Questionnaire (PROMIS-HAQ), EQ-5D-5L, Disease activity: generic global Numeric Rating Scale (patient and clinician), Self-Administered Patient Satisfaction scale, Health care resource use and costs, Medication use, Surgical site infection, delayed wound healing, Adverse events (including systemic infections) and disease-specific outcomes (according to IA diagnosis). The costs associated with stopping and continuing bDMARDs will be assessed. A qualitative study will explore the patients’ and clinicians’ acceptability and experience of continuation/stoppage of bDMARDs in the perioperative period and the impact postoperatively.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for this study was received from the West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee on 25 April 2023 (REC Ref: 23/WS/0049). The findings from PERISCOPE will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals and feed directly into practice guidelines for the use of bDMARDs in the perioperative period.Trial registration numberISRCTN17691638.

Objectives Optimising postoperative pain following knee replacement is important for patients, healthcare professionals and healthcare funders. Adductor canal blocks (ACB) are widely used but there is uncertainty about their efficacy when combined with local infiltration analgesia (LIA) compared with either LIA or ACB alone.Design A systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled. The primary outcome was pain over the first 72 hours. Secondary outcomes included morphine use, range of movement, distance walked, length of hospital stay, health economic outcomes and reported adverse events.Data sources MEDLINE, Embase, EB Health - KSR Evidence, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, International HTA database, ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO) were searched up to June 2023.Eligibility criteria Randomised controlled trials involving patients undergoing primary total knee replacement comparing LIA combined with ACB to either LIA or ACB alone.Data extraction and synthesis All eligible studies were data extracted independently by two reviewers. Studies were pooled for each outcome at each timepoint in a random effects meta-analysis.Results We identified 13 completed studies including 1154 participants. 12 studies compared LIA vs combination and 5 compared ACB vs combination. We identified that participants receiving the combination had lower pain scores at rest at 24 hours compared with LIA alone (SMD 0.42, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.64) or ACB alone (SMD 0.63, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.83). Pain on movement at 24 hours was also lower for patients with combination vs LIA alone (SMD 0.37, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.73) or ACB alone (SMD 0.81, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.26). We also identified that patients on combination used less morphine than on LIA alone (MD 1.06, 95% CI −0.09 to 2.20) or ACB alone (MD 5.94, 95% CI −2.41 to 14.29). The same was seen with range of motion at 24 hours with combination having a larger improvement than LIA alone (MD −5.19, 95% CI −5.55 to −4.83) or ACB alone (MD −3.80, 95% CI −4.37 to −3.23). These findings were consistent across all time points; however, there were no studies deemed to be at a low risk of bias.Conclusions Further well-designed and conducted randomised controlled trials are needed to confirm if a combination of LIA and ACB is superior to either option alone for patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty.PROSPERO registration number CRD42023436895.

Background Proximal humerus fractures (PHF) are common and painful injuries, with the majority resulting from falls from a standing height. As with other fragility fractures, its age-specific incidence is increasing. Surgical treatment with hemiarthroplasty (HA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) have been increasingly used for displaced 3- and 4-part fractures despite a lack of good quality evidence as to whether one type of arthroplasty is superior to the other, and whether surgery is better than non-surgical management. The PROFHER-2 trial has been designed as a pragmatic, multicentre randomised trial to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of RSA vs HA vs Non-Surgical (NS) treatment in patients with 3- and 4-part PHF. Methods Adults over 65 years of age presenting with acute radiographically confirmed 3- or 4-part fractures, with or without associated glenohumeral joint dislocation, who consent for trial participation will be recruited from around 40 National Health Service (NHS) Hospitals in the UK. Patients with polytrauma, open fractures, presence of axillary nerve palsy, pathological (other than osteoporotic) fractures, and those who are unable to adhere to trial procedures will be excluded. We will aim to recruit 380 participants (152 RSA, 152 HA, 76 NS) using 2:2:1 (HA:RSA:NS) randomisation for 3- or 4-part fractures without joint dislocation, and 1:1 (HA:RSA) randomisation for 3- or 4-part fracture dislocations. The primary outcome is the Oxford Shoulder Score at 24 months. Secondary outcomes include quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), pain, range of shoulder motion, fracture healing and implant position on X-rays, further procedures, and complications. Independent Trial Steering Committee and Data Monitoring Committee will oversee the trial conduct, including the reporting of adverse events and harms. Discussion The PROFHER-2 trial is designed to provide a robust answer to guide the treatment of patients aged 65 years or over who sustain 3- and 4-part proximal humeral fractures. The pragmatic design and recruitment from around 40 UK NHS hospitals will ensure immediate applicability and generalisability of the trial findings. The full trial results will be made available in a relevant open-access peer-reviewed journal. Trial registration ISRCTN76296703. Prospectively registered on 5th April 2018

BackgroundRecruitment and retention to surgical trials has previously been reported to be problematic, resulting in research waste. Surgery often results in wounds, meaning these trials are likely to have similar populations. There is currently no systematic assessment of effective strategies for these populations and hence, systematic assessment of these was deemed to be of importance.MethodsA systematic review was conducted. Studies were eligible if they were randomised controlled trials undertaken to test an intervention to improve recruitment or retention within a surgical or wound based host randomised controlled trial. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, ORRCA Database and the Northern Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research SWAT Repository Store were searched. Two independent reviewers screened the search results and extracted data for eligible studies using a piloted extraction form. A narrative synthesis was used due to a lack of heterogeneity between strategies which prevented meta-analysis.ResultsA total of 2133 records were identified which resulted in 13 ultimately being included in the review; seven on recruitment and six on retention. All included studies were based within surgical host trials. Four of the seven recruitment studies focussed on the provision of consent information to participants, one focussed on study set up and one on staff training, with only one relating to consent information finding any significant effect. A range of retention strategies were assessed by the included studies, however only two found (pen vs no pen, mailing strategies) found any significant effect.ConclusionThe included studies within a trial were all conducted within surgical trials. There was significant variation in strategies used, and limited replications and therefore further assessment may be warranted. Given the lack of studies embedded within wound care trials, further studies in this area are recommended.Trial registrationPROSPERO (CRD42020205475).

Background Research waste is prevalent in many scientific fields despite a number of initiatives to improve research practices. Interventions to improve practice are often implemented without evaluating their effectiveness. It is therefore important to identify the interventions that have been evaluated, assess how they have been evaluated and to identify areas where further research is required. Objectives A scoping review will be undertaken to assess what interventions, aimed at researchers or research teams, to improve research design and conduct have been evaluated. This review will also consider when in the research pathway these interventions are implemented; what aspects of research design or conduct are being targeted; and who is implementing these interventions. Methods Interventions which aim to improve the design or conduct of research will be eligible for inclusion. The review will not include interventions aimed at hypothetical research projects or interventions implemented without evaluation. The following sources will be searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, HMIC, EconLit, Social Policy and Practice, ProQuest theses, and MetaArXiv. Hand searching of references and citations of included studies will also be undertaken. Searches will be limited to articles published in the last 10 years. Data extraction will be completed using a data extraction template developed for this review. Results will be tabulated by type of intervention, research stage, and outcome. A narrative review will also be provided addressing each of the objectives.

BACKGROUND:The majority of surgical wounds are closed (for example with sutures or staples) and so heal by primary intention. Where closure is not possible, or the wound subsequently breaks down, wounds may be left to heal from the bottom up (healing by secondary intention). Surgical wound healing by secondary intention (SWHSI) frequently presents a significant management challenge. Additional treatments are often required during the course of healing, and thus a significant financial burden is associated with treating these wounds. Increasingly, negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is used in the management of SWHSI. This wound dressing system provides a negative pressure (vacuum) to the wound, removing fluid into a canister, which is believed to be conducive to wound healing. Despite the increasing use of NPWT, there is limited robust evidence for the effectiveness of this device. A well-designed and conducted randomised controlled trial is now required to ascertain if NPWT is a clinically and cost-effective treatment for SWHSI.METHODS:SWHSI-2 is a pragmatic, multi-centre, cross surgical specialty, two arm, parallel group, randomised controlled superiority trial. Adult patients with a SWHSI will be randomised to receive either NPWT or usual care (no NPWT) and will be followed up for 12 months. The primary outcome will be time to healing (defined as full epithelial cover in absence of a scab) in number of days since randomisation. Secondary outcomes will include key clinical events (hospital admission or discharge, treatment status, reoperation, amputation, antibiotic use and death), wound infection, wound pain, health-related quality of life, health utility and resource use.DISCUSSION:Given the increasing use of NPWT, despite limited high-quality supporting evidence, the SWHSI-2 Trial will provide robust evidence on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of NPWT in the management of SWHSI. The SWHSI-2 Trial opened to recruitment in May 2019 and is currently recruiting across 20 participating centres.TRIAL REGISTRATION:ISRCTN 26277546 . Prospectively registered on 25 March 2019.

Following the work of Avenell et al. that has raised concerns about the integrity of the Yamaguchi Osteoporosis Prevention Study (YOPS) conducted by Ishida and Kawai we issue here an adjustment to all meta-analysis estimates that contained this work within our systematic review.

Background: PROSPERO is an international prospective register for systematic review protocols. Many of the registrations are the only available source of information about planned methods. This study investigated the extent to which records in PROSPERO contained the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). Methods: A random sample of 439 single entry PROSPERO records of reviews of health interventions registered in 2018 was identified. Using a piloted list of 19 PRISMA-P items, divided into 63 elements, two researchers independently assessed the registration records. Where the information was present or not applicable to the review, a score of 1 was assigned. Overall scores were calculated and comparisons made by stage of review at registration, whether or not a meta-analysis was planned and whether or not funding/sponsorship was reported. Results: Some key methodological details, such as eligibility criteria, were relatively frequently reported, but much of the information recommended in PRISMA-P was not stated in PROSPERO registrations. Considering the 19 items, the mean score was 4.8 (SD 1.8; median 4; range 2-11) and across all the assessed records only 25% (2081/8227) of the items were scored as reported. Considering the 63 elements, the mean score was 33.4 (SD 5.8; median 33; range 18-47) and overall, 53% (14,469/27,279) of the elements were assessed as reported. Reporting was more frequent for items required in PROSPERO than optional items. The planned comparisons showed no meaningful differences between groups. Conclusions: PROSPERO provides reviewers with the opportunity to be transparent in their planned methods and demonstrate efforts to reduce bias. However, where the PROSPERO record is the only available source of a priori reporting, there is a significant shortfall in the items reported, compared to those recommended. This presents challenges in interpretation for those wishing to assess the validity of the final review.

Aims Bone demonstrates good healing capacity, with a variety of strategies being utilized to enhance this healing. One potential strategy that has been suggested is the use of stem cells to accelerate healing. Methods The following databases were searched: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, WHO-ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, as well as reference checking of included studies. The inclusion criteria for the study were: population (any adults who have sustained a fracture, not including those with pre-existing bone defects); intervention (use of stem cells from any source in the fracture site by any mechanism); and control (fracture healing without the use of stem cells). Studies without a comparator were also included. The outcome was any reported outcomes. The study design was randomized controlled trials, non-randomized or observational studies, and case series. Results In all, 94 eligible studies were identified. The clinical and methodological aspects of the studies were too heterogeneous for a meta-analysis to be undertaken. A narrative synthesis examined study characteristics, stem cell methods (source, aspiration, concentration, and application) and outcomes. Conclusion Insufficient high-quality evidence is available to determine the efficacy of stem cells for fracture healing. The studies were heterogeneous in population, methods, and outcomes. Work to address these issues and establish standards for future research should be undertaken. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-10:628–638.

OBJECTIVES:To assess the impact of retraction on the citation of randomized controlled trials. METHODS:We used an interrupted time-series with matched controls. PubMed, CINHAL, Google and the Retraction Watch Database were searched. We identified retracted publications reporting the results of randomized controlled trials involving human participants with two years of available data before and after retraction. We obtained monthly citation counts across all articles for the 24 months before and after retraction, from Web of Science. We used a Poisson segmented regression to detect changes in the level and trend of citation following retraction. We also undertook a matched control analysis of unretracted randomized controlled trials and a sensitivity analysis to account for cases of large-scale, well-advertised fraud. RESULTS:We identified 387 retracted randomized controlled trial reports, of which 218 (56.3%) were included in the interrupted time-series analysis. A reduction of 22.9% (95% CI 4.0% to 38.2%, p = 0.02) was observed in the number of citations in the month after retraction, and a further reduction of 1.9% (95% CI 0.4% to 3.5%, p = 0.02) per month in the following 24 months, relative to the expected trend. There was no evidence of a statistically significant reduction among the matched controls. Authors with a large number of retractions saw a 48.2% reduction at the time of retraction (95% CI 17.7% to 67.3%, p = 0.01). Other cases had a more gradual reduction with no change at the time of retraction and a 1.8% reduction per month in the following 24 months (95% CI 0.2% to 3.4%, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS:Retractions of randomized controlled trial reports can be effective in reducing citations. Other factors, such as the scale of the retractions and media attention, may play a role in the effectiveness of the reduction.