Comparing Orthopaedic Randomized Control Trials Published in High-Impact Medical and Orthopaedic Journals

Abstract

Introduction: Orthopaedic studies published in high-impact medical journals are often believed to have a high prevalence of negative or neutral results and possess methodological characteristics that may bias toward nonsurgical treatments. The purpose of this study was to compare study characteristics, methodologic quality, exposure, and outcome direction among orthopaedic randomized control trials (RCTs) published in high-impact medical and orthopaedic journals and to identify study attributes associated with greater impact. Methods: RCTs published between January 2010 and December 2020 in the five medical journals and 10 orthopaedic journals with the highest 5-year impact factors were analyzed. Inclusion criteria were RCTs reporting on orthopaedic surgical intervention compared with nonsurgical or less-invasive surgical procedures. Study characteristics, methodologic quality (Jadad scale), outcomes, and altmetric data were collected. Primary outcomes were categorized as positive (favoring surgical/more-extensive surgery), negative (favoring nonsurgical/less-extensive surgery), or neutral. Results: One hundred twenty-eight RCTs were analyzed; 26 from medical and 102 from orthopaedic journals. Studies published in medical journals included more authors (P < 0.001), larger sample sizes (P < 0.001), more institutions (P < 0.001), and more often received funding (P < 0.001). The average Jadad scale did not significantly differ between journals (P = 0.14). The direction of the primary study outcome did not differ between journals (P = 0.22). Average AAS and annual citation rates were higher in RCTs published in medical journals (P < 0.001). Publication in a medical journal was the only covariate associated with higher annual citation rates (P < 0.001) and AAS (P < 0.001) on multivariable analyses. Discussion: High-impact medical journals do not publish orthopaedic RCTs with negative or neutral findings at a rate that significantly differs from orthopaedic journals. However, the higher impact and digital coverage of the studies published in medical journals may disproportionally influence the practices of nonorthopaedic providers. Raising awareness of critical findings published in orthopaedic journals may be particularly important for improving healthcare policies and orthopaedic referral patterns for musculoskeletal problems.