Search

INTRODUCTION Well-known risk factors (RF) for soft tissue complications following surgical treatment of fracture of the ankle region include diabetes, smoking, and the local soft tissue status. A weighted analysis might provide a risk profile that guides the surgical treatment strategy. The aim of this meta-analysis was to provide a risk profile for soft tissue complications following closed fractures of the ankle region. METHODS This review provides a meta-analysis of studies that investigate potential risk factors for complications in fractures of the ankle region. INCLUSION CRITERIA Original articles that were published between 2000 and 2020 in English or German language that calculated odds ratios (OR) of RF for soft tissue complications. Further, this study only includes articles that investigated fractures of the ankle region including pilon fracture, calcaneal fractures, and fractures of the malleoli. This study excluded articles that provide exploratory analyses, narrative reviews, and case reports. RF were stratified as patient specific systemic RF (PSS), patient specific local RF (PSL), and non-patient specific RF (NPS). PSS RF includes comorbidities, American society of anaesthesiology (ASA), requirement of medication, additional injuries, and smoking or substance abuse. PSL RF includes soft tissue status, wounds, and associated complications. NPS RF includes duration of surgery, staged procedure, or time to definitive surgery. Random effect (RE) models were utilized to summarize the effect measure (OR) for each group or specific RF. RESULTS Out of 1352 unique articles, 34 were included for quantitative analyses. Out of 370 complications, the most commonly assessed RF were comorbidities (34.6%). Local soft tissue status accounted for 7.5% of all complications. The overall rate for complication was 10.9% (standard deviation, SD 8.7%). PSS RF had an OR of 1.04 (95%CI 1.01 to 1.06, p = 0.006), PSL an OR of 1.79 (95% 1.28 to 2.49, p = 0.0006), and NPS RF an O

BACKGROUND The reporting quality in medical research has recently been critically discussed. While reporting guidelines intend to maximize the value from funded research, and initiatives such as the EQUATOR network have been introduced to advance high quality reporting, the uptake of the guidelines by researchers could be improved. The aim of this study was to assess the contribution of a biostatistician to the reporting and methodological quality of health research, and to identify methodological knowledge gaps. METHODS In a retrospective, single center, observational cohort study, two groups of publications were compared. The group of exposed publications had an academic biostatistician on the author list, whereas the group of non-exposed publications did not include a biostatistician of the evaluated group. Rating of reporting quality was done in blinded fashion and in duplicate. The primary outcome was a sum score based on six dimensions, ranging between 0 (worst) and 11 (best). The study protocol was reviewed and approved as a registered report. RESULTS There were 131 publications in the exposed group published between 2017 and 2018. Of these, 95 were either RCTs, observational, or prediction / prognostic studies. Corresponding matches in the group of non-exposed publications were identified in a reproducible manner. Comparison of reporting quality overall revealed a 1.60 (95%CI from 0.92 to 2.28, p <0.0001) units higher reporting quality for exposed publications. A subgroup analysis within study types showed higher reporting quality across all three study types. CONCLUSION Our study is the first to report an association of a higher reporting quality and methodological strength in health research publications with a biostatistician on the author list. The higher reporting quality persisted through subgroups of study types and dimensions. Methodological knowledge gaps were identified for prediction / prognostic studies, and for reporting on statistical methods i

BACKGROUND Quality in medical research has recently been criticized for being low, especially in observational research. Methodology is increasingly difficult, but collaboration between clinical researchers and biostatisticians may improve research and reporting quality. The aim of this study is to quantify the value of a biostatistician in the team of authors. METHODS Single-center, retrospective observational study following the STROBE reporting guidelines. We will systematically review all medical publications with biostatisticians from our center as co-authors or authors and review corresponding papers without biostatisticians from our center during the same time range. We will compare aspects of reporting quality, overall and for the three study types observational, randomized trial, and prognostic separately. DISCUSSION We anticipate that the results of the study will raise awareness of the importance of high methodological quality, as well as appropriate reporting quality in clinical research. CONCLUSION Our study will have a direct impact on our center by making each of us more aware of the reporting guidelines for various research designs. This in turn will enhance reporting quality in future research with our involvement. Our study will also raise awareness of the important role that biostatisticians play in the design and analysis of health research projects.