PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Pamela Leece

Publications and source records attributed to Pamela Leece.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Operative management of displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly patients. An international survey.

BACKGROUND: Hip fractures occur in 280,000 North Americans each year. Although surgeons have reached consensus with regard to the treatment of undisplaced fractures of the hip, the surgical treatment of displaced fractures remains controversial. Identifying surgeons' preferences in techniques, and the rationale for their choices, may aid in focusing educational activities to the orthopaedic community as well as planning future clinical trials. Our objective was to clarify current opinion with regard to the operative treatment of displaced fractures of the femoral neck. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional survey design and a sample-to-redundancy strategy to examine surgeons' preferences in the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures. We mailed this survey to members of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association and European-AO International-affiliated trauma centers. RESULTS: Of 442 surgeons who received the questionnaire, 298 (67%) responded. The typical respondent was a North American man over the age of forty years who was in academic practice, supervised residents, had fellowship training in trauma, and worked in a low-volume center (<100 hip fractures per year), treating an equal proportion of displaced and undisplaced femoral neck fractures. Most surgeons believed that internal fixation was the procedure of choice in younger patients (those who are less than sixty years old) with a displaced fracture (Garden type III or IV). For patients over eighty years old with Garden type-III or IV fractures, almost all surgeons preferred arthroplasty. Respondents varied widely in their preferences for the treatment of patients who were sixty to eighty years old with a displaced fracture (Garden type III or IV) or active patients with a Garden type-III fracture. Many surgeons believed there was no difference between arthroplasty and internal fixation when considering mortality (45%), infection rates (30%), and quality of life (37%). Surgeons also revealed variable preferences in their choice of the optimal approach to arthroplasty for patients between sixty and eighty years old with a type-IV fracture (32% preferred unipolar; 41%, bipolar; and 17%, total hip arthroplasty) and in the optimal choice of implant for internal fixation. CONCLUSIONS: While surgeons prefer internal fixation for younger patients and arthroplasty for older patients, they disagree about the optimal approach to the management of patients between sixty and eighty years old with a displaced fracture and active patients with a Garden type-III fracture. Surgeons also disagree on the optimal implants for internal fixation or arthroplasty.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

An observational study of duplicate presentation rates between two national orthopedic meetings.

BACKGROUND: National meetings such as those of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) and the Canadian Orthopaedic Association (COA) are invaluable in the dissemination of new research findings. Given the limits of meeting agendas, investigators who present the same paper at multiple meetings prevent other presentations on potentially important original research. To determine the incidence of duplicate presentation of research between recent COA and AAOS meetings and between national meetings (AAOS and subspecialty), we conducted an observational study. METHODS: We hand-searched all podium papers and posters from the 2001 COA annual meeting for duplicate presentation at the 2001 and 2002 AAOS annual meetings and subspecialty meetings held in the USA. We evaluated summary data abstracted from the duplicate presentations for consistency. RESULTS: Of 148 presentations at the 2001 COA meeting, 29 presentations (paper and poster) were duplicated at the 2001 or 2002 AAOS meeting: effectively 1 paper in 5 (19.5%). Canadian investigators were significantly more likely to present the same paper at both meetings than Americans (79% v. 13%, respectively; p < 0.01). Those who presented papers at COA altered their AAOS presentations in a variety of ways: by changing the wording in the title of their paper (24% of the time), adding or removing authors (38%), changing authorship order (34%) and changing the sample size (31%). Duplicate presentation rates between AAOS and other orthopedic subspecialty meetings averaged 11.4% (range 3.4%-26.4%). CONCLUSIONS: We identified a 20% duplicate presentation rate between the COA and AAOS annual meetings, and an 11% rate between the AAOS and subspecialty meetings. Stricter enforcement of guidelines and improved dissemination of research findings at both national meetings may limit this practice.

Canada↗
PubMed2004

Interobserver agreement in the application of levels of evidence to scientific papers in the American volume of the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Since January 2003, all clinical scientific articles published in the American volume of The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (JBJS-A) have included a level-of-evidence rating. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the interobserver agreement among reviewers, with varying levels of epidemiology training, in categorizing the levels of evidence of these clinical studies. METHODS: Fifty-one consecutive clinical papers published in the American volume of JBJS were identified by a computerized search of the table of contents from January 2003 through June 2003. Each paper was blinded so that only the title, abstract (without the level of evidence designated), and methods section were provided to the reviewers. The papers were coded and were randomly organized in a binder. Six surgeons graded each blinded paper for (1) the type of study (therapeutic, prognostic, diagnostic test, or economic or decision analysis), (2) the level of evidence (on a scale of I through V), and (3) the subcategory within the particular level of evidence. Three surgeons were members of JBJS American Editorial Board, two surgeons were reviewers for JBJS-A, and one surgeon was an active researcher not formally associated with JBJS-A. The reviewers did not receive any formal training in the application of the classification system, but each was provided with a detailed description of the classification system used by JBJS-A. Intraclass correlation coefficients with 95% confidence intervals were determined for the reviewers' agreement regarding the type of study, level of evidence, and subcategory within the level of evidence. RESULTS: The majority (69%) of the fifty-one included articles were studies of therapy, and 57% of the studies constituted Level-IV evidence. The intraclass correlation coefficients for the agreement among all reviewers with regard to the study type, level of evidence, and subcategory within the level of evidence ranged from 0.61 to 0.75. Reviewers trained in epidemiology demonstrated greater agreement (range in intraclass correlation coefficients, 0.99 to 1.0), across all aspects of the classification system, than did reviewers who were not trained in epidemiology (range in intraclass correlation coefficients, 0.60 to 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that epidemiology and non-epidemiology-trained reviewers can apply the levels-of-evidence guide to published studies with acceptable interobserver agreement. The validity of this system remains a question for future research.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗
PubMed2003

Limiting loss to follow-up in a multicenter randomized trial in orthopedic surgery.

Even the best-designed, randomized controlled trials suffer when patients are lost to follow-up. Incomplete follow-up biases the results of a trial when patients who drop out are different from those who complete follow-up. This is exaggerated further when there are differential dropout rates between study groups. Previous randomized controlled trials in orthopedic trauma have reported up to 28% loss to follow-up. Only by striving to achieve a 0% loss to follow-up rate can we be certain that this type of bias does not affect our results. In our ongoing multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing reamed and nonreamed intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fractures, we have implemented several innovative strategies to minimize loss to follow-up. The exclusion criteria and consent process are designed to minimize losses. Study staff are carefully trained in communication and negotiation with patients. Additionally, a central methods center monitors all patient follow-up and aids in finding lost patients. Through these primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions, we have achieved 94% complete 1-year follow-up for the first 440 patients enrolled in the trial. Eleven patients withdrew consent, and we are unable to locate 17 patients. We have successfully minimized the loss to follow-up rate in our trial by incorporating innovative prevention and retention strategies into its design and conduct. Through planning, organization, and committing time and resources to minimizing loss to follow-up, other orthopedic trauma trials can hope to achieve the same high rates of follow-up.

Bias↗