ABSTRACT
Purpose: To evaluate the peer-reviewed orthopaedic sports medicine literature for reference errors within 2 high-impact journals. Methods: In total, 769 references with 1,082 in-line citations were assessed from 20 randomly selected peer-reviewed articles published in 2 high-impact orthopaedic sports medicine journals, Arthroscopy and the American Journal of Sports Medicine. Full-text copies of references were obtained through online literature subscription databases. Two investigators evaluated each citation for agreement between the reference's study design, methods, data, discussion, and conclusion with the citing authors' claims. Error rates, interobserver agreement, and association between error rates and journal demographics were assessed. Results: Cohen's κ coefficient representing interobserver agreement was 0.61. The mean citation error rate across 20 articles from 2 orthopaedic sports medicine journals was 6.6%. The most common error was failure to support the authors' assertions within the citing article, accounting for 32% of errors. There was no significant association between error rate and journal impact factor, number of cited references or total references, ratio of in-line citations to cited references (citation ratio), and number of authors. There was no significant relationship between error rate and journal, study type, and level of evidence. Conclusions: Inaccurate claims and citations are common within the orthopaedic sports medicine literature, occurring in every reviewed article and 6.6% of all in-line citations. Failure to support the assertions of the article in which a reference is cited is a common error. Authors should take care to rigorously assess references with particular attention to accurate citation of primary sources. Clinical Relevance: This study highlights the prevalence of citation errors within a random sampling of high-level orthopaedic sports medicine articles. Given science is cumulative, these errors perpetuate inaccuracies and are at odds with evidence-based practice.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Targeted Muscle Reinnervation (TMR) is a surgical technique utilized to alleviate post-amputation neuroma pain, reduce reliance on narcotic pain medication, and enhance control of prosthetic devices. Motor targets for upper extremity TMR vary depending on injury patterns and amputation levels, with conventional transfer patterns serving as general guides. This study aims to summarize the common patterns of TMR in transradial and transhumeral amputations, focusing on anatomic and surgical considerations. METHODS: A comprehensive systematic review of TMR literature was conducted by two independent physician reviewers (M.H.A. and D.M.G.R.) to identify the prevailing motor targets, while considering injury patterns and amputation levels. INCLUSION CRITERIA: 1) TMR techniques, outcomes, or advancements; 2) Original research, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or clinical trials; 3) Peer-reviewed journal articles or reputable conference proceedings. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: non-English resources, editorials, opinion pieces, and case reports. The databases utilized include MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (Scopus) and Cochrane CENTRAL, last searched 01APR2023. RESULTS: The reviewed literature revealed multiple motor targets described for upper extremity TMR out of our included 51 studies. However, the selection of motor targets is influenced by the availability of viable options based on injury patterns and amputation levels. Conventional transfer patterns provide useful guidance for determining appropriate motor targets in transradial and transhumeral amputations. DISCUSSION: TMR has played a significant role in military medicine, particularly in addressing the impact of blast-related injuries. The energy associated with such injuries often results in substantial soft tissue defects, higher amputation levels, and increased post-amputation pain. TMR, in conjunction with advancements in prosthetic technology and ongoing military research, offers improved outcomes to help achieve the goals of active-duty service members. The capabilities and applications of TMR continue to expand rapidly due to its high surgical success rate, technological innovations in prosthetic care, and favorable patient outcomes. As technology evolves to include implantable devices, osseointegration techniques, and bidirectional neuroprosthetic devices, the future of amputation surgery and TMR holds immense promise, offering innovative solutions to optimize patient outcomes. It is important to note, this review was limited to the data available in the included resources which was mostly qualitative; thus, it did not involve primary data analysis.
