[Evidence-based versus expertise-based medicine in orthopedic and trauma surgery : There is nothing more practical than a good theory]. / Evidenzbasierte Medizin versus Erfahrungsmedizin in Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie : Es gibt nichts Praktischeres als eine gute Theorie.

About a quarter of a century after the introduction of the concept and principles of evidence-based medicine (EbM), some healthcare providers are still adamant that these are incompatible with knowledge gained through experience. Across the surgical disciplines, it is often argued EbM underestimates or neglects the importance of intuition and surgical skills. To put it bluntly, these assumptions are wrong and often characterized by a misunderstanding of the methodology of EbM. Even the best controlled trial cannot be properly interpreted or implemented without clinical reasoning; furthermore, clinicians of all disciplines are obligated to provide care according to the current state of scientific knowledge. In an era of revolutionary biomedical developments, exponential increase of research but incremental innovations, they must become familiar with pragmatic tools to appraise the validity and relevance of clinical study results, and to decide whether there is a need to adapt current beliefs and practices based on the new information. We herein use the recent example of a new medical device for the surgical treatment of rotator cuff tears and subacromial impingement syndrome to illustrate how important it is to interpret data in the context of a precise, answerable question and to combine clinical expertise with methodological principles offered by EbM.

[Interpretation of systematic review articles and meta-analyses : Clinical trials in trauma surgery and orthopedics]. / Interpretation von systematischen Übersichtsarbeiten und Metaanalysen : Klinische Studien in Unfallchirurgie und Orthopädie.

Clinical trials must be planned and interpreted in the context of current best clinical and scientific evidence, undoubtedly provided by systematic reviews and meta-analyses, especially Cochrane Reviews. While many clinicians feel overwhelmed by this complex data source, few visualElements (e.g., the traffic light system of the Cochrane risk of bias [RoB­2] tool, forest plots, etc.), together with indices such as the I2 heterogeneity statistic, allow for a quick appraisal of all critical and necessary qualitative and quantitative information. The effectiveness of different treatment options can indirectly be assessed by methodological advancements like network meta-analyses.Point estimates of percentages are insufficient to describe the utility and value of a proposed novel intervention, which, in orthopedic and trauma surgery, often represents a step innovation. 95% confidence intervals and the so-called fragility index are helpful in determining the ultimate patient benefit.

[Clinical studies in trauma surgery and orthopedics: read, interpret and implement]. / Klinische Studien in Unfallchirurgie und Orthopädie: lesen, interpretieren und umsetzen.

Informative, participatory clinical decision-making needs to combine both skills and expertise as well as current scientific evidence. The flood of digital information makes it difficult in everyday clinical practice to keep up to date with the latest publications. This article provides assistance for coping with this problem. A basic understanding of prior and posterior probabilities as well as systematic error (bias) makes it easier to weigh up the benefits and risks, e.g. of a (surgical) intervention compared to a nonsurgical treatment. Randomized controlled trials (RCT, with all modern modifications) deliver undistorted results but in orthopedic and trauma surgery can lead to a heavily selected nonrepresentative sample and the results must be confirmed or refuted by further, independent RCTs. Large-scale observational data (e.g. from registries) can be modelled in a quasi-experimental manner and accompany RCTs in health technology assessment.