Biomechanical studies: Science (f)or common sense?

Science of Variation Group

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: It is our impression that many biomechanical studies invest substantial resources studying the obvious: that more and larger metal is stronger. The purpose of this study is to evaluate if a subset of biomechanical studies comparing fixation constructs just document common sense. Methods: Using a web-based survey, 274 orthopaedic surgeons and 81 medical students predicted the results of 11 biomechanical studies comparing fracture fixation constructs (selected based on the authors' sense that the answer was obvious prior to performing the study). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated according to standard formulas. The agreement among the observers was calculated by using a multirater kappa, described by Siegel and Castellan. Results: The accuracy of predicting outcomes was 80% or greater for 10 of 11 studies. Accuracy was not influenced by level of experience (i.e., time in practice and medical students vs. surgeons). There were substantial differences in accuracy between observers from different regions. The overall categorical rating of inter-observer reliability according to Landis and Koch was moderate (k = 0.55; standard error (SE) = 0.01). Conclusion: The results of a subset of biomechanical studies comparing fracture fixation constructs can be predicted prior to doing the study. As these studies are time and resource intensive, one criterion for proceeding with a biomechanical study should be that the answer is not simply a matter of common sense.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2035-2039
Number of pages5
JournalInjury
Volume45
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2014
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Fracture Fixation
Medical Students
Metals
Sensitivity and Specificity
Orthopedic Surgeons
Surveys and Questionnaires
Surgeons

Keywords

  • Biomechanical
  • Fixation
  • Fracture
  • Orthopaedic

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Biomechanical studies : Science (f)or common sense? / Science of Variation Group.

In: Injury, Vol. 45, No. 12, 01.01.2014, p. 2035-2039.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Science of Variation Group 2014, 'Biomechanical studies: Science (f)or common sense?', Injury, vol. 45, no. 12, pp. 2035-2039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2014.09.014
Science of Variation Group. / Biomechanical studies : Science (f)or common sense?. In: Injury. 2014 ; Vol. 45, No. 12. pp. 2035-2039.
@article{3e9c55ddae85496b99077b87854c186c,
title = "Biomechanical studies: Science (f)or common sense?",
abstract = "Introduction: It is our impression that many biomechanical studies invest substantial resources studying the obvious: that more and larger metal is stronger. The purpose of this study is to evaluate if a subset of biomechanical studies comparing fixation constructs just document common sense. Methods: Using a web-based survey, 274 orthopaedic surgeons and 81 medical students predicted the results of 11 biomechanical studies comparing fracture fixation constructs (selected based on the authors' sense that the answer was obvious prior to performing the study). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated according to standard formulas. The agreement among the observers was calculated by using a multirater kappa, described by Siegel and Castellan. Results: The accuracy of predicting outcomes was 80{\%} or greater for 10 of 11 studies. Accuracy was not influenced by level of experience (i.e., time in practice and medical students vs. surgeons). There were substantial differences in accuracy between observers from different regions. The overall categorical rating of inter-observer reliability according to Landis and Koch was moderate (k = 0.55; standard error (SE) = 0.01). Conclusion: The results of a subset of biomechanical studies comparing fracture fixation constructs can be predicted prior to doing the study. As these studies are time and resource intensive, one criterion for proceeding with a biomechanical study should be that the answer is not simply a matter of common sense.",
keywords = "Biomechanical, Fixation, Fracture, Orthopaedic",
author = "{Science of Variation Group} and Mellema, {Jos J.} and Doornberg, {Job N.} and Guitton, {Thierry G.} and David Ring and {Van Der Zwan}, {A. L.} and Spoor, {A. B.} and {Van Vugt}, {A. B.} and Armstrong, {A. D.} and A. Shrivastava and Wahegaonkar, {A. L.} and Shafritz, {A. B.} and J. Adams and A. Ilyas and Vochteloo, {A. J.H.} and Castillo, {A. P.} and A. Basak and P. Andreas and A. Barquet and A. Kristan and A. Berner and Ranade, {A. B.} and S. Ashish and Terrono, {A. L.} and A. Jubel and B. Frieman and Bamberger, {H. B.} and {Van Den Bekerom}, {M. P.J.} and Belangero, {W. D.} and Hearon, {B. F.} and Boler, {J. M.} and Walter, {F. L.} and M. Boyer and Wills, {B. P.D.} and H. Broekhuyse and R. Buckley and B. Watkins and Sears, {B. W.} and Calfee, {R. P.} and C. Ekholm and Fernandes, {C. H.} and C. Swigart and C. Cassidy and Wilson, {C. J.} and Bainbridge, {L. C.} and C. Wilson and Jones, {C. M.} and C. Cornell and Crist, {B. D.} and Patrick Owens and Seth Dodds",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.injury.2014.09.014",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "45",
pages = "2035--2039",
journal = "Injury",
issn = "0020-1383",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Biomechanical studies

T2 - Science (f)or common sense?

AU - Science of Variation Group

AU - Mellema, Jos J.

AU - Doornberg, Job N.

AU - Guitton, Thierry G.

AU - Ring, David

AU - Van Der Zwan, A. L.

AU - Spoor, A. B.

AU - Van Vugt, A. B.

AU - Armstrong, A. D.

AU - Shrivastava, A.

AU - Wahegaonkar, A. L.

AU - Shafritz, A. B.

AU - Adams, J.

AU - Ilyas, A.

AU - Vochteloo, A. J.H.

AU - Castillo, A. P.

AU - Basak, A.

AU - Andreas, P.

AU - Barquet, A.

AU - Kristan, A.

AU - Berner, A.

AU - Ranade, A. B.

AU - Ashish, S.

AU - Terrono, A. L.

AU - Jubel, A.

AU - Frieman, B.

AU - Bamberger, H. B.

AU - Van Den Bekerom, M. P.J.

AU - Belangero, W. D.

AU - Hearon, B. F.

AU - Boler, J. M.

AU - Walter, F. L.

AU - Boyer, M.

AU - Wills, B. P.D.

AU - Broekhuyse, H.

AU - Buckley, R.

AU - Watkins, B.

AU - Sears, B. W.

AU - Calfee, R. P.

AU - Ekholm, C.

AU - Fernandes, C. H.

AU - Swigart, C.

AU - Cassidy, C.

AU - Wilson, C. J.

AU - Bainbridge, L. C.

AU - Wilson, C.

AU - Jones, C. M.

AU - Cornell, C.

AU - Crist, B. D.

AU - Owens, Patrick

AU - Dodds, Seth

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - Introduction: It is our impression that many biomechanical studies invest substantial resources studying the obvious: that more and larger metal is stronger. The purpose of this study is to evaluate if a subset of biomechanical studies comparing fixation constructs just document common sense. Methods: Using a web-based survey, 274 orthopaedic surgeons and 81 medical students predicted the results of 11 biomechanical studies comparing fracture fixation constructs (selected based on the authors' sense that the answer was obvious prior to performing the study). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated according to standard formulas. The agreement among the observers was calculated by using a multirater kappa, described by Siegel and Castellan. Results: The accuracy of predicting outcomes was 80% or greater for 10 of 11 studies. Accuracy was not influenced by level of experience (i.e., time in practice and medical students vs. surgeons). There were substantial differences in accuracy between observers from different regions. The overall categorical rating of inter-observer reliability according to Landis and Koch was moderate (k = 0.55; standard error (SE) = 0.01). Conclusion: The results of a subset of biomechanical studies comparing fracture fixation constructs can be predicted prior to doing the study. As these studies are time and resource intensive, one criterion for proceeding with a biomechanical study should be that the answer is not simply a matter of common sense.

AB - Introduction: It is our impression that many biomechanical studies invest substantial resources studying the obvious: that more and larger metal is stronger. The purpose of this study is to evaluate if a subset of biomechanical studies comparing fixation constructs just document common sense. Methods: Using a web-based survey, 274 orthopaedic surgeons and 81 medical students predicted the results of 11 biomechanical studies comparing fracture fixation constructs (selected based on the authors' sense that the answer was obvious prior to performing the study). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated according to standard formulas. The agreement among the observers was calculated by using a multirater kappa, described by Siegel and Castellan. Results: The accuracy of predicting outcomes was 80% or greater for 10 of 11 studies. Accuracy was not influenced by level of experience (i.e., time in practice and medical students vs. surgeons). There were substantial differences in accuracy between observers from different regions. The overall categorical rating of inter-observer reliability according to Landis and Koch was moderate (k = 0.55; standard error (SE) = 0.01). Conclusion: The results of a subset of biomechanical studies comparing fracture fixation constructs can be predicted prior to doing the study. As these studies are time and resource intensive, one criterion for proceeding with a biomechanical study should be that the answer is not simply a matter of common sense.

KW - Biomechanical

KW - Fixation

KW - Fracture

KW - Orthopaedic

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84922643228&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84922643228&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.injury.2014.09.014

DO - 10.1016/j.injury.2014.09.014

M3 - Article

C2 - 25306381

AN - SCOPUS:84922643228

VL - 45

SP - 2035

EP - 2039

JO - Injury

JF - Injury

SN - 0020-1383

IS - 12

ER -