Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Opinion leaders in the medical community attract more attention than randomized controlled trials in shoulder surgery

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The objective of this study was to determine whether opinion leaders in the medical community attract more attention than randomized controlled trials (RCT) in shoulder surgery.

Methods

A PubMed search to retrieve all therapeutic and diagnosis RCT shoulder studies was carried out. Three opinion leaders were chosen from among the last ten presidents of the European Shoulder and Elbow Society based on the number of publications. Their studies were also retrieved from PubMed. The metrics of the studies were determined through ResearchGate and Web of Science. The year of publication, impact factor of the journal, level of evidence, number of citations, number of reads, research interest, and reported conflicts of interest were recorded for every study.

Results

Two-hundred forty-five shoulder RCTs and 236 opinion leader studies met the inclusion criteria. The opinion leader studies were read significantly more times than the RCTs (p = 0.04). The mean impact factor for RCT studies was 2.84 (SD 3.9) while it was of 1.99 (SD1.14) in the opinion leader group (p < 0.001). Most of the studies of the opinion leaders were level IV (73.3%), while only 6.3% of their papers were categorized as levels I–II. Conflict of interest was present in 19.6% of the RCTs and in 32.2% of the opinion leader studies (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The medical community pays more attention to opinion leader studies in shoulder surgery than to RCT studies even though RCTs are published in higher impact factor journals and opinion leader studies are mainly level IV evidence studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lomas J, Enkin M, Anderson GM, Hannah WJ, Vayda E, Singer J (1991) Opinion leaders vs audit and feedback to implement practice guidelines. JAMA. 265:2202–2207

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group (1992) Evidence-based medicine: a new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA 268:2420–2425. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1992.03490170092032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cunningham BP, Harmsen S, Kweon C, Patterson J, Waldrop R, McLaren A, McLemore R (2013) Have levels of evidence improved the quality of orthopaedic research? Clin Orthop Relat Rese. 471:3679–3686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-3159-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. OCEBM Working Group (2011) The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. http://www.cebm.net/ocebm-levels-of-evidence/. Accessed December 2019.

  5. Jefferson L, Brealey S, Handoll H, Keding A, Kottam L, Sbizzera I, Rangan A (2017) Impact of the PROFHER trial findings on surgeon’s clinical practice. Bone Joint Res. 6:590–599. https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.610.BJR-2017-0170

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Chimonas S, Frosch Z, Rothman DJ (2011) Form disclosure to transparency. Arch Intern Med. 171:81–86. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2010.341

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zuckerman JD, Prasarn M, Kubiak EN, Koval KJ (2004) Conflict of interest in orthopaedic research. J Bone Joint Surg. 86-A:423–428. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200402000-00030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kubiak EN, Park SS, Egol K, Zuckerman JD, Koval KJ (2006) Increasingly conflicted. Bull Hosp Joint Dis 63:83–87

    Google Scholar 

  9. Shah RV, Albert TJ, Bruegel-Sanchez V, Vaccaro AR, Hilibrand AS, Grauer JN (2005) Industry support and correlation to study outcome for papers published in spine. Spine. 30(9):1099–1104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Amiri AR, Kanesalingam K, Cro S, Casey ATH (2014) Does source of funding and conflict of interest influence the outcome and quality of spinal research? The Spine Journal. 14:308–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.10.047

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Okike K, Kocher MS, Mehlman CT, Bhandari M (2007) Conflict of interest in orthopaedic research. J Bone Joint Surg. 89-A(3):608–613. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00994

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Printz JO, Lee JJ, Knesek M, Urquhart AG (2013) Conflict of interest in the assessment of hyaluronic acid injections for ostroarthritis of the knee: an updated systematic review. J Artrhroplasty. 28(suppl 1):30–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.05.034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bhandari M, BusseJW JD, Montori VM, Schünemann H, Sprague S, Mears D, Schemitsch EH, Heels-Ansdell D, Devereaux PJ (2004) Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials. CMAJ. 170(4):477–480

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Als-Nielsen B, Chen W, Gluud C, Kjaergard LL (2003) Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials. JAMA. 290:921–928. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.290.7.921

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bekelman JE, MPhil YL, Gross CP (2003) Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research. JAMA. 289:454–465. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.289.4.454

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gelberman RH, Samson D, Mirza ESK, Callaghan JJ, Pellegrini VD (2010) Orthopedic surgeons and the medical device industry. J Bone Joint Surg 92:765–777. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.I.01164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lefaivre KA, Shadgan B, O’Brien PJ (2011) 100 most cited articles in orthopaedic surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Rese. 469:1487–1497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1604-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Xavier Duran Jordà, MStat, PhD (Methodology and Biostatistics Support Unit, Institute Hospital del Mar for Medical Research (IMIM), Barcelona, Spain) for his work in data analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedics, Hospital del Mar, Parc de Salut Mar, Passeig Marítim 25-29, 08003, Barcelona, Spain

    Carlos Torrens & Fernando Santana

  2. Department of Orthopedics, Consorci Sanitari Igualada, Igualada, Spain

    Joan Miquel

Authors
  1. Carlos Torrens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fernando Santana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joan Miquel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

CT has conceptualized and designed the study, analyzed and interpreted the data, and drafted the manuscript; FS has collected data, analyzed and interpreted the data, and revised the manuscript; JM has conceptualized and designed the study, has collected data, analyzed and interpreted the data, and revised the manuscript. All authors have approved the final manuscript as submitted.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carlos Torrens.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics approval

Not applicable

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Torrens, C., Santana, F. & Miquel, J. Opinion leaders in the medical community attract more attention than randomized controlled trials in shoulder surgery. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 45, 33–38 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04775-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04775-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation