PURPOSE: Advertisements are commonplace in orthopaedic journals and may influence the readership with claims of clinical and scientific fact. Since the last assessment of the claims made in orthopaedic print advertisements ten years ago, there have been legislative changes and media scrutiny which have shaped this practice. The purpose of this study is to re-evaluate these claims. METHODS: Fifty claims from 50 advertisements were chosen randomly from six highly respected peer-reviewed orthopaedic journals (published July-December 2011). The evidence supporting each claim was assessed and validated by three orthopaedic surgeons. The assessors, blinded to product and company, rated the evidence and answered the following questions: Does the evidence as presented support the claim made in the advertisement and what is the quality of that evidence? Is the claim supported by enough evidence to influence your own clinical practice? RESULTS: Twenty-eight claims cited evidence from published literature, four from public presentations, 11 from manufacturer "data held on file" and seven had no supporting evidence. Only 12 claims were considered to have high-quality evidence and only 11 were considered well supported. A strong correlation was seen between the quality of evidence and strength of support (Spearman r = 0.945, p < 0.0001). The average ICC between the assessors' ratings was strong (r = 0.85) giving validity to the results. CONCLUSION: Orthopaedic surgeons must remain sceptical about the claims made in print advertisements. High-quality evidence is required by orthopaedic surgeons to influence clinical practice and this evidence should be sought by manufacturers wishing to market a successful product.
PURPOSE: Advertisements are commonplace in orthopaedic journals and may influence the readership with claims of clinical and scientific fact. Since the last assessment of the claims made in orthopaedic print advertisements ten years ago, there have been legislative changes and media scrutiny which have shaped this practice. The purpose of this study is to re-evaluate these claims. METHODS: Fifty claims from 50 advertisements were chosen randomly from six highly respected peer-reviewed orthopaedic journals (published July-December 2011). The evidence supporting each claim was assessed and validated by three orthopaedic surgeons. The assessors, blinded to product and company, rated the evidence and answered the following questions: Does the evidence as presented support the claim made in the advertisement and what is the quality of that evidence? Is the claim supported by enough evidence to influence your own clinical practice? RESULTS: Twenty-eight claims cited evidence from published literature, four from public presentations, 11 from manufacturer "data held on file" and seven had no supporting evidence. Only 12 claims were considered to have high-quality evidence and only 11 were considered well supported. A strong correlation was seen between the quality of evidence and strength of support (Spearman r = 0.945, p < 0.0001). The average ICC between the assessors' ratings was strong (r = 0.85) giving validity to the results. CONCLUSION: Orthopaedic surgeons must remain sceptical about the claims made in print advertisements. High-quality evidence is required by orthopaedic surgeons to influence clinical practice and this evidence should be sought by manufacturers wishing to market a successful product.
Authors: Anthony Del Signore; Andrew H Murr; Lawrence R Lustig; Michael P Platt; Scharukh Jalisi; Loring W Pratt; Jeffrey H Spiegel Journal: Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2011-05-16
Authors: Eric L Smith; Jonas Miller; Taryn LeRoy; Eitan Ingall; David J Tybor; Joseph T Martin; Mary E Pevear Journal: J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev Date: 2018-01-03