Literature DB >> 25156901

An analysis of references used for the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination: what are their levels of evidence and journal impact factors?

Bryan D Haughom1, Zach Goldstein, Michael D Hellman, Paul H Yi, Rachel M Frank, Brett R Levine.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although the references recommended for the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination (OITE) have been evaluated in certain subspecialty domains, suggested reference level of evidence (LOE), impact factor, and citation age have not been evaluated comprehensively to our knowledge. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We present an analysis of all references cited in the OITE recommended readings for each test question including the duration of time between their initial publication and their use in the OITE, which we defined as citation age, LOE, and the impact factor of the journals referenced.
METHODS: We evaluated all references for the 2010 to 2012 OITE administrations (three examinations; 825 questions total). Publication characteristics, including citation age, were noted. The LOE for each journal article and the impact factor of each journal were determined; differences in LOE and impact factor were compared between test sections. A total of 1817 references were cited in the 825 questions we evaluated; this denominator was used in all calculations that follow.
RESULTS: The recommended reading references included 1337 journal article references (74%), 469 text references (26%), and 11 multimedia sources (0.6%; eg, websites, instructional DVDs). The three most commonly recommended journals were general orthopaedic journals, The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume), Journal of American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. The majority (72.2%) of the cited journal references were published within 10 years of the test date, with a mean ± SD citation age of 8.3 ± 7.4 years. The majority of the cited journal articles were Levels IV and V evidence (mean, 4.16 ± 1.1). The Spine section had higher LOE (3.74; p < 0.001), although the practical relevance of such a difference is questionable, as all but two sections' LOE rounded to Level IV evidence. The Spine and Basic Science sections were published in journals with a larger mean impact factor (Basic Science, 7.16 ± 12.67; Spine, 5.73 ± 12.08; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that the majority of the recommended readings for the OITE stem from higher impact general orthopaedic and major subspecialty journals. Furthermore the observed mean LOE of the recommended readings shows a preponderance of Levels IV and V research. These data may suggest that test-takers may find benefit in the review of high-level general orthopaedic journals, and review articles in particular while preparing for the OITE, although further study is necessary to determine optimal test preparation strategies. Finally, our study provides a baseline analysis of the study designs of OITE recommended references, and may provide insight for educators designing resident educational curricula.

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25156901      PMCID: PMC4397797          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-014-3895-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  15 in total

1.  Introducing levels of evidence to the journal.

Authors:  James G Wright; Marc F Swiontkowski; James D Heckman
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 5.284

2.  Predictive measures of a resident's performance on written Orthopaedic Board scores.

Authors:  Bradley W Dyrstad; David Pope; Joseph C Milbrandt; Ryan T Beck; Anita L Weinhoeft; Osaretin B Idusuyi
Journal:  Iowa Orthop J       Date:  2011

3.  The impact factor of seven orthopaedic journals: factors influencing it.

Authors:  S Hakkalamani; A Rawal; M S Hennessy; R W Parkinson
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2006-02

4.  Orthopedic surgery residents' study habits and performance on the orthopedic in-training examination.

Authors:  Ryan G Miyamoto; Gregg R Klein; Michael Walsh; Joseph D Zuckerman
Journal:  Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ)       Date:  2007-12

5.  Levels of evidence at the AAOS meeting: can authors rate their own submissions, and do other raters agree?

Authors:  Andrew H Schmidt; Guofen Zhao; Charles Turkelson
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  Levels of evidence are low for clinical management questions on the orthopaedic in-training examination.

Authors:  Joseph Bernstein; Julia A Kenniston; Jason A Nydick; Miltiadis H Zgonis; Pedro K Beredjiklian
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Orthopaedic journal publications and their role in the preparation for the orthopaedic in-training examination.

Authors:  David R Marker; Dawn M LaPorte; Thorsten M Seyler; Slif D Ulrich; Mike S McGrath; Frank J Frassica; Michael A Mont
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  The impact factor of a journal is a poor measure of the clinical relevance of its papers.

Authors:  P Kodumuri; B Ollivere; J Holley; C G Moran
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 5.082

9.  The Orthopaedic In-Training Examination (OITE).

Authors:  H J Mankin
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1971 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Citation analysis of orthopaedic literature; 18 major orthopaedic journals compared for Impact Factor and SCImago.

Authors:  Michiel Siebelt; Teun Siebelt; Peter Pilot; Rolf M Bloem; Mohit Bhandari; Rudolf W Poolman
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2010-01-04       Impact factor: 2.362

View more
  6 in total

1.  Levels of Evidence for Hand Questions on the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination.

Authors:  Louis C Grandizio; James C Huston; Stephanie S Shim; Jove Graham; Joel C Klena
Journal:  Hand (N Y)       Date:  2016-01-22

2.  The fifty most cited publications in shoulder arthroplasty research.

Authors:  Matthew R Cohn; Nabil Mehta; Kyle N Kunze; Robert B Browning; Nikhil N Verma; Grant E Garrigues; Gregory P Nicholson
Journal:  Shoulder Elbow       Date:  2021-02-08

3.  An assessment of the Chilean National Examination of Orthopaedic Surgery.

Authors:  Julio Urrutia; Mario Orrego; Ana C Wright; Diego Amenabar
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2016-03-01       Impact factor: 2.463

4.  What are the health consequences associated with differences in medical malpractice liability laws? An instrumental variable analysis of surgery effects on health outcomes for proximal humeral facture across states with different liability rules.

Authors:  Brian Chen; Sarah Floyd; Dakshu Jindal; Cole Chapman; John Brooks
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2022-05-03       Impact factor: 2.908

5.  Cross-Sectional Analysis of Foot and Ankle Questions on the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination: A Guide for Resident Preparation.

Authors:  Brandon Klein; Joshua Giordano; Jacob Barmann; Peter B White; Randy M Cohn; Adam D Bitterman
Journal:  Foot Ankle Orthop       Date:  2022-08-28

6.  State medical malpractice laws and utilization of surgical treatment for rotator cuff tear and proximal humerus fracture: an observational cohort study.

Authors:  Brian Chen; Cole Chapman; Sarah Bauer Floyd; John Mobley; John Brooks
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2021-05-28       Impact factor: 2.655

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.