TRENDS, DEFICIENCIES AND LEVELS OF EVIDENCE OF ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH IN LOW-INCOME COUNTRIES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The World Health Organisation (WHO) has recently identified musculoskeletal care as a major global health issue in the developing world. However, little is known about the quality and trends of orthopaedic research in resource-poor settings. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review of orthopaedic research in low-income countries (LIC). The primary objective was to determine the quality and publication parameters of studies performed in LIC. Secondary objectives sought to provide recommendations for successful strategies to implement research endeavors in LIC. A systematic review of the literature was performed by searching MEDLINE (1966-November 2014), EMBASE and the Cochrane Library to identify peer-reviewed orthopaedic research conducted in LICs. The PRISMA guidelines for performing a systematic review were followed. LIC were defined by the WHO and by the World Bank as countries with gross national income per capita equal or less than 1045US$. Inclusion criteria were (1) studies performed in a LIC, (2) conducted on patients afflicted by an orthopaedic condition, and (3) evaluated either an orthopaedic intervention or outcome. The Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) were used to objectively rate the overall methodological quality of each study. Additional data collected from these studies included the publication year, journal demographics, orthopaedic subspecialty and authors' country of origin. A total of 1,809 articles were screened and 277 studies met our inclusion criteria. Eighty-eight percent of studies conducted in LIC were of lower quality evidence according to the GRADE score and consisted mostly of small case series or case reports. Bangladesh and Nepal were the only two LIC with national journals and produced the highest level of research evidence. Foreign researchers produced over 70% of the studies with no collaboration with local LIC researchers. The most common subspecialties were trauma (42%) and paediatrics (14%). The 3 most frequent countries where the research originated were the United States (42%), United Kingdom (11%), and Canada (8%). The 3 most common locations where research was conducted were Haiti (18%), Afghanistan (14%), and Malawi (7%). The majority of orthopaedic studies conducted in LIC were of lower quality and performed by foreign researchers with little local collaboration. In order to promote the development of global orthopaedic surgery and research in LIC, we recommend (1) improving the collaboration between researchers in developed and LIC, (2) promoting the teaching of higher-quality and more rigorous research methodology through shared partnerships, (3) improving the capacity of orthopaedic research in developing nations through national peer-reviewed journals, and (4) dedicated subsections in international orthopaedic journals to global healthcare research.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,050 | 0,203 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,011 | 0,008 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,034 | 0,035 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».