Quality of research and level of evidence in foot and ankle publications

Abstract

Background: The quality of research and evidence to support medical treatments is under scrutiny from the medical profession and the public. This study examined the current quality of research and level of evidence (LOE) of foot and ankle surgery papers published in orthopedic and podiatric medical journals.

Methods: Two independent evaluators performed a blinded assessment of all foot and ankle clinical research articles (January 2010 to June 2010) from seven North American orthopedic and podiatric journals. JBJS-A grading system was used for LOE. Articles were assessed for indicators of study quality. The data was stratified by journal and medical credentials.

Results: A total of 245 articles were published, 128 were excluded based on study design, leaving 117 clinical research articles. Seven (6%) were Level I, 14 (12%) Level II, 18 (15%) Level III, and 78 (67%) Level IV. The orthopedic journals published 78 studies on foot and ankle topics. Of the podiatric journals, the Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association (JAPMA) published 12 clinical studies and the Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery (JFAS) published 27, 21 (78%) of which were Level IV studies. When the quality of research was examined, few therapeutic studies used validated outcome measures and only 38 of 96 (40%) gathered data prospectively. Thirty (31%) studies used a comparison group. Eighty-seven articles (74%) were authored by a MD and 22 (19%) by a DPM.

Conclusion: Foot & Ankle International (FAI) published higher quality studies with a higher LOE as compared to podiatry journals. Regardless of the journal, MDs produced the majority of published clinical foot and ankle research. Although improvements have been made in the quality of some clinical research, this study highlights the need for continued improvement in methodology within foot and ankle literature.