Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41287628›Full record

ArticleNIHR open research2025

Inclusivity of the target population in orthopaedic surgical randomised trials: a review of high impact journals.

Stephen D Brealey, Lucy Atha, Catherine Knowlson, Elizabeth Cook, Kate Hicks, Joanne Newman, Arabella Scantlebury, Joy Adamson, Caroline Fairhurst, Nick A Johnson and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NIHR open research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Stephen D BrealeyDepartment of Health Sciences, York Trials Unit, University of York, York, England, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6424-0164
Lucy AthaDepartment of Health Sciences, York Trials Unit, University of York, York, England, UK.
Catherine KnowlsonDepartment of Health Sciences, York Trials Unit, University of York, York, England, UK.
Elizabeth CookDepartment of Health Sciences, York Trials Unit, University of York, York, England, UK.
Kate HicksDepartment of Health Sciences, York Trials Unit, University of York, York, England, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6424-0164
Joanne NewmanDepartment of Health Sciences, York Trials Unit, University of York, York, England, UK.
Arabella ScantleburyDepartment of Health Sciences, York Trials Unit, University of York, York, England, UK.
Joy AdamsonDepartment of Health Sciences, York Trials Unit, University of York, York, England, UK.
Caroline FairhurstDepartment of Health Sciences, York Trials Unit, University of York, York, England, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0547-462X
Nick A JohnsonDepartment of Health Sciences, York Trials Unit, University of York, York, England, UK.
Joseph J DiasUniversity Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5360-4543

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: This review examines whether randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of surgery in orthopaedics are inclusive of their target populations, including under-served populations. Methods: The BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine were electronically searched in February 2022 for eligible RCTs published from 1 January 2014. Screening, key baseline patient characteristics, the inclusion of under-served groups and whether patient recruitment was pragmatic in design were key data extracted. The findings were tabulated and reported narratively. Results: There were 26 RCTs included that were parallel in design and conducted across a range of countries in different hospital settings. Four RCTs did not report the complete CONSORT statement. There was variation in the percentage of the screened population who were randomised into the studies ranging from 5.8% to 74.7%. Most RCTs were pragmatic in design regarding patient selection but this did not necessarily translate to an inclusive trial population. Only two RCTs reported the age and gender of all screened patients. All 26 RCTs reported the age and gender of randomised patients but only four studies reported ethnicity. Reporting about the consideration and inclusion of under-served populations was limited. Conclusions: There is variation in the exclusion of patients of the target population. Reporting of key patient characteristics during screening and attention given to under-served populations in the design, conduct and reporting of these trials is limited. Training and education on inclusivity is required along with practical guidance about how to implement this. To improve inclusivity in the screening and recruitment of patients there should be a focus on (i) screening and eligibility criteria, (ii) collection and reporting on attributes to ensure no section of the eligible population is inadvertently excluded, and (iii) embedding mechanisms to allow all eligible patients the opportunity to participate.

Indexed as

Inclusivity; Under-served; Orthopaedics; Surgery; Randomised trials; Review

Identifiers

PMID41287628
PMCPMC12640489

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.