Orthopaedic trauma research priority-setting exercise and development of a research network

• Published in: Injury 2010-07, Vol.41 (7), p.763-767
• Main Authors: Willett, K.M, Gray, B, Moran, C.G, Giannoudis, P.V, Pallister, I
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: AOUK; Biological and medical sciences; Collaboration; Consensus; Delphi; Delphi Technique; Diffusion of Innovation; Diseases of the osteoarticular system; Humans; Injuries of the limb. Injuries of the spine; Medical sciences; Network; Orthopaedic; Orthopedics; Orthopedics - organization & administration; Orthopedics - standards; Priority setting; Program Development; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - methods; RCT; Research Design; Surveys and Questionnaires; Trauma; Traumas. Diseases due to physical agents
• ISSN: 0020-1383; 0955-2863; 1879-0267
• DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2010.03.026

Abstract Introduction Clinical practice should be informed by high quality evidence, of which randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard. Surgical trials are inherently difficult with potential problems around clinical equipoise and participant acceptability. This is often most true with trial designs comparing operative and non-operative treatments. It is hoped that research activity can be maximised by collaborating in (a) the identification of research questions and (b) involvement in clinical trials. Development of the national research networks can be utilised to provide support for research endeavours within the orthopaedic trauma community. Aims To identify and prioritise the research questions felt to be of most importance by the orthopaedic trauma community. Research studies will be considered for questions given the highest priority. Methods A Delphi approach was used to determine consensus between the faculty members of the AOUK. A two round process was used to elicit the research questions and then to rank them in order of priority. Results 217 members of the AOUK Long Bone Faculty were asked to submit research questions, predominantly consultant orthopaedic surgeons. A 22% response rate generated 147 questions. These were collated and the most frequent 24 sent back out for ranking by mean scores. A 55% response to this second round identified 10 top questions. Literature searches for these 10 looked at current knowledge of the subject, completed and ongoing research projects. We also looked at the advantages and disadvantages of undertaking a study and the most appropriate methodology. Conclusion The response rates demonstrated a clear interest in developing a collaborative research strategy. This can be enhanced by utilising the support of the National Institute of Health Research Clinical Research Networks (NIHR CRN).