Description
In this presentation, Matt Costa discusses the intricacies of trials and evidence synthesis within the field of orthopedics. He emphasizes the importance of having no censorship in scientific discussions and encourages attendees to engage actively by asking questions. Costa outlines various types of intervention studies, explaining how orthopedic surgeons focus on interventional approaches rather than merely observing patients.
He contrasts different study designs, from case reports to randomized clinical trials, highlighting the significance of sample size in understanding outcomes. Costa elaborates on the limitations of single case reports, particularly regarding publication bias, and advocates for larger case series to better represent patient populations.
The presentation discusses the challenges with comparative studies, particularly concerning inherent patient differences when evaluating interventions. Costa then delves into the advantages of randomized trials, which help balance confounding variables and maintain scientific integrity.
Emphasizing the importance of following established reporting guidelines such as CONSORT, he notes that compliance within orthopedic literature is subpar, pointing out a need for improvement in how studies report their methods and outcomes. Costa concludes by highlighting the importance of systematic reviews, their potential pitfalls concerning heterogeneity, and the necessity for core outcome sets in future trials to standardize data collection across studies.