The Danger of Bad Data: Why We Publicly Challenged a Recent Knee Study
Why we sent a formal Letter to the Editor to correct inconsistencies in a recent study on total knee arthroplasty outcomes.
In the fast-paced world of orthopedic surgery, peer-reviewed literature is the bedrock of clinical decision-making. Surgeons rely on published studies to refine their techniques, select implants, and ultimately improve patient outcomes. However, the integrity of this process depends on relentless scrutiny and the willingness of the medical community to challenge inconsistencies.
Recently, we read a study published in The Journal of Arthroplasty with great interest. The study, entitled “Are Kinematics an Indicator of Outcome After Total Knee Arthroplasty?” by Hodge and colleagues, investigated the relationship between in vivo knee kinematics data and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) during specific physical tasks. We commend the authors on a certainly onerous data collection and analysis process that few investigators are willing to undertake. However, upon a deep dive into the paper, we discovered several glaring inconsistencies that compelled us to submit a formal Letter to the Editor.
