To The Readers:
It has been brought to our attention by our readers that two pairs of
manuscripts published in Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research and
the American volume of the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery may represent
duplicate publication. The articles in question are:
1. “The Progression of Patellofemoral Arthrosis After Medial
Unicompartmental Replacement” by Berger, et. al., Clinical Orthopaedics
and Related Research, 428:92-99, November, 2004.
“Results of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty at a Minimum of Ten
Years of Follow-up” by Berger, et. al., JBJS-A 87:999-1006, 2005 and:
2. “Cementless Acetabular Reconstruction in Revision Total Hip
Arthroplasty” by Della Valle et. al., Clinical Orthopaedics and Related
Research, 420:96-100, March, 2004.
“Revision of the Acetabular Component without Cement After Total Hip
Arthroplasty” by Della Valle, et. al., JBJS-A 87:1795-1800, August, 2005.
We reviewed both pairs of manuscripts and shared the concerns raised
by the reviewers with regard to the possibility of redundant publication.
Therefore, we asked the authors of the four papers to review them and
provide an explanation of circumstances surrounding their publication.
Attached is the response letter from the authors which we do not feel, in
either case, adequately justifies the publication of two separate articles
because in neither case does one article provide sufficient new
information beyond the information provided in the companion article. We
both feel that the most important element of the authors’ response letter
lies in the introductory paragraph in which the Department of Orthopaedics
has decided to establish an oversight committee to vet manuscripts before
submission for publication. We both endorse this concept and encourage
other academic orthopaedic departments to pursue a similar review process
to minimize the risk of being charged with duplicate or redundant
publication.
James D. Heckman, M.D.
Editor-in-Chief, The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - American Volume
Richard J. Brand M.D., Editor-in-Chief, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research.
BELOW IS THE LETTER OF RESPONSE BY DR. BERGER, ET.AL.
August 28,2006
Dear Dr. Heckman:
The editorial staff of the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery have
expressed concern that the two sets of papers discussed below represent
duplicate publication as defined by the COPE (Committee on Publication
Ethics) Guidelines.(1). While we acted in good faith and believed at the
time that the submissions of these papers were done within the boundaries
of ethical behavior, in light of our recent review of the COPE guidelines
and our communications with the editor of the Journal we recognize that
there exists overlap in these papers inconsistent with the COPE
guidelines. In addition, in the first set of papers Figure 1 (a photograph
of the prosthesis) was identical in both papers; we were in error by not
obtaining permission from the publisher of the first paper prior to the
publication of the second paper. We wish to express our regrets to the
editorial staff of the journal, as well as to its readership. To insure
that there is a clear demarcation between clinical studies submitted for
publication in the future, an oversight committee in our department has
been established to vet manuscripts before submission for publication.
Given the circumstances presented below, we will pay particular attention
to those papers that are submitted in response to an invitation to
participate in a special symposium or are submitted for inclusion in
proceedings from subspecialty meetings, especially if they involve a
patient cohort that has been the subject of previous publications. If
there is any question about potential overlap, this will be brought to the
attention of the author who will address this in the cover letter to the
journal. This will insure transparency for the editors and reviewers.
In the November 2004 issue of Clinical Orthopaedics and Related
Research we published a paper entitled The Progression of Patellofemoral
Arthrosis After Medial Unicompartmental Replacement: Results at 11 to 15
Years and in May 2005 we published a paper in the Journal of Bone and
Joint Surgery entitled Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty at a Minimum of
Ten Years Follow-up. The JBJS paper was initiated by us and was written
and submitted first. The CORR paper was requested by the Knee Society to
be included in their 2004 proceedings; this paper, submitted second but
published first, represents an update of the JBJS paper. There are three
differences, which in our view at the time justified separate publication:
1) these two articles represent slightly different cohorts; 2) these two
articles contain different data from two different follow up intervals
separated by two years; and 3) the former paper reports progression of
disease in the patellofemoral compartment which was discovered after the
additional two years of follow-up.
The article in JBJS entitled Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty at a
Minimum of Ten Years Follow-up represents an unselected group of all
unicompartmental knee arthroplasties done at our institution from 1987 to
1993 (n=62 unicompartmental knee replacements in 51 patients). The article
in CORR entitled The Progression of Patellofemoral Arthrosis After Medial
Unicompartmental Replacement: Results at 11 to 15 Years represents only
the more common medial unicompartmental replacements done at our
institution during the same period. The follow up interval of these two
cohorts is different. For the JBJS article, the study period closed in mid
2001. This resulted in the follow up for this unselected group from 10 to
13 years, with an average follow up of 11.8 years. There were two failures
in this group at 7 and 10 years. The survivorship analysis was carried out
to the end of the follow up period (13 years) and the paper was finished
in early 2002. It was submitted to JBJS shortly thereafter.
As a direct result of an invitation by the Knee Society to
participate in the scientific program of the 2004 Open Meeting in San
Francisco, a study was undertaken to update the results out to fifteen
years of follow up on a group of selected unicompartmental replacements,
including just the more common medial unicompartmental replacements (n=59
of the 62 unicompartmental knee replacements in 48 of the 51 patients
reported in the JBJS paper); the less common lateral replacements (n=3
unicompartmental knee replacements in three patients) were excluded. The
study period closed in mid 2003, 2 years after the study period for the
JBJS paper. All patients who were still alive and were able to travel were
seen for follow up, examined, and had new radiographs taken. The average
increase in follow up for this group of patients was 2 more years than the
previous paper on the entire population of medial and lateral
unicompartmental replacements. However, due to the fact that some patients
had died, the average follow up only increased by 1.5 years to 13.3 years;
all patients had between 11 to 15 year follow up. This analysis was
completed and the paper was submitted to CORR in early 2004 as requested
by the Knee Society to be included in their proceedings. The survivorship
analysis was redone and was carried out to the end of the follow up
period, 15 years. Since there were no new failures since year 7 and 10,
the survivorship was unchanged past 10 years to 15 years. In addition, the
failures reported in this cohort were the same as those reported in the
JBJS paper. Figure 4 in the JBJS paper and Figure 5 in the CORR paper are
different since the x-axis in the JBJS paper is carried out to 13 years,
while the x-axis in the CORR paper is carried out to 15 years.
In addition, the CORR paper focuses on the progression of
patellofemoral disease which was discovered after the two-year additional
follow up. In the JBJS paper, the prevalence of radiographic changes was
34%, with nearly two-thirds of these having Grade 1 changes. In contrast,
the CORR paper reported a prevalence of radiographic changes in the
patellofemoral joint of 54%, with less than one-third having Grade 1
changes and over half of these having Grade 2 changes. We believe this is
a clinically relevant finding.
It is unfortunate that the paper with longer follow up was published
prior to the paper with shorter follow up; this can occur with the
vagaries of the review process. We did not cite the JBJS paper in our CORR
paper, because it was not yet published.
In the March 2004 issue of Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research
we published an article entitled "Cementless acetabular reconstruction in
revision total hip arthroplasty" as part of the symposium on "Revision
Total Hip Arthroplasty" sponsored by the Hip Society. This invited article
presented detailed descriptions of the surgical technique we presently
use, a review of the published literature on the topic and clinical
results of a cohort of 138 patients who underwent cementless acetabular
reconstruction at the time of a revision total hip arthroplasty who were
followed for a minimum of ten years.
Subsequently, we submitted an original scientific article to the
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery entitled "Revision of the acetabular
component without cement after total hip arthroplasty" which was published
in August of 2005. This was a follow up note updating previous reports in
the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery now at a minimum of 15 years; the
same cohort of 138 hips was studied. This report included information
regarding periacetabular osteolysis and the fate of the femoral
components; two important facets of this report that were not investigated
in the CORR publication. Further, at this later time point (minimum 15 as
opposed to 10 years), there were 2 reoperations for wear and osteolysis
that were not previously recognized as well as an additional acetabular
component failure. The article published in the Journal of Bone and Joint
Surgery did not reference the work in Clinical Orthopaedics and Related
Research as it had not been published at the time of submission.
We believed at the time of submission that the publication of these
two separate articles was justified as they had a different scope and
intent (an invited review article with a review of the literature and a
detailed description of the surgical technique as compared to an original
scientific article), reported different clinical information (e.g.
periacetabular osteolysis and the outcomes of the femoral components) and
despite studying the same cohort of patients had differing criteria for
entrance into the study (10 as compared to 15 year minimum follow up) and
a mean follow up that differed by more than two years.
We appreciate this opportunity to clarify the nature and intent of
these two sets of papers and will be vigilant in future submissions
regarding adherence to the COPE guidelines.
Sincerely,
Richard A. Berger, M.D.
Craig Della Valle, M.D.
Joshua J. Jacobs, M.D.
Mitchell B. Sheinkop, M.D.
Aaron G. Rosenberg, M.D.
Jorge 0. Galante, M.D.
Reference:
1. The COPE Report 1999 City, Committee of Publication Ethics, 2003.
http://www.publicationethics.org.uk
Letters to the Editor: ![[Read Letter to the Editor]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif){kind=icon}
