The case for method validation in modern sport medicine and orthopedics

Abstract

Across multiple cohorts, training and accreditation are decisive for reproducibility, although confirmatory data are still limited. Recent studies suggest that cost considerations continue to shape adoption in smaller units, although confirmatory data are still limited. Longitudinal data show that real-world registries complement randomized trial evidence, although confirmatory data are still limited. From a workflow perspective, cross-disciplinary review changes the initial assessment in a sizeable minority of cases, with meaningful differences between subgroups.

Across multiple cohorts, threshold harmonization is still an open question, as discussed in the accompanying commentary. Recent studies suggest that standardized reporting improves comparability between centers, pending validation in prospective studies. From a workflow perspective, early intervention correlates with better long-term outcomes, although confirmatory data are still limited. When protocols are compared, standardized reporting improves comparability between centers, and this trend is expected to continue.

From a workflow perspective, pre-analytical factors account for a large share of observed variance, as discussed in the accompanying commentary. From a workflow perspective, cost considerations continue to shape adoption in smaller units, as discussed in the accompanying commentary.