Low-value surgical innovation under peer-review: A sham study of abstracts on proximal humerus fractures submitted to scientific meetings

Abstract

Background Innovation has in common the promise of benefit for patients; however, past experience has shown that this promise is not always delivered. Instead, low-value innovation might encourage treatment variation and dilute the available body of evidence. This study aims to investigate (1) whether the peer-review process is capable of filtering out low-value innovation appropriately, and (2) whether low-value surgical innovation would be preferred more often than nonoperative innovation by peer-reviewers in the treatment of proximal humeral fractures in the elderly. Materials and methods Two duplicated sham scientific abstracts, respectively introducing a low-value surgical innovation and a valuable nonsurgical innovation, were submitted to nineteen peer-reviewed scientific meetings worldwide for orthopedic trauma surgery with submission deadlines between 01/01/2022 and 31/12/2022. Decision regarding abstract acceptance was compared. Results There was a high acceptance rate for the abstract introducing low-value surgical innovation (12 out of 19 (63.2 %)), which was higher than that of a nonoperative duplicate (10 out of 19 (52.6 %)), but this difference was not statistically significant ( p = 0.5). The majority of the ten meetings that accepted both abstracts placed both in equivalent programmatic tiers (oral presentation (4) and poster presentation (2)). In three meetings, the surgical abstract received superior program placement (oral presentation). In one case, it was the opposite. Conclusion There is a high acceptance rate for low-value surgical innovation among peer-reviewed scientific meetings. However, we can not conclude that low-value surgical innovation is preferred more often than nonoperative innovation by peer-reviewers as the differences in acceptance rate were small and not statistically significant. The peer-review process may be suitable as value-based medicine emerges. Scientists should be encouraged to pursue value-based innovation.