Experts Achieve Consensus on a Majority of Statements Regarding Ethics, Transparency, Regulation and Best Practices for the Use of Orthobiologics.

IF 4.4 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Ron Gilat, Sarah A Muth, Eoghan T Hurley, Allen A Yazdi, Chloe H Franzia, Scott A Rodeo, Shane A Shapiro, Rachel M Frank, Brian J Cole
{"title":"Experts Achieve Consensus on a Majority of Statements Regarding Ethics, Transparency, Regulation and Best Practices for the Use of Orthobiologics.","authors":"Ron Gilat, Sarah A Muth, Eoghan T Hurley, Allen A Yazdi, Chloe H Franzia, Scott A Rodeo, Shane A Shapiro, Rachel M Frank, Brian J Cole","doi":"10.1016/j.arthro.2025.01.062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To establish consensus statements via a modified Delphi process about ethics, transparency, regulation and best practices for the use of orthobiologics in clinical practice for musculoskeletal pathology.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A consensus process on the regulation of orthobiologics at the provider-level was conducted using a modified Delphi technique. Twenty orthopaedic surgeons, sports medicine physicians, or basic scientists participated. Each participant was a Biologic Association member organization representative and asked to participate due to their active interest in the field of orthobiologics. Levels of consensus were delineated according to the number of votes for each statement: no consensus, <80%; consensus, 80% to 89%; strong consensus, 90% to 99%; unanimous, 100%.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The twenty-six consensus statements on orthobiologics resulted in 14 achieving unanimous consensus, 8 achieving strong consensus, 3 achieving consensus, and 1 did not achieve consensus. Overall, 85% of the statements reached either a unanimous or strong consensus. Of the statements regarding communication and transparency, 9 reached unanimous consensus, including information to convey and helpful tools to describe current orthobiologics, persistent misinformation, use of the word \"stem cells\", \"off-label\" use, and problems with the present regulatory environment. Five statements discussing the regulation of novel orthobiologics achieved unanimous consensus. These statements highlighted research regulation, safety, and suggested improvements to regulatory issues. The statement that did not achieve any consensus was on the regulatory processes that should be in place by an institution providing novel orthobiologic treatments. No statement reached a unanimous agreement on cost or ethical considerations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study successfully identified key consensus statements emphasizing the importance of ethics, transparency, and regulation in the use of orthobiologics, with 85% of statements reaching unanimous or strong consensus. These findings underscore the need for standardized communication, improved regulatory frameworks, and enhanced safety measures while highlighting persistent challenges in addressing cost and ethical considerations.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level V, Expert Opinion.</p>","PeriodicalId":55459,"journal":{"name":"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2025.01.062","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To establish consensus statements via a modified Delphi process about ethics, transparency, regulation and best practices for the use of orthobiologics in clinical practice for musculoskeletal pathology.

Methods: A consensus process on the regulation of orthobiologics at the provider-level was conducted using a modified Delphi technique. Twenty orthopaedic surgeons, sports medicine physicians, or basic scientists participated. Each participant was a Biologic Association member organization representative and asked to participate due to their active interest in the field of orthobiologics. Levels of consensus were delineated according to the number of votes for each statement: no consensus, <80%; consensus, 80% to 89%; strong consensus, 90% to 99%; unanimous, 100%.

Results: The twenty-six consensus statements on orthobiologics resulted in 14 achieving unanimous consensus, 8 achieving strong consensus, 3 achieving consensus, and 1 did not achieve consensus. Overall, 85% of the statements reached either a unanimous or strong consensus. Of the statements regarding communication and transparency, 9 reached unanimous consensus, including information to convey and helpful tools to describe current orthobiologics, persistent misinformation, use of the word "stem cells", "off-label" use, and problems with the present regulatory environment. Five statements discussing the regulation of novel orthobiologics achieved unanimous consensus. These statements highlighted research regulation, safety, and suggested improvements to regulatory issues. The statement that did not achieve any consensus was on the regulatory processes that should be in place by an institution providing novel orthobiologic treatments. No statement reached a unanimous agreement on cost or ethical considerations.

Conclusions: This study successfully identified key consensus statements emphasizing the importance of ethics, transparency, and regulation in the use of orthobiologics, with 85% of statements reaching unanimous or strong consensus. These findings underscore the need for standardized communication, improved regulatory frameworks, and enhanced safety measures while highlighting persistent challenges in addressing cost and ethical considerations.

Level of evidence: Level V, Expert Opinion.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.30
自引率
17.00%
发文量
555
审稿时长
58 days
期刊介绍: Nowhere is minimally invasive surgery explained better than in Arthroscopy, the leading peer-reviewed journal in the field. Every issue enables you to put into perspective the usefulness of the various emerging arthroscopic techniques. The advantages and disadvantages of these methods -- along with their applications in various situations -- are discussed in relation to their efficiency, efficacy and cost benefit. As a special incentive, paid subscribers also receive access to the journal expanded website.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信