2026 Annual Meeting - Journal Reviewers' Workshop (Recording)-2026 Annual Meeting

Video Transcription

Video Summary

The transcript features two educational talks for orthopedic journal reviewers.<br /><br />Miho Tanaka discussed how to evaluate sex and gender considerations in research. She emphasized that sex is a biological concept, while gender is social and cultural, and authors should use these terms correctly and consistently. Reviewers should ask whether “male vs female” comparisons are based on sex assigned at birth, self-identification, or something else. She highlighted several domains where sex-related findings can be misleading if not adjusted properly: body size, anatomical shape, hormonal status, neuromuscular control, nutrition, concussion recovery, psychology, and access to care. Examples showed that apparent sex differences often disappear after adjusting for factors like height or anatomic risk factors. She also noted that transgender patients should be reported in a way that matches the study question, and cadaver studies with limited or skewed sex distribution should clearly state those limitations.<br /><br />Brian Feeley spoke about spin bias in orthopedic literature—when authors present results more favorably than the data support. He explained that spin is common, especially in abstracts and conclusions, and often appears as hype language, misleading claims of “trend,” or unjustified extrapolation from weak data. He advised reviewers to read the methods and results first, then compare every claim in the abstract and conclusion against the actual numbers. He also stressed checking citations and being wary of systematic reviews that overstate certainty. Feeley argued that authors should honestly report negative or nonsignificant results, and reviewers should request revised wording when titles or conclusions overclaim benefits.

Keywords

sex and gender

orthopedic review

research methodology

spin bias

abstract analysis

reviewer guidance

transgender reporting

biological sex

systematic reviews

publication bias