How we read
the literature.
A useful literature digest should help you understand what a study found, how it was done, and why it deserves your attention.
From publication to Sunday Cut
Five steps turn a week’s publications into a focused reading list.
- 1.
Watch the literature
OpenAlex gathers new publications from the journal list. PubMed adds study types and retraction notices.
111 journals followed - 2.
Read the full text
Sources including Europe PMC and Unpaywall provide full papers. Those without accessible full text wait unscored and are retried.
Full text comes first - 3.
Appraise the evidence
A plain-language summary and structured critical-appraisal checklist distil the full paper’s findings and methods.
A consistent checklist - 4.
Calculate the scores
Study design, methods, clinical relevance, and the existing evidence inform three separate judgements and the reading order.
A transparent method - 5.
Select and publish
15 papers make the Sunday edition, with their findings, limitations, scores, and links to the original publications.
One focused weekly edition
New papers are published on Sundays at 11:00 UTC. The email digest follows at 23:00 UTC.
Three scores, three questions
Every score is out of 100. Each answers a different question.
Rigour
How much confidence can we place in the result?
Study design sets a starting point and ceiling. Execution then matters: allocation, measurement, follow-up, reporting, and precision all inform the judgement.
Clinical importance
If it holds up, how far should this move patient care?
Three things multiplied: the most the study's design can claim, how much its question matters to patients and their care, and how clearly it answered that question. Missing judgements leave the score incomplete.
Editorial priority
Why should this be read this week?
The score considers how a paper relates to guidelines and previous evidence: whether it fills a gap, resolves a disagreement, or adds a useful new perspective.
“Impact” on this site means editorial priority. It is a reading-priority judgement, rather than a measured treatment effect or a journal impact factor.
Importance, adjusted for confidence.
The clinical score anchors the ranking. Editorial priority contributes half of its difference from a neutral score of 45. Methodological credibility and, for evidence syntheses, reported certainty then adjust that value.
Merit = [clinical + 0.5 × (editorial priority − 45)] × credibility × synthesis certainty
Weekly rank score = merit − excess missingness uncertainty − recency
Scores are bounded between 0 and 100. Recency subtracts 1.5 points per week after the first week, up to 12 points. Missing appraisal information adds uncertainty to the reading order.
How to read the evidence bands
The source’s five bands describe the merit judgement before missingness and recency deductions. An older paper therefore keeps its evidence band even as its place in the live reading order changes.
The method uses design-specific starting points and ceilings. Observed methodological defects can impose additional caps. An unreported detail is kept distinct from an observed defect; incomplete information still widens uncertainty.
Read the full scoring methodReading the appraisals
Every appraisal is a starting point for a closer reading of the original research.
Full text comes first
Summaries and appraisals are drafted from the full paper. The source pipeline holds papers without accessible full text for a later attempt.
Findings alongside limitations
Read the result together with the study design, uncertainty, and applicability. The three scores provide a starting point for that assessment.
A route back to the original
Each appraisal provides the full publication title and source links. Read the original paper before citing it or applying its findings to a clinical question.
Common questions
The details that help you read the digest with confidence.
How are open research questions generated?
The synthesis considers recently approved papers over a 56-day window, grouped by specialty. It reads their abstracts or summaries alongside future research directions identified in the full text when available, then proposes questions grounded in the linked studies. These suggestions are starting points for a literature review and need checking against newer evidence.
Why might a relevant paper be missing?
The digest starts with a defined journal list and depends on full-text availability. Appraisal and editorial selection narrow that list to 15 papers. Papers without accessible full text wait for another attempt; a missing paper is not necessarily an unimportant one.
What should I take from a lower score?
Use the score as a prompt to look more closely at the methods, clinical relevance, and limitations. A paper may answer a useful narrow question without ranking highly for a broad orthopaedic audience.
Why is “Impact” different from a journal impact factor?
The badge labelled “Impact” displays the editorial-priority judgement: how the paper relates to existing evidence and why it merits attention. Journal impact factor and treatment-effect size are separate concepts.
When does the Sunday Cut arrive?
Orthotalk publishes the weekly edition on Sundays at 11:00 UTC. The newsletter is scheduled for 23:00 UTC, allowing time for the edition’s approvals before the email goes out.
Can I suggest a paper or flag a correction?
Yes. Send the title or DOI, with a short explanation, to admin@orthotalk.ca. For a correction, include the paper and the passage or score you would like reviewed.