For over 125 years, the Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (JBJS) has been the premier journal for orthopaedic surgeons. Today, our publication portfolio has grown to 4 peer-reviewed, evidence-based journals. Two of these journals offer continuing medication education (CME) for orthopaedic generalists, specialists and allied health personnel. The development of the CME activities is overseen by a committee consisting of editors from The Journal and JBJS Reviews.
The JBJS CME program is designed to enhance the knowledge, competence and performance of orthopaedic surgeons worldwide, and to improve musculoskeletal health for their patients. Our CME program addresses a range of clinical topics including: adult hip and knee reconstruction, foot and ankle surgery, spine surgery, shoulder and elbow surgery, pain management, sports medicine, pediatrics, and trauma. After successful completion of the period of Provisional Accreditation, JBJS received full accreditation for our CME program in March of 2015.
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery offers two CME activities: The Quarterly CME Activity and the Subspecialty CME Activity. Each of these CME activities is an interactive educational experience of examination questions based on articles published in the Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. The Quarterly CME Activity contains 50 questions and is also designated for a maximum of 10 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™. The Subspecialty CME activity contains 10 questions and is designated for a maximum of 5 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™.
The Quarterly CME activity is approved by the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (ABOS) as a Self-Assessment Examination (SAE) that qualifies for SAE CME under the Board’s Maintenance of Certification (MOC) Program. Each Quarterly activity grants 5 SAE credits and must be submitted in pairs for maintenance of certification
JBJS Reviews, our newest journal, offers a journal-based CME activity with each article. Each article contains 5 CME assessment questions that can be completed and submitted after reading the article for 1 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™.
JBJS is committed to providing timely, relevant CME to orthopaedic surgeons and allied health providers worldwide, promoting effective decision-making and clinical practice based on the gold-standard of peer-reviewed, scientific information contained within our publications.
You can access JBJS CME activities by visiting the JBJS Orthopaedic Education Center.
In my 20-plus years serving as a deputy editor and editor of JBJS, I have never seen the kind of media interest in research published in The Journal that the Harper et al. study on distal radius fractures in older men has received.
This well-done retrospective evaluation of 95 males and 344 females who were treated for a distal radius fracture at a single institution has been discussed in multiple forums and media outlets, including the national newswire services, scientific and clinical blog sites, and health reports on local and national TV newscasts.
One conclusion from the Harper et al. analysis was that males older than 50 who had a distal radius fracture are receiving far worse follow-up care compared to females with the same characteristics in terms of bone-mineral density testing and subsequent pharmacologic treatment to prevent future fractures. For example, an older male with a fragility-caused distal radius fracture is nearly 10 times less likely to undergo bone-density testing than a woman with the same fracture. What is so newsworthy about this finding as to prompt headlines such as “Gender Bias in Osteoporosis Screening”?
My hypothesis is that orthopaedic research has focused too much on procedural-based interventions. When research such as the Harper et al. study extends beyond developing new therapies to matters of population health and application of evidence-based therapies, the public pays especially close attention. Previous OrthoBuzz posts by my JBJS predecessor Vern Tolo, MD and JBJS Reviews Editor-in-Chief Tom Einhorn, MD have called on clinicians to take a more aggressive approach toward primary and secondary prevention of fragility fractures. JBJS commentator Douglas Dirschl, MD says that the gender disparity revealed by Harper et al. “should shock the medical community into improved performance.”
Orthopaedic surgeons are increasingly working in teams consisting of family physicians with additional musculoskeletal training, radiologists, anesthesiologists, nurses, PTs, OTs, and athletic trainers. As our field expands its scope to “musculoskeletal health, prevention, and treatment” and away from exclusively invasive interventions, let’s continue to invite the public along. Based on the media coverage of the Harper et al. study, the public appears to be a willing partner in our attempts to reduce the risk of fragility fractures.
Do you think including preventive and population-health perspectives is the right direction for our field? Send us a comment of support or a dissenting view by clicking on the “Leave a Comment” button in the box to the left.
Marc Swiontkowski, MD