This type of article presents the findings of studies or research in orthopedics and trauma and related topics. It refers to an unpublished document that provides new information on specific issues and makes a relevant contribution to scientific knowledge in the areas of interest to the journal. The body of the text (i.e. excluding tables, figures, abstracts, and references) should not exceed 3200 words.

Original articles must comply with the following structure. (Please note that all the information must be included in the article. Do not submit any of this information in separate files):

Title page and author details

• Title of the article (in Spanish and English), providing accurate and concrete information on the topic to be discussed in the manuscript. Avoid long titles (preferably no longer than 100 characters).
• Running title of the article (English and Spanish); it should not exceed 40 characters.
• Full names of authors as they appear in citations (do not use initials), along with the corresponding affiliation identification (superscript Arabic numerals).
• Full affiliation of each author without specifying positions and/or degrees; only list the institutions and sections within them (faculties, departments, schools, etc.), along with the city and country. If an author has more than one affiliation, they should be identified separately; conversely, if two or more authors have the same affiliation, they should share it by using the same identifier.
• List of authors with their own ORCID ID.
• Corresponding author information: name, affiliation, city, country, and email.
• Number of words: specify the total number of words in the body of the text (excluding abstracts, titles, author details, tables and/or figures, and list of references).
• Number of figures and tables: indicate the total number of tables and figures.

Abstract in Spanish

The abstract of original research articles should not exceed 250 words and should be structured as follows:

• Introduction: Describe briefly and in general terms the topic or problem to be addressed in the study that led to raise the objective of the study.
• Objective: Clearly state the objective of your article. Leave no room for ambiguities. Please keep in mind that the title, results, discussion and conclusions should be in line with the objective, which should be the same as the objective stated in the body of the article.
• Methodology: Clearly and concisely describe information regarding study type, study population and sample (properly characterized), and study period. Describe the procedures performed or instruments used for data collection (if applicable). Finally, include information about the statistical analysis (descriptive or inferential, as appropriate) carried out for the study, using standard terms and clear wording.
• Results: State the most important findings of your study in relation to the objective. In quantitative studies, results should be supported with data (percentages, frequencies, p-values, OR, RR or HR with their respective 95%CI, etc.), so they should always be exact; do not make approximations. Also, unless they are presented as whole numbers, always use two decimal places.
• Conclusion: The conclusion should be directly related to the objective and supported by the findings of the research. The information presented in the Results section should not be repeated here, and results should only be mentioned in a narrative form to support the conclusion.

Keywords (Spanish)

• Include 3 to 6 terms that are found as exact descriptors in DeCS Bireme (http://decs.bvs.br/).

Abstract in English

The abstract in English must match its Spanish version and must be translated or proofread by an official translator specialized in biomedical texts in English. Machine translations will not be accepted.

Keywords

• Include 3 to 6 terms that are found as exact descriptors in MeSH (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/).

Introduction

Provide a brief and general contextualization of the rationale for the study and the topic or issue that gave rise to the objective and explain the importance of carrying out the study (justification). Include current (preferably from the last 5 years) and pertinent information, citing only the most relevant publications related to the topic.

All facts and statements included in this section must be properly cited and authors must verify that they coincide exactly with the data reported in the cited study or studies. If you are referring to data, findings or statements of a single study, only cite the source study and do not include more references; on the contrary, if you are describing general data or statements (e.g., ranges), you may cite several studies at the same time. If possible, include direct references from primary studies (original studies, systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses).

At the end of the section, report the objective of the study, which should be the same as the one described in the abstract.

Methodology

This section should describe in detail the study type, study population and sample selection process, as well as the procedures undertaken (methods and/or instruments used for data collection, study variables, etc.) and the statistical analyses performed, so that other researchers can replicate the work or can conduct new studies based on the results published in your article. Please note that, if your work involves the use of new methods and protocols, they should be described in detail; on the contrary, if you use well-established methods, describe them briefly provided that the pertinent references are listed. Where applicable (studies involving data from human subjects or the direct or indirect participation of human subjects), ethical considerations should be reported.

For a clearer presentation of the section, organize it (explicitly or implicitly) as follows, whenever possible:

• Design/Study Type
• State the exact name of the study type or design; specify the study period, unless this information is described in the objective of the study or in the characterization of the study population or the sample selection process (next subsection).
• Study population and sample (primary data) or used data (secondary data)
• Describe and characterize the study population and explain the final sample selection process: sample size estimation (if applicable), sampling method, selection process (the study population or universe and inclusion and/or exclusion criteria); provide the number of the final sample. We recommend complementing this information with a flow chart illustrating the participant selection process.
• For case-control studies, clearly describe the ratio of each group (e.g., 1:2), provide the n (e.g.,  120; 240), and characterize both cases and controls
• For studies based on secondary data, describe the data selection process, including the origin of the data, study period, inclusion and/or exclusion criteria, and total number of records included.
• Procedures
• This subsection, depending on the type of study, can be labeled "Procedures" or "Procedures and Instruments" or "Procedures and Study Variables" or "Procedures, Study Variables, and Instruments"; they can also be listed as three separate subsections.
• Describe all procedures carried out: why, how, where, when, and by whom (e.g., whether data were obtained from a medical record review or through questionnaires, interviews, focus groups, etc.)
• If data were obtained by means of instruments created and/or validated by other researchers, please describe them briefly (e.g., name of the instrument, components it assesses, number and type of questions, assessment scale or score, and cut-off points, etc.), including references. It should also be stated whether the instrument has been previously validated in the study population or a similar population, including the citation of such validation.
• If an instrument designed by the authors of the article was used, in addition to its description, and provided that it is not a simple instrument designed ad hoc for the collection of basic data (e.g., sociodemographic information, since, in this case, it will only be necessary to report that an ad hoc questionnaire was used to obtain data on certain variables), it is necessary to report its validation process (validation by experts, pilot test, adjustments, etc.); if a pilot test was carried out, describe it clearly.
• It is recommended to include the instruments used (e.g. questionnaires) as annexes at the end of the document.
• List all the variables considered in the study, either by categories (sociodemographic, clinical, intervention, etc.) or individually (sex, age, presence of comorbidities, 28-day mortality, etc.). Specify which are the independent variables and which are the dependent variables.
• For experimental studies involving interventions (pharmacological or not) in humans or animals, it should be clearly indicated that the intervention protocol was registered in a protocol registry database such as https://clinicaltrials.gov, providing the registry identifier.
• Statistical analysis or Data analysis
• Describe in detail all statistical analyses performed, starting with the software package(s) in which the data were entered and analyzed. Then, present all information related to the descriptive analysis of the data according to the type of variable and the distribution of the data (absolute frequencies, percentages, means, medians, standard deviations, interquartile ranges, etc.)
• Moreover, if inferential statistics were used, state each of the statistical analyses performed (bivariate, multivariate, ANOVA, MANOVA, etc.), the purpose for performing them, the statistical tests that were used or the statistics and/or coefficients calculated according to the type of variable (e.g., chi-square test, Mann-Withney U test, Spearman's r correlation coefficient, whether crude and/or adjusted OR, RR or HR were calculated, etc.), and the level of statistical significance.
• For qualitative studies, this section should be titled "Data Analysis" and should contain all information related to the qualitative analysis of the data; for example, describe how data saturation was determined, the creation of categories of analysis, coding of interviews, etc.
• Ethical considerations
• If the study involved direct (e.g., focus groups, interviews, administration of questionnaires, interventions, etc.) or indirect participation (data from medical records) of human subjects, it is necessary to report that the research was approved by an institutional ethics committee, stating the full name of the committee and the institution, as well as the number of the minutes and their date of issue. In addition, it is necessary to inform that the study followed the ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects established in the Declaration of Helsinki (duly cited) and, finally, in the case of direct participation, it should be reported that informed consent was obtained from all participants. These requirements are mandatory for this type of article.
• This subsection may be omitted if the study only uses secondary data obtained from databases (public or private) or other data sources.

Results

This section should only include, in an organized and coherent manner, the results of the study as per its objective and as reported in the methodology section; please do not discuss them.

In the body of the text include only the most significant results or findings in relation to the objective of the study, always supported with quantitative data (percentages, n, p-values, values of the coefficients used, OR, RR or HR with their respective 95%CI, etc.), and use tables and figures to present all the results.

Data should be exact; do not make approximations and always use two decimal places in the percentages.

Do not include data obtained from statistical analysis or tests or procedures that have not been described in the Statistical Analysis subsection. Hence the importance of fully describing this subsection in the Methodology section.

If your study is qualitative, present the results conforming to what is reported in the  Methodology section (e.g., if you include excerpts from interviews, they should be identified by means of the coding reported in Methodology).

Tables and/or figures should follow the instructions outlined in the "General Considerations" section of these guidelines. Do not place them at the end of the article; they must appear immediately after the paragraph in which they are first mentioned.

Discussion

Discuss the most important results/findings of your study in relation to its objective and how they can be interpreted from the perspective and findings of similar studies.

While it is possible to present a brief overview of the topic in the “Discussion” section, it should not exceed one or two paragraphs at the beginning of this section, as it is not the space for a general review of the literature; in fact, this overview should be made in the “Introduction” section.

Please refrain from mentioning all the findings, instead discuss only the most important ones and compare them with what has been reported in the relevant literature, describing whether your findings coincide with or differ from those reported by similar studies, and addressing the possible causes of discrepancies or the implications of such discrepancies or similarities.

Compare and interpret your results in light of similar (e.g., design and similar population) and current (preferably published within the last 5 years, up to a maximum of 10 years) studies, and report primary findings (e.g., research articles, clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyzes, research papers, clinical trials, systematic reviews,  among others). Do not include literature reviews, letters to the editor, or reflections reporting data from primary sources; instead, include primary sources.

The findings can be discussed both in general and in detail. It is suggested that the main findings be mentioned in a general manner in the first, followed by a list and discussion of each finding in separate paragraphs.

In order to make this easier, it is recommended to discuss individual findings using the following options:

• Discussion/comparison of the finding against the results reported by one, two or three studies individually: 1) Report your individual finding to be discussed and include the data that supports it to make the comparison easier (repeating the information in this part is not an issue because only the most important findings will be discussed.) 2) Mention whether the finding is similar or different from what has been reported in the comparison study, which should be contextualized the first time it is mentioned in the section (at least basic study data such as sample, type of population, and country or region or other relevant data), reporting the exact finding of that study (i.e., supported also with quantitative data; if there are other comparative studies, repeat the steps outlined in step two. 3) If the finding is similar to what has been reported in the comparison study or studies, discuss the possible implications of your finding; if, on the contrary, it differs or differs partially (e.g., it is similar to what was described in one study, but differs from what was reported in another or others), explain the possible reason(s) for such difference(s) (e.g., sample sizes, characteristics of the study, etc.)
• When there is a considerable amount of similar studies in the literature to compare and discuss the individual finding: 1) Report your individual finding to be discussed and include the supporting data to make the comparison easier (repeating the information in this part is not an issue because only the most important findings will be discussed). 2) State whether it is consistent or different from what is reported in the literature; if possible, summarize the data from these studies using ranges and add the references that support this information (3 or more studies). 3) Depending on each case, discuss the possible implications of the finding (whether it is similar or different from what has been reported) or the possible reasons that may explain the discrepancy.

Verify that the data supporting the findings of the comparison studies are accurate (do not make approximations) and that they do match what is reported in those studies; also, confirm that the reference matches the study from which the information was extracted.

At the end of the section, describe the limitations and/or strengths of the study. In there are limitations, if you deem it relevant, it is possible to make recommendations on how to address or solve them in further studies.

Conclusion or conclusions

The conclusion or conclusions should be directly related to the objective of the study and supported by its results. In this regard, avoid repeating the results and only include the information necessary to support the conclusion.

Conflicts of interest

• State whether or not the authors have conflicts of interest. If none, add the following: “None stated by the authors.”

Funding

• State whether funding was received for the study. If not, add the following: “None stated by the authors.”

Acknowledgments (this section should be included after the Funding statement)

• State whether or not there are acknowledgments. Only thank people who directly or indirectly contributed to the completion of the study. If none, add the following: “None stated by the authors.”

Note: If the article is derived from a thesis (undergraduate or master's) or a doctoral thesis, this should be reported in a note after the conclusions, including the reference of such thesis according to the Vancouver referencing style.

Note 2: The copy of the Institutional Ethics Committee approval document must be uploaded as a supplementary file in step 2 of the submission process.

This type of article presents a detailed report of the symptoms, clinical signs, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of a patient. The body of the text (i.e., excluding tables, figures, abstracts, and references) should not exceed 2000 words.

Case reports must comply with all items on the CARE Checklist for Case Reports (http://www.care-statement.org/resources/checklist). Case reports that do not have such structure and do not include the information requested in the CARE checklist items will not be accepted.

According to the CARE guidelines for submission, case reports must comply with the following structure (please note that all the information must be included in the article. Do not submit this information in different files):

Title page and author details

• Title of the article (in Spanish and English), which must comply with the request in item 1 of the CARE checklist.
• Running title of the article (English and Spanish); it should not exceed 40 characters.
• Full names of authors as they appear in citations (do not use initials), along with the corresponding affiliation identification (superscript Arabic numerals).
• Full affiliation of each author without specifying positions and/or degrees; only list the institutions and sections within them (faculties, departments, schools, etc.), along with the city and country. If an author has more than one affiliation, they should be identified separately; conversely, if two or more authors have the same affiliation, they should share it by using the same identifier.
• List of authors with their own ORCID ID.
• Corresponding author information: name, affiliation, city, country, and email.
• Number of words: specify the total number of words in the body of the text (excluding abstracts, titles, author details, tables and/or figures, and list of references).
• Number of figures and tables: indicate the total number of tables and figures.

Abstract in Spanish

The abstract of a case report should not exceed 250 words and should be structured as follows (items 3a-3d of the CARE checklist):

• Introduction: Item 3a of the CARE checklist. Provide a brief description of the main case diagnosis(es).
• Case presentation: Items 3b and 3c of the CARE checklist. Describe the main aspects of the case: basic data of the patient (sex, age), city, service and level of care of the center where the patient was treated, and reasons for consultation; medical history (personal or family) may be included if relevant. Then, describe the main clinical findings, always specifying the diagnostic test that reports the result, the main diagnoses made, as well as the main therapeutic interventions (e.g., the use of a modified surgical technique). Finally, report the main results of the interventions. If two cases are presented, the basic data of both must be described individually, and then point out common features.
• Conclusion: Items 3d of the CARE checklist. Mention the main lessons that can be drawn from the case.

Keywords (Spanish)

• Include 3 to 6 terms that are found as exact descriptors in DeCS Bireme (http://decs.bvs.br/).

Abstract in English

The abstract in English must match its Spanish version; it must be translated or proofread by an official translator specialized in biomedical texts in English. Machine translations will not be accepted.

Keywords

• Include 3 to 6 terms that are found as exact descriptors in MeSH (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/).

Introduction (item 4 of the CARE checklist)

Include one to three paragraphs summarizing the most important information about the diseases and/or interventions to be reported. If possible, indicate what makes this case unique and what new contributions it makes to the medical literature.

The information presented in this section should be recent (published in the last 5 years). If less recent literature is used, its use should be justified.

All data and facts included in this section must be properly cited and must exactly match the data described in the cited study or studies; if data, findings or facts of a single study are being discussed, cite only the source study and do not include more references; conversely, if you describe general data or facts (e.g., ranges), you can reference several studies at the same time.

At the end of this section, introduce the case in general terms (maximum 3 lines), or the objective of the report.

Case presentation (items 5 a 10 of the CARE checklist)

The case should be presented taking into account that, unlike the authors, the readers have no knowledge of what happened and, therefore, the description should be as complete and clear as possible. In this sense, the presentation of the case should take into account items 5 (5a, 5b, 5c, 5D), 6, 7, 8 (8a, 8b, 8c, 8d), 9 (9a, 9b, 9c), and 10 (10a, 10b, 10c, 10d) of the CARE checklist.

Accordingly, the case description can be implicitly divided into patient information, clinical findings and diagnostic evaluation, and therapeutic intervention, outcomes and follow-up.

A very important aspect in the description of the case is the timeline and the chronological identification (item 7 of the CARE checklist) of all the events associated with the case (e.g., laboratory tests, imaging studies, surgical interventions, implementation, modification or suspension of treatments, occurrence of adverse events, etc.) This timeline can be established by taking day 1 of care as the reference point (e.g., admission to the emergency department or hospitalization). If the case spans several years and/or the patient received outpatient care, we recommend the use of dates.

In cases where the use of a modified or adapted surgical technique is to be highlighted, a complete description should be included in the section where the therapeutic interventions performed are described.

Discussion (items 11a - 11c of the CARE checklist)

Present relevant and current information (preferably published within the last 5 years, up to a maximum of 10 years) on the condition addressed in the report (clinical signs and symptoms, diagnostic tests, available treatments and interventions, clinical manifestations, complications, diagnostic challenges, outcomes, etc.), and connect this information to the events related to your case, indicating the strengths and limitations associated with the management of the case.

As indicated in the Introduction section, all the information mentioned in the Discussion section must be consistent with what is reported in the studies or documents that you add as references in this section.

Conclusion (item 11d of the CARE checklist)

List the main lessons that can be drawn from the case report (without references) in one or two paragraphs at most.

Informed consent (item 13 of the CARE checklist)

Confirm that the patient or the patient's legal guardian has given their informed consent. Upload the informed consent form as a supplementary file to the OJS submission (Step 2).

If there is no informed consent, it is necessary to inform that the use of the data and the preparation of the report were approved by the ethics committee of the institution where the patient was treated, specifying the number of the minutes and the date of issue. Likewise, upload the copy of the ethics committee approval minutes as a complementary file in the OJS submission (step 2).

Case reports that do not include an informed consent or ethics committee approval will not be accepted.

Conflicts of interest

• State whether or not the authors have conflicts of interest. If none, add the following: “None stated by the authors.”

Funding

• State whether funding was received for the study. If not, add the following: “None stated by the authors.”

Acknowledgments (this section should be included after the Funding statement)

• State whether or not there are acknowledgments. Only thank people who directly or indirectly contributed to the completion of the study. If none, add the following: “None stated by the authors.”

Meta-analyses and/or Systematic reviews

These types of articles are the product of a rigorous research in which results of studies published or in press on a specific topic are analyzed, systematized and integrated to answer a question that is defined following the PICO strategy and upon which the objective of the review was established. The body of the text (i.e., excluding tables, figures, abstracts, and references) should not exceed 4200 words.

Systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses should comply with the following structure as per the PRISMA 2020 checklist (https://bit.ly/3S3ESsu; expanded version: https://bit.ly/3YSrglO) and/or PRISMA 2009 checklist (https://bit.ly/3lxRs70):

Page of titles and information of authors

• Title of the article (in Spanish and English), providing accurate and concrete information on the topic to be discussed. Identify the study as a systematic review. Avoid long titles (preferably no longer than 100 characters).
• Running title of the article (English and Spanish); it should not exceed 40 characters.
• Full names of authors as they appear in citations (do not use initials), along with the corresponding affiliation identification (superscript Arabic numerals).
• Full affiliation of each author without specifying positions and/or degrees; only list the institutions and sections within them (faculties, departments, schools, etc.), along with the city and country. If an author has more than one affiliation, they should be identified separately; conversely, if two or more authors have the same affiliation, they should share it by using the same identifier.
• List of authors with their own ORCID ID.
• Corresponding author information: name, affiliation, city, country, and email.
• Number of words: specify the total number of words in the body of the text (excluding abstracts, titles, author details, tables and/or figures, and list of references).
• Number of figures and tables: indicate the total number of tables and figures.

Abstract in Spanish

The abstract of systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses should not exceed 250 words and should be structured as follows (based on the PRISMA abstract checklist: https://www.prisma-statement.org/documents/PRISMA_2020_abstract_checklist.pdf).

• Introduction: Briefly describe the topic or issue to be addressed in the study that led to raise the objective of the study.
• Objective: Clearly state the objective of your article. Leave no room for ambiguities. Please keep in mind that the title, results, discussion and conclusions should be in line with the objective. It should be the same as the objective stated in the body of the article.
• Methodolody: Describe the sources of information and the initial search strategy (filters): types of studies considered; period of publication; languages of publication; search terms/search strategy; date each search was conducted. Provide the registration and review protocol links (e.g. PROSPERO). In the case of a meta-analysis, briefly describe the statistical methods used to obtain the pooled estimates.
• Results: Specify the number of studies included and the total number of participants (in the case of meta-analyses) and summarize the main characteristics of the studies (e.g., how many studies were clinical trials or how many were in English, etc.) Include quantitative data only. Present the results of the main outcomes in relation to your objective, preferably indicating the number of studies and participants for each. If meta-analyses were carried out, report the pooled estimates most relevant to the objective of the review. If groups were compared, present the relevant data and indicate the effect direction (i.e., which group was favored).
• Conclusion: Provide an overall interpretation of the evidence found and the results obtained, as well as the implications for future research. Note that the conclusion should be related to the objective and supported by the results of the review and/or meta-analysis.

Keywords (Spanish)

• Include 3 to 6 terms that are found as exact descriptors in DeCS Bireme (http://decs.bvs.br/).

Abstract in English

The abstract in English must match its Spanish version; it must be translated or proofread by an official translator specialized in biomedical texts in English. Machine translations will not be accepted.

Keywords

• Include 3 to 6 terms that are found as exact descriptors in MeSH (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/).

Introduction (items 3 and 4 of the PRISMA 2020 checklist - 3 and 4 of the PRISMA 2009 checklist)

Describe the rationale for the review and/or meta-analysis: put in context the topic or issue that gave rise to the objective and support the importance of carrying out the study. Include current (preferably from the last 5 years) and relevant information, citing only the most relevant publications related to the topic.

All data and facts included in this section must be properly cited and must exactly match the data described in the cited study or studies; if data, findings or facts of a single study are being discussed, cite only the source study and do not include more references; conversely, if you describe general data or facts (e.g., ranges), you can reference several studies at the same time. If possible, include direct references from primary studies (original studies, systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses).

At the end of the section, report the objective of the study, which should be the same as the one described in the abstract.

Methodology (items 5-16 of the PRISMA 2020 checklist - 5-16 of the PRISMA 2009 checklist)

Describe all aspects related to the search for evidence: sources of information, initial search strategy, eligibility criteria (inclusion and exclusion), study selection process (selection stages, inclusion/exclusion criteria, etc.), and data extraction process (e.g., what data were collected in each included study). Provide the links to the review search protocol registry (e.g.,  PROSPERO), or report if the review protocol was not registered, in which case you should add information on the review protocol, in which case you should add the detailed information for each of the searches in an annex. If meta-analyses were performed, the type(s) of meta-analysis(es) conducted should be described, including a full description of the statistical analyses used to calculate the measures of effect. If appropriate, present this information in subsections.

Results (items 16 to 22 of the PRISMA 2020 checklist - 17-23 of the PRISMA 2009 checklist)

Present the results of the search and screening process, reporting the number of records identified, the studies excluded at the different stages of the screening process, and the number of studies finally included in the review. Complete this description with the PRISMA flowchart, available at https://prisma-statement.org/prismastatement/flowdiagram.aspx.

Provide the number of studies included and the total number of participants and give a brief quantitative characterization of the included studies, e.g., by type of study, language of publication, country or region, etc.

In a table, list the main characteristics of all the studies included in the review; they should be cited following the Vancouver guidelines (order of appearance). The characteristics may vary depending on the objective of the review but include at least the following information for each study: authors and reference number, sample size (n), type of study, and main findings (in relation to the objective of the review). Other characteristics may comprise: characterization of the population, objective, instruments used, country where the study was conducted, etc.

Report the remaining quantitative results of the systematic review and/or meta-analysis taking into account items 18 to 22 of the PRISMA checklist.

Discussion (items 23a-23C of the PRISMA 2020 checklist - 24-25 of the PRISMA 2009 checklist)

Describe the main findings derived from the analysis of the evidence reported by the studies included in the review. Remember that this description should only take into account the information presented by the articles included in the review for analysis.

Provide an overall interpretation of the results obtained in the context of the evidence reported in similar studies, i.e., whether their findings are similar to or differ from those reported by other systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses addressing the same question or objective.

Discuss the limitations of the evidence included in the review, as well as the limitations of the review processes implemented.

Conclusion (item 23 of the PRISMA 2020 checklist - 26 of the PRISMA 2009 checklist)

Provide an overall interpretation of the evidence found and the results obtained, as well as the implications for clinical practice and further research. The conclusion should relate to the objective and be supported by the results of the review and/or meta-analysis.

Conflicts of interest

• State whether or not the authors have conflicts of interest. If none, add the following: “None stated by the authors.”

Funding

• State whether funding was received for the study. If not, add the following: “None stated by the authors.”

Acknowledgments (this section should be included after the Funding statement)

• State whether or not there are acknowledgments. Only thank people who directly or indirectly contributed to the completion of the study. If none, add the following: “None stated by the authors.”

Narrative/literature reviews

Narrative/literature reviews must also strictly comply with the following structure in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 (https://bit.ly/3S3ESsu; expanded version: https://bit.ly/3YSrglO) and/or 2009 checklist (https://bit.ly/3lxRs70). Although not all items must be met, the following is a summary of the guidelines in place for systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses.

Page of titles and information of authors

• Title of the article (in Spanish and English), providing accurate and concrete information on the topic to be discussed in the manuscript. Identify the study as a literature review. Avoid long titles (preferably no longer than 100 characters).
• Running title of the article (English and Spanish); it should not exceed 40 characters.
• Full names of authors as they appear in citations (do not use initials), along with the corresponding affiliation identification (superscript Arabic numerals).
• Full affiliation of each author without specifying positions and/or degrees; only list the institutions and sections within them (faculties, departments, schools, etc.), along with the city and country. If an author has more than one affiliation, they should be identified separately; conversely, if two or more authors have the same affiliation, they should share it by using the same identifier.
• List of authors with their own ORCID ID.
• Corresponding author information: name, affiliation, city, country, and email.
• Number of words: specify the total number of words in the body of the text (excluding abstracts, titles, author details, tables and/or figures, and list of references).
• Number of figures and tables: indicate the total number of tables and figures.

Abstract in Spanish

The abstract should have the same structure and information requested for systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses. The subsections "Methodology" and "Results" will vary slightly as there is no information regarding meta-analysis(es) in these articles.

Keywords (Spanish)

• Include 3 to 6 terms that are found as exact descriptors in DeCS Bireme (http://decs.bvs.br/).

Abstract in English

The abstract in English must match its Spanish version; it must be translated or proofread by an official translator specialized in biomedical texts in English. Machine translations will not be accepted.

Keywords

• Include 3 to 6 terms that are found as exact descriptors in MeSH (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/).

Introduction (items 3 and 4 of the PRISMA 2020 checklist - 3 and 4 of the PRISMA 2009 checklist)

Follow the same guidelines established for systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses.

Methodology (items 5-16 of the PRISMA 2020 checklist - 5-16 of the PRISMA 2009 checklist)

Follow the same guidelines established for systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses, disregarding the requirements for the meta-analysis section.

Results (items 16-17 of the PRISMA 2020 checklist - 17-18 of the PRISMA 2009 checklist)

Follow the same guidelines established for systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses. Since this is a literature review, only items 16 and 17 of the PRISMA 2020 checklist or 17 and 18 of PRISMA 2009 checklist should be taken into account, that is, the results related to the search and selection process of the studies, the quantitative characterization of the included studies, and the insertion of a table with the main characteristics of all included studies (duly cited).

Discussion (items 23a and 23c of the PRISMA 2020 checklist - 24-25 of the PRISMA 2009 checklist)

Describe the main findings obtained after analyzing the evidence reported by the studies included in the review. Keep in mind that this description should only consider the information presented in the articles included in the review for analysis.

Discuss the limitations of the review processes implemented.

Conclusion (item 23 of the PRISMA 2020 checklist - 26 of the PRISMA 2009 checklist)

Provide an overall interpretation of the evidence found and the results obtained, as well as the implications for clinical practice and future research. The conclusion should relate to the objective and be supported by the results of the review.

Conflicts of interest

• State whether or not the authors have conflicts of interest. If none, add the following: “None stated by the authors.”

Funding

• State whether funding was received for the study. If not, add the following: “None stated by the authors.”

Acknowledgments (this section should be included after the Funding statement)

• State whether or not there are acknowledgments. Only thank people who directly or indirectly contributed to the completion of the study. If none, add the following: “None stated by the authors.”

NOTE: Currently, the journal only accepts systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses. If your article is a narrative/literature review and you believe it may be of interest to the Journal’s editorial policy, please adjust the article in accordance with the guidelines described above and send an email to rcot@sccot.org.co requesting a preliminary review of your article.

This type of article presents a critical and analytical reflection on a topic or problem relevant to orthopedics and trauma or related areas. The body of the text (i.e., excluding tables, figures, abstracts, and references) should not exceed 3200 words.

Reflection articles must comply with the following structure (note that all information should appear in the article. Do not submit this information in different files.)

Title page and author details

• Title of the article (in Spanish and English), providing accurate and concrete information on the topic to be discussed in the manuscript. Avoid long titles (preferably no longer than 100 characters).
• Running title of the article (English and Spanish); it should not exceed 40 characters.
• Full names of authors as they appear in citations (do not use initials), along with the corresponding affiliation identification (superscript Arabic numerals).
• Full affiliation of each author without specifying positions and/or degrees; only list the institutions and sections within them (faculties, departments, schools, etc.), along with the city and country. If an author has more than one affiliation they must be identified separately, if on the contrary two or more authors have the same affiliation, they will share it when using the same identifier.
• List of authors with their own ORCID ID.
• Corresponding author information: name, affiliation, city, country, and email.
• Number of words: specify the total number of words in the body of the text (excluding abstracts, titles, author details, tables and/or figures, and list of references).
• Number of figures and tables: indicate the total number of tables and figures.

Abstract in Spanish

The abstract of reflection articles should not exceed 250 words and, although there is no established structure, it should briefly describe the key issues to be addressed in the article, providing a context for the main topic or problem upon which the objective of the analytical and critical reflection is based. The objective of the reflection must be clearly and unambiguously stated in the abstract; both the title and the contents of the reflection must be in line with the objective.

Abstract in English

The abstract in English must match its Spanish version; it must be translated or proofread by an official translator specialized in biomedical texts in English. Machine translations will not be accepted.

Introduction

Provide a brief and broad context of the rationale for the study: the topic or problem upon which the objective is based and explain the importance of carrying out the study (justification). Include current (preferably from the last 5 years) and pertinent information, citing only the most relevant publications related to the topic.

All data and facts included in this section must be properly cited and must exactly match the data described in the cited study or studies; if data, findings or facts of a single study are being discussed, cite only the source study and do not include more references; conversely, if you describe general data or facts (e.g., ranges), you may cite several studies at the same time. If possible, include direct references from primary studies (original studies, systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses).

At the end of the section, report the objective of the study, which should be the same as the one described in the abstract.

Text of the article

Reflection articles do not have a fixed structure; however, they should at least consist of an Introduction, Body (section in which one or more subsections can be included), and Conclusions. The Body of the article is understood as all the subsections that the authors deem relevant for the development of a critical reflection, as long as they are related to its objective. Information should be recent (most studies and other sources published in the last 5 years, 8 years at most). Keep in mind that all statements made must be duly supported by references; do not emit personal judgments that are not supported by the relevant literature.

Conclusions

The conclusion or conclusions should be directly related to the objective of the study and supported by what is reported in the Body of the article. Do not address issues that were not analyzed or discussed in the paper. When appropriate, make recommendations based on the critical analysis presented in the article, but describe them as such (e.g., recommended, suggested).

Conflicts of interest

• State whether or not the authors have conflicts of interest. If none, add the following: “None stated by the authors.”

Funding

• State whether funding was received for the study. If not, add the following: “None stated by the authors.”

Acknowledgments (this section should be included after the Funding statement)

• State whether or not there are acknowledgments. Only thank people who directly or indirectly contributed to the completion of the study. If none, add the following: “None stated by the authors.”

This is a document in which critical, analytical or interpretative stances on articles published in the Revista Colombiana de Ortopedia y Traumatología are discussed, which, in the opinion of the Editorial Committee, contribute significantly to the analysis of the topic addressed in those articles. Letters to the editor that do not discuss the contents published in the Journal but address current relevant topics and that, in the opinion of the Editorial Committee, can contribute to the discussion of such topics, will also be accepted. The body of the text (i.e., excluding tables, figures, abstracts, and references) should not exceed 1000 words.

This type of article does not require an abstract.

This is a short manuscript (no longer than 1000 words) written by the Editor, a member of the Editorial Board, or a guest researcher on one or more of the topics addressed in the issue of the journal in which it is published, or on a current topic of relevance to orthopedics and trauma.