Questionable Word Choice in Scientific Writing in Orthopedic Surgery

Document Type : RESEARCH PAPER


1 Albany Medical College, Albany, NY, USA The University of Texas at Austin, Dell Medical School, Austin, Texas, USA

2 The University of Texas at Austin, Dell Medical School, Austin, Texas, USA

3 Albany Medical College, Albany, NY, USA


Background: Given the strong influence of thoughts, emotions, and behaviors on musculoskeletal symptoms and
limitations it’s important that both scientific and lay writing use the most positive, hopeful, and adaptive words and
concepts consistent with medical evidence. The use of words that might reinforce misconceptions about preferencesensitive
conditions (particularly those associated with age) could increase symptoms and limitations and might also
distract patients from the treatment preferences they would select when informed and at ease.
Methods: We reviewed 100 consecutive papers published in 2014 and 2015 in 6 orthopedic surgery scientific journals.
We counted the number and proportion of journal articles with questionable use of one or more of the following words:
tear, aggressive, required, and fail. For each word, we counted the rate of misuse per journal and the number of specific
terms misused per article per journal
Results: Eighty percent of all orthopedic scientific articles reviewed had questionable use of at least one term. Tear
was most questionably used with respect to rotator cuff pathology. The words fail and require were the most common
questionably used terms overall.
Conclusion: The use of questionable words and concepts is common in scientific writing in orthopedic surgery. It’s
worth considering whether traditional ways or referring to musculoskeletal illness merit rephrasing.


Main Subjects

1. Barker KL, Reid M, Minns Lowe CJ. Divided by a lack of
common language? A qualitative study exploring the
use of language by health professionals treating back
pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2009; 10(1):123.
2. Di Blasi Z, Harkness E, Ernst E, Georgiou A, Kleijnen
J. Influence of context effects on health outcomes: a
systematic review. Lancet. 2001; 357(9258):757-62.
3. Verheul W, Sanders A, Bensing J. The effects of physicians’
affect-oriented communication style and raising
expectations on analogue patients’ anxiety, affect and
expectancies. Patient Educ Couns. 2010; 80(3):300-6.
4. Vranceanu AM, Elbon M, Adams M, Ring D. The
emotive impact of medical language. Hand (N Y).
2012; 7(3):293-6.
5. Yamaguchi K, Ditsios K, Middleton WD, Hildebolt
CF, Galatz LM, Teefey SA. The demographic and
morphological features of rotator cuff disease. A
comparison of asymptomatic and symptomatic
shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006; 88(8):1699-704.
6. Yamamoto A, Takagishi K, Osawa T, Yanagawa T,
Nakajima D, Shitara H, et al. Prevalence and risk
factors of a rotator cuff tear in the general population.
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010; 19(1):116-20.
7. Sher JS, Uribe JW, Posada A, Murphy BJ, Zlatkin MB.
Abnormal findings on magnetic resonance images of
asymptomatic shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;
8. Barker KL, Reid M, Minns Lowe CJ. What does the
language we use about arthritis mean to people
who have osteoarthritis? A qualitative study. Disabil
Rehabil. 2014; 36(5):367-72.
9. Vranceanu AM, Elbon M, Ring D. The emotive impact
of orthopedic words. J Hand Ther. 2011; 24(2):112-6.
10. Brom L, Pasman HR, Widdershoven GA, van der Vorst
MJ, Reijneveld JC, Postma TJ, et al. Patients’ preferences
for participation in treatment decision-making at
the end of life: qualitative interviews with advanced
cancer patients. PLoS One. 2014; 9(6):e100435.
11. Berghella V, Blackwell SC, Ramin SM, Sibai BM, Saade
GR. Use and misuse of the term “elective” in obstetrics.
Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 117(2 Pt 1):372-6.
12. Mall NA, Kim HM, Keener JD, Steger-May K, Teefey
SA, Middleton WD, et al. Symptomatic progression of
asymptomatic rotator cuff tears: a prospective study
of clinical and sonographic variables. J Bone Joint Surg
Am. 2010; 92(16):2623-33.
Volume 5, Issue 4
July 2017
Pages 231-234
  • Receive Date: 21 March 2016
  • Revise Date: 03 July 2016
  • Accept Date: 26 June 2016
  • First Publish Date: 01 July 2017