Management of confounding in controlled orthopaedic trials: A cross-sectional study

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research

Volumn 466, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 985-989

  Vavken, Patrick ^a   Culen, Georg ^b   Dorotka, Ronald ^a  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^b Unfallkrankenhaus Meidling   (Austria)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONFOUNDING VARIABLE; DATA ANALYSIS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; EPIDEMIOLOGY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY; PUBLICATION; REPRODUCIBILITY; RISK; STANDARD; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; ODDS RATIO; ORTHOPEDIC PROCEDURES; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 43349083828     PISSN: 0009921X     EISSN: 15281132     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11999-007-0098-y     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Bryant D, Havey TC, Roberts R, Guyatt G. How many patients? How many limbs? Analysis of patients or limbs in the orthopaedic literature: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:41-45.
2. Bubbar VK, Kreder HJ. Topics in training: the intention-to-treat principle: a primer for the orthopaedic surgeon. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:2097-2099.
3. Carr AJ. Evidence-based orthopaedic surgery: what type of research will best improve clinical practice? J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:1593-1594.
4. Emerson JD, Burdick E, Hoaglin DC, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. An empirical study of the possible relation of treatment differences to quality scores in controlled randomized clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1990;11:339-352.
5. Freedman KB, Back S, Bernstein J. Sample size and statistical power of randomised, controlled trials in orthopaedics. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83:397-402.
6. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1-12.
7. Kocher MS, Zurakowski D. Clinical epidemiology and biostatistics: a primer for orthopaedic surgeons. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:607-620.
8. Lochner HV, Bhandari M, Tornetta P 3rd. Type-II error rates (beta errors) of randomized trials in orthopaedic trauma. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:1650-1655.
9. McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M, Lovett B, Griffin D. Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions. BMJ. 2002;324:1448-1451.
10. Müllner M, Matthews H, Altman DG. Reporting on statistical methods to adjust for confounding: a cross-sectional survey. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:122-126.
11. Petrie A. Statistics in orthopaedic papers. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:1121-1136.
12. Poolman RW, Sierevelt IN, Farrokhyar F, Mazel JA, Blankevoort L, Bhandari M. Perceptions and competence in evidence-based medicine: are surgeons getting better? A questionnaire survey of members of the Dutch Orthopaedic Association. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:206-215.
13. Poolman RW, Struijs PA, Krips R, Sierevelt IN, Lutz KH, Bhandari M. Does a "Level I Evidence" rating imply high quality of reporting in orthopaedic randomised controlled trials? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:44.
14. Weinberg CR. Toward a clearer definition of confounding. Am J Epidemiol. 1993;137:1-8.
15. Wright JG, Swiontkowski MF, Heckman JD. Introducing levels of evidence to the journal. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:1-3.