Methods for the systematic reviews on patient safety during spine surgery

Spine

Volumn 35, Issue SUPPL. 9S, 2010, Pages

  Dettori, Joseph R ^a   Norvell, Daniel C ^a   Dekutoski, Mark ^b   Fisher, Charles ^c   Chapman, Jens R ^d  

^a Spectrum Research Inc   (United States)

^b MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Adverse events; Complications; Methods; Spine surgery; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; PATIENT DECISION MAKING; PATIENT SAFETY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK FACTOR; SPINE SURGERY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

HUMANS; IATROGENIC DISEASE; INCIDENCE; INFORMED CONSENT; MEDICAL ERRORS; NEUROSURGICAL PROCEDURES; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAFETY; SPINAL DISEASES;

EID: 77951768502     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d70494     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Dickersin K, Manheimer E, Wieland S, et al. Development of the Cochrane Collaboration's CENTRAL Register of controlled clinical trials. Eval Health Prof 2002;25:38-64.
2. Phillips B, Ball C, Sackett D, et al. Levels of Evidence and Grades of Recommendation. Available at: http://www.cebm.net/levels-of-evidence.asp. Last accessed December 2, 2006.
3. Wright JG, Swiontkowski MF, Heckman JD. Introducing levels of evidence to the journal. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003;85:1-3.
4. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 19 2004;328:1490.
5. West S, King V, Carey TS, et al. Systems to Rate the Strength of Scientific Evidence. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2002. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No.47 (Prepared by the Research Triangle Institute-University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center, Contract No. 290-97-0011).
6. Van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, et al. Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the cochrane collaboration back review group. Spine 2003;28:1290-1299
7. Guyatt G, Vist G, Falck-Ytter Y, et al. An emerging consensus on grading recommendations? ACP J Club 2006;144:A8-9.
8. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. Going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ 2008;336:1049-1051
9. Linstone H, Turnoff M. The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Reading: Addison-Wesley; 1975.
10. Juni P, Holenstein F, Sterne J, et al. Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study. Int J Epidemiol 2002;31: 115-123
11. Bhandari M, Swiontkowski MF, Einhorn TA, et al. Interobserver agreement in the application of levels of evidence to scientific papers in the American volume of the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86:1717-1720
12. Obremskey WT, Bhandari M, Dirschl DR, et al. Internal fixation versus arthroplasty of comminuted fractures of the distal humerus. J Orthop Trauma 2003;17:463-465
13. Poolman RW, Struijs PA, Krips R, et al. Does a "Level I Evidence" rating imply high quality of reporting in orthopaedic randomised controlled trials? BMC Med Res Methodol 2006;6:44.
14. Fenton JJ, Mirza SK, Lahad A, et al. Variation in reported safety of lumbar interbody fusion: influence of industrial sponsorship and other study characteristics. Spine 2007;32:471-480
15. Katz JN, Losina E, Barrett J, et al. Association between hospital and surgeon procedure volume and outcomes of total hip replacement in the United States medicare population. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001;83:1622-1629