The highest level of evidence in a high impact journal: Is this the final verdict?

Spine

Volumn 35, Issue 15, 2010, Pages

  Fisher, Charles G ^a   Vaccaro, Alexander R ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; BARTHEL INDEX; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; EXTERNAL VALIDITY; FEMUR FRACTURE; FOLLOW UP; FRACTURE HEALING; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HISTORY OF MEDICINE; HUMAN; IMMOBILIZATION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTERNAL VALIDITY; INTERVENTION STUDY; MEDICAL LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OSTEOPOROSIS; OSTEOSYNTHESIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PERCUTANEOUS VERTEBROPLASTY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SHORT SURVEY; SPINAL CORD COMPRESSION; SPINE FRACTURE; SYMPTOMATOLOGY; SYSTEMATIC ERROR; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VASCULARIZATION; VERTEBRA BODY; LUMBAR VERTEBRA; PROCEDURES; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); VERTEBRA;

EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; THORACIC VERTEBRAE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VERTEBROPLASTY;

EID: 77954866027     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181e41f87     Document Type: Short Survey

References (11)

1. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, et al. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn t. BMJ 1996;312:71-2.
2. Mandell BF. Evidence, limes, and cement. Cleve Clin J Med 2010; 77:7.
3. Kallmes DF, Comstock BA, Heagerty PJ, et al. A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for osteoporotic spinal fractures. N Engl J Med 2009;361:569-79.
4. Buchbinder R, Osborne RH, Ebeling PR, et al. A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures. N Engl J Med 2009;361:557-68.
5. Rousing R, Hansen KL, Andersen MO, et al. Twelve-months follow-up in forty-nine patients with acute/semiacute osteopo-rotic vertebral fractures treated conservatively or with percutaneous vertebroplasty: a clinical randomized study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:478-82.
6. Orr RD. Vertebroplasty, cognitive dissonance, and evidence-based medicine: what do we do when the 'evidence says we are wrong? Cleve Clin J Med 2010;77:8-11.
7. Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, et al. Surgical vs nonop-erative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) observational cohort. JAMA 2006;296:2451-9.
8. Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, et al. Surgical vs nonop-erative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT): a randomized trial. JAMA 2006;296:2441-50.
9. Thomas TL, Meggitt BF. A comparative study of methods for treating fractures of the distal half of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1981;63B:3-6.
10. St Pierre RK, Fleming SS, Fleming LL. Fractures of the femoral shaft: a prospective study of closed intramedullary nailing, modified open intramedullary nailing, and cast-bracing. South Med J 1982;75:827-35.
11. Rousing R, Andersen MO, Jespersen SM, et al. Percutaneous vertebroplasty compared to conservative treatment in patients with painful acute or subacute osteoporotic vertebral fractures: three-months follow-up in a clinical randomized study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009;34:1349-54.