Methodology for the systematic reviews on an adjacent segment pathology

Spine

Volumn 37, Issue SUPPL. 22, 2012, Pages

  Norvell, Daniel C ^a   Dettori, Joseph R ^a   Skelly, Andrea C ^a   Riew, K Daniel ^b   Chapman, Jens R ^c   Anderson, Paul A ^d  

^a Spectrum Research Inc   (United States)

^b WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

adjacent segment disease; adjacent segment pathology; classifi cations; guidelines; meta analysis; risk factors; risks; systematic review

Indexed keywords

ADJACENT SEGMENT PATHOLOGY; CLINICAL ADJACENT SEGMENT PATHOLOGY; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; DISEASE PREDISPOSITION; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; KYPHOSIS; MEDICAL EXPERT; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROXIMAL JUNCTIONAL KYPHOSIS; RADIOGRAPHICAL ADJACENT SEGMENT PATHOLOGY; REVIEW; SPINAL CORD ATROPHY;

CHRONIC PAIN; CONSENSUS; DELPHI TECHNIQUE; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; LOW BACK PAIN; PAIN MANAGEMENT;

EID: 84867742893     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31826cd9c8     Document Type: Review

References (13)

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. (Pubitemid 34157783)
2. Phillips B, Ball C, Sackett D, et al. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendation. 2001. Available at: Http://www.cebm.net/levels-of-evidence.asp. 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-A: 1-3. (Pubitemid 36537965)
4. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004; 328: 1490.
5. West S, King V, Carey TS, et al. Systems to rate the strength of scientifi c evidence. 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). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2002.
6. Owens DK, Lohr KN, Atkins D, et al. AHRQ series paper 5: Grading the strength of a body of evidence when comparing medical interventions -agency for healthcare research and quality and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 513-23.
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: 1049-51.
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: 115-23. (Pubitemid 34284912)
11. Bhandari M, Swiontkowski MF, Einhorn TA, et al. Interobserver agreement in the application of levels of evidence to scientifi c papers in the American volume of the journal of bone and joint surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86-A: 1717-20. (Pubitemid 39014316)
12. Obremskey WT, Bhandari M, Dirschl DR, et al. Internal fi xation versus arthroplasty of comminuted fractures of the distal humerus. J Orthop Trauma 2003; 17: 463-5. (Pubitemid 36939338)
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.