Spine surgery research: on and beyond current strategies

Spine Journal

Volumn 12, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 706-713

  Jacobs, Wilco C H ^a   Kruyt, Moyo C ^b   Verbout, Ab J ^b   Oner, F Cumhur ^b  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Meta analysis as topic; Research design; Review literature as topic

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FOLLOW UP; GOLD STANDARD; HUMAN; LITERATURE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SPINE SURGERY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); SPINE DISEASE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; HUMANS; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; SPINAL DISEASES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

MLCS; MLOWN;

EID: 84872044170     PISSN: 15299430     EISSN: 18781632     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2012.08.424     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Higgins, J.P., Green, S., Guide to the contents of a Cochrane protocol and review. Higgins, J.P., Green, S., (eds.) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, 2008, The Cochrane Collaboration.
2. Lee, C.S., Hwang, C.J., Lee, D.H., et al. Fusion rates of instrumented lumbar spinal arthrodesis according to surgical approach: a systematic review of randomized trials. Clin Orthop Surg 3 (2011), 39–47.
3. Ioannidis, J.P., Integration of evidence from multiple meta-analyses: a primer on umbrella reviews, treatment networks and multiple treatments meta-analyses. CMAJ 181 (2009), 488–493.
4. van Tulder, M.W., Koes, B., Seitsalo, S., Malmivaara, A., Outcome of invasive treatment modalities on back pain and sciatica: an evidence-based review. Eur Spine J 15:Suppl (2006), S82–S92.
5. van Tulder, M.W., Koes, B., Malmivaara, A., Outcome of non-invasive treatment modalities on back pain: an evidence-based review. Eur Spine J 15:1 Suppl (2006), S64–S81.
6. Shekelle, P.G., Woolf, S.H., Eccles, M., Grimshaw, J., Clinical guidelines: developing guidelines. BMJ 318 (1999), 593–596.
7. Carragee, E.J., Hurwitz, E.L., Weiner, B.K., A critical review of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 trials in spinal surgery: emerging safety concerns and lessons learned. Spine J 11 (2011), 471–491.
8. Feiz-Erfan, I., Harrigan, M., Sonntag, V.K., Harrington, T.R., Effect of autologous platelet gel on early and late graft fusion in anterior cervical spine surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 7 (2007), 496–502.
9. Kallmes, D.F., Comstock, B.A., Heagerty, P.J., et al. A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for osteoporotic spinal fractures. N Engl J Med 361 (2009), 569–579.
10. Buchbinder, R., Osborne, R.H., Ebeling, P.R., et al. A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures. N Engl J Med 361 (2009), 557–568.
11. Saag, K.G., OMERACT 6 brings new perspectives to rheumatology measurement research. J Rheumatol 30 (2003), 639–641.
12. Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. Searching for studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration, 11 A.D.
13. Edwards, P., Clarke, M., DiGuiseppi, C., et al. Identification of randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews: accuracy and reliability of screening records. Stat Med 21 (2002), 1635–1640.
14. Sanderson, S., Tatt, I.D., Higgins, J.P., Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. Int J Epidemiol 36 (2007), 666–676.
15. Moher, D., Jadad, A.R., Nichol, G., et al. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials 16 (1995), 62–73.
16. Furlan, A.D., Pennick, V., Bombardier, C., van, T.M., 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine 34 (2009), 1929–1941.
17. Jadad, A.R., Moore, R.A., Carroll, D., et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?. Control Clin Trials 17 (1996), 1–12.
18. Hayden, J.A., Cote, P., Bombardier, C., Evaluation of the quality of prognosis studies in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 144 (2006), 427–437.
19. Whiting, P., Rutjes, A.W., Reitsma, J.B., et al. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 3, 2003, 25.
20. Greenland, S., O'Rourke, K., On the bias produced by quality scores in meta-analysis, and a hierarchical view of proposed solutions. Biostatistics 2 (2001), 463–471.
21. Balk, E.M., Bonis, P.A., Moskowitz, H., et al. Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 287 (2002), 2973–2982.
22. Guyatt, G.H., Oxman, A.D., Kunz, R., et al. Going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ 336 (2008), 1049–1051.
23. Schulz, K.F., Chalmers, I., Hayes, R.J., Altman, D.G., Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 273 (1995), 408–412.
24. Moher, D., Pham, B., Jones, A., et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?. Lancet 352 (1998), 609–613.
25. Kjaergard, L.L., Villumsen, J., Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med 135 (2001), 982–989.
26. Siersma, V., Als-Nielsen, B., Chen, W., et al. Multivariable modelling for meta-epidemiological assessment of the association between trial quality and treatment effects estimated in randomized clinical trials. Stat Med 26 (2007), 2745–2758.
27. Wood, L., Egger, M., Gluud, L.L., et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 336 (2008), 601–605.
28. Jacobs WCH, Kruyt MC, Verbout AJ, Oner FC. Effect of methodological quality measures in spinal surgery research: a meta-epidemiological study. Spine J. In press. 2012.
29. Swank, D.J., Swank-Bordewijk, S.C., Hop, W.C., et al. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis in patients with chronic abdominal pain: a blinded randomised controlled multi-centre trial. Lancet 361 (2003), 1247–1251.
30. Moseley, J.B., O'Malley, K., Petersen, N.J., et al. A controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. N Engl J Med 347 (2002), 81–88.
31. Frankel, B., Bloch, D.A., Sham or scam: a critical assessment of recent vertebroplasty trials. Neurosurgery, 67, 2010, E521.
32. Noonan, P., Randomized vertebroplasty trials: bad news or sham news?. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 30 (2009), 1808–1809.
33. Gelberman, R.H., Samson, D., Mirza, S.K., et al. Orthopaedic surgeons and the medical device industry: the threat to scientific integrity and the public trust. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92 (2010), 765–777.
34. Muggli, M.E., Forster, J.L., Hurt, R.D., Repace, J.L., The smoke you don't see: uncovering tobacco industry scientific strategies aimed against environmental tobacco smoke policies. Am J Public Health 91 (2001), 1419–1423.
35. Carr, A.J., Which research is to be believed? The ethics of industrial funding of orthopaedic research. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87 (2005), 1452–1453.
36. Okike, K., Kocher, M.S., Mehlman, C.T., Bhandari, M., Conflict of interest in orthopaedic research. An association between findings and funding in scientific presentations. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89 (2007), 608–613.
37. Lee, Y.K., Chung, C.Y., Koo, K.H., et al. Conflict of interest in the assessment of thromboprophylaxis after total joint arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94 (2012), 27–33.
38. Als-Nielsen, B., Chen, W., Gluud, C., Kjaergard, L.L., Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events?. JAMA 290 (2003), 921–928.
39. Kjaergard, L.L., Als-Nielsen, B., Association between competing interests and authors' conclusions: epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ. BMJ, 325, 2002, 249.
40. Djulbegovic, B., Lacevic, M., Cantor, A., et al. The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research. Lancet 356 (2000), 635–638.
41. Davis, J.M., Chen, N., Glick, I.D., Issues that may determine the outcome of antipsychotic trials: industry sponsorship and extrapyramidal side effect. Neuropsychopharmacology 33 (2008), 971–975.
42. Moher, D., Cook, D.J., Eastwood, S., et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 354 (1999), 1896–1900.
43. Booth, A, Stewart, L. PROSPERO—International register of systematic reviews. York, UK: National Institute for Health Research, 2011. Available at: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/. Accessed December 12, 2011.
44. Weinstein, J.N., Tosteson, T.D., Lurie, J.D., et al. Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT): a randomized trial. JAMA 296 (2006), 2441–2450.
45. Furlan, A.D., Tomlinson, G., Jadad, A.A., Bombardier, C., Examining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: comparing results of randomized trials and nonrandomized studies of interventions for low back pain. Spine 33 (2008), 339–348.
46. Herberts, P., Malchau, H., Long-term registration has improved the quality of hip replacement: a review of the Swedish THR Register comparing 160,000 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 71 (2000), 111–121.
47. Stadhouder, A., Oner, F.C., Wilson, K.W., et al. Surgeon equipoise as an inclusion criterion for the evaluation of nonoperative versus operative treatment of thoracolumbar spinal injuries. Spine J 8 (2008), 975–981.
48. Helmy, A., Timofeev, I., Santarius, T., Hutchinson, P., What constitutes clinical equipoise?. Br J Neurosurg 23 (2009), 564–565.
49. Mitchell, P., Equipoise and randomisation in surgery. Br J Neurosurg 24 (2010), 96–97.