FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2023159692> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2023159692 endingPage "E677" @default.
• W2023159692 startingPage "E676" @default.
• W2023159692 abstract "Evidence-based medicine involves the deliberate integration of clinical research into therapeutic decision making.1 A prospective, randomized control trial (PRCT) is assumed to equally distribute unknown confounding variables and only manipulate the “treatment variable.” In medical PRCTs, this usually occurs in a well-defined population to determine efficacy; that is, does the intervention work on the participants in the study (internal validity)? In most medical (drug) studies, the greater challenge is determining whether the results can be extended to patients not in the study, so called external validity. Surgical or interventional studies face the same generalizabilty or external validity issues; however, one of the greatest challenges in surgical trials is patient recruitment, and the establishment of a valid study population to ensure internal validity. The recent history of medicine has been punctuated by PRCTs, which have established, reinforced, and challenged traditional clinical beliefs.2 One example of the astounding effect of level I trials is the recent literature on percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) compared with sham procedures3,4 and to conservative treatment5 for treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Many clinicians experience significant cognitive dissonance6 between the astounding early clinical improvement of many patients and the popular media perception of the results of these trials. An excellent review in this issue of the journal effectively dissects 2 of these studies and highlights strengths and weaknesses.5 However, the impact of these studies and others really distills down to the difficulties with establishing both internal and external validity. The major challenge of PRCTs is the requirement of equipoise by both patients and physicians regarding 2 apparently equally effective treatments. Clinicians may be biased to recommend direct interventions to some patients and only enroll patients in whom there is less severe intensity of symptoms, although this is controlled for once the study begins, the bias can be still appear through the inclusion-exclusion criteria developed by the clinicians. It is often the inclusion-exclusion measures that are adjusted based on expected recruitment. Patient consent to participate in interventional studies is by far the greatest challenge as systematic differences evolve between patients willing to participate in randomization. There may be significant differences in risk taking, expectations, and perseverance in people who are willing to relegate their treatment to chance versus patients who refused to participate. This volunteer bias would be akin to selection bias in observational studies. Most interventional studies have roughly 33% enrollment of those patients eligible. Patient preference is a big part of evidence-based medicine, and perhaps, the reason for the observational study advocates touting it as the best methodology for ensuring external validity. This dilemma was addressed in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial by including an observational cohort to capture patients who were not enrolled in the prospective, randomized study.7,8 PRCTs are expected to have appropriate and accurate long term follow-up. However, in some situations long term follow-up may be less relevant than early functional results. For example, in the orthopedic literature, the natural history of most femur fractures is healing by 6 to 12 months regardless of treatment.9,10 The goal of internal fixation is early mobilization and pain control to avoid the sequelae of prolonged immobilization, possibly at the expense of soft tissue stripping and healing. Similarly, because the vertebral bodies have an excellent blood supply and soft tissue envelope, it is not surprising that the natural history of vertebral compression fractures is healing by 6 to 12 months. Is it fair to judge the long-term outcome of vertebroplasty compared with conservative treatment? Would anyone for go internal fixation of a femur fracture because of the equivocal long-term fracture healing? The real question is whether the “internal fixation” facilitates substantial early pain improvement and mobilization. Indeed, early pain relief after PVP has been observed in all of the PVP trials.11 An important overlooked result in the Rousing et al study was the significant (1.3 point, P < 0.02) improvement in Barthel functional score in the PVP group over the conservative group at 12 months. This functional improvement may be a reflection of earlier pain control and mobilization compared with conservatively treated patients. In practicing evidence-based medicine, we as clinicians and researchers must be wary of assigning truths to PRCTs, even if published in high impact journals. The so-called pinnacle of the research design hierarchy is not immune to methodological limitations often camouflaged by the unique and coveted PRCT design for evaluation of a surgical intervention. Common sense, continued investigation, and an appreciation of the principles around internal and external validity of high-level evidence studies will hopefully guide our practices in the future of spinal care." @default.
• W2023159692 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2023159692 creator A5009142068 @default.
• W2023159692 creator A5064463300 @default.
• W2023159692 date "2010-07-01" @default.
• W2023159692 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2023159692 title "The Highest Level of Evidence in a High Impact Journal: Is This the Final Verdict?" @default.
• W2023159692 cites W2038364177 @default.
• W2023159692 cites W2059724197 @default.
• W2023159692 cites W2064983728 @default.
• W2023159692 cites W2069649901 @default.
• W2023159692 cites W2073852079 @default.
• W2023159692 cites W2106952837 @default.
• W2023159692 cites W2115574045 @default.
• W2023159692 cites W2133692882 @default.
• W2023159692 cites W2167775808 @default.
• W2023159692 cites W2185702186 @default.
• W2023159692 cites W4242165519 @default.
• W2023159692 doi "https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e3181e41f87" @default.
• W2023159692 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20592575" @default.
• W2023159692 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W2023159692 type Work @default.
• W2023159692 sameAs 2023159692 @default.
• W2023159692 citedByCount "6" @default.
• W2023159692 countsByYear W20231596922015 @default.
• W2023159692 countsByYear W20231596922020 @default.
• W2023159692 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2023159692 hasAuthorship W2023159692A5009142068 @default.
• W2023159692 hasAuthorship W2023159692A5064463300 @default.
• W2023159692 hasBestOaLocation W20231596921 @default.
• W2023159692 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2023159692 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2023159692 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2023159692 hasConcept C168563851 @default.
• W2023159692 hasConcept C171606756 @default.
• W2023159692 hasConcept C174106493 @default.
• W2023159692 hasConcept C1862650 @default.
• W2023159692 hasConcept C19648533 @default.
• W2023159692 hasConcept C204787440 @default.
• W2023159692 hasConcept C2908647359 @default.
• W2023159692 hasConcept C33191230 @default.
• W2023159692 hasConcept C51082289 @default.
• W2023159692 hasConcept C535046627 @default.
• W2023159692 hasConcept C70410870 @default.
• W2023159692 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2023159692 hasConcept C77350462 @default.
• W2023159692 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W2023159692 hasConcept C99454951 @default.
• W2023159692 hasConceptScore W2023159692C141071460 @default.
• W2023159692 hasConceptScore W2023159692C142724271 @default.
• W2023159692 hasConceptScore W2023159692C15744967 @default.
• W2023159692 hasConceptScore W2023159692C168563851 @default.
• W2023159692 hasConceptScore W2023159692C171606756 @default.
• W2023159692 hasConceptScore W2023159692C174106493 @default.
• W2023159692 hasConceptScore W2023159692C1862650 @default.
• W2023159692 hasConceptScore W2023159692C19648533 @default.
• W2023159692 hasConceptScore W2023159692C204787440 @default.
• W2023159692 hasConceptScore W2023159692C2908647359 @default.
• W2023159692 hasConceptScore W2023159692C33191230 @default.
• W2023159692 hasConceptScore W2023159692C51082289 @default.
• W2023159692 hasConceptScore W2023159692C535046627 @default.
• W2023159692 hasConceptScore W2023159692C70410870 @default.
• W2023159692 hasConceptScore W2023159692C71924100 @default.
• W2023159692 hasConceptScore W2023159692C77350462 @default.
• W2023159692 hasConceptScore W2023159692C77805123 @default.
• W2023159692 hasConceptScore W2023159692C99454951 @default.
• W2023159692 hasIssue "15" @default.
• W2023159692 hasLocation W20231596921 @default.
• W2023159692 hasLocation W20231596922 @default.
• W2023159692 hasLocation W20231596923 @default.
• W2023159692 hasOpenAccess W2023159692 @default.
• W2023159692 hasPrimaryLocation W20231596921 @default.
• W2023159692 hasRelatedWork W2023159692 @default.
• W2023159692 hasRelatedWork W2083321119 @default.
• W2023159692 hasRelatedWork W2103623612 @default.
• W2023159692 hasRelatedWork W2104214696 @default.
• W2023159692 hasRelatedWork W2114938072 @default.
• W2023159692 hasRelatedWork W2125515627 @default.
• W2023159692 hasRelatedWork W2145975717 @default.
• W2023159692 hasRelatedWork W2583064835 @default.
• W2023159692 hasRelatedWork W3115810198 @default.
• W2023159692 hasRelatedWork W2478674545 @default.
• W2023159692 hasVolume "35" @default.
• W2023159692 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2023159692 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2023159692 magId "2023159692" @default.
• W2023159692 workType "article" @default.