FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2057307546> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2057307546 abstract "Dear Editor,We read with great interest the recent paper “Comparison of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials” published online in the May 2013 issue of International Orthopaedics by Wei et al. [1]. The authors performed a meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials to compare artificial total disc replacement with fusion for treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease. It is an interesting study. Nevertheless, we have several methodological issues which we would like to communicate to the authors.With respect to the assessment of study quality, two investigators independently evaluated the quality of each study. However, we would like to know how problems were if there were discrepancies between the two authors.In the article, the authors used the odds ratio (OR) to report the risk value rather than relative risk (RR). As there are six randomized controlled trials included, RR can report the real risk value better than OR. Therefore, we suggest that RR should be used to report the risk value in this article.In the results section, the authors used the mean difference (MD) as summary statistic rather than standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes, while they write a “standardised mean difference” in the results. We suggest that “standardised mean difference” should be replaced by “mean difference”. However, effect sizes expressed as SMDs are a useful method to compare the effect of an intervention across studies when different measures (such as visual analogue scale and Oswestry disability index) are used.In the results, the authors used a fixed effects model to pool the data in evaluating complication and reoperation rate for TDR and fusion groups at two years, while they write a “random effects pooled OR” in the results. We suggest that “random effects pooled OR” should be replaced by “fixed effects pooled OR”. Meanwhile, they used a fixed effects model to pool the data in evaluating complication and reoperation rate, while the results showed a large amount of heterogeneity (I2 = 63 % or I2 = 51 %). In this case, why not make a sensitivity analysis or use a random effects model to pool the data?It is not appropriate that a summary mean difference (MD) estimate with corresponding 95 % CIs was derived using the method of inverse variance (IV) with the assumptions of a random-effects model. However, studies should be combined by using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model, which considers both within- and between-study variations [2].There are different types in either disc or fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease, which would bring different results. If possible, we suggest that a meta-analysis of artificial total disc replacement with different disc versus fusion with different surgical approaches for lumbar degenerative disc disease should be conducted.In conclusion, the results of the study by Wei et al. should be interpreted with caution. To reach a definitive conclusion, further studies based on more carefully and scientifically designed RCTs with large samples and long-term follow-up are still needed to assess artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease. We believe that our remarks will contribute to more accurate evaluation of the results presented by Wei et al." @default.
• W2057307546 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2057307546 creator A5003240235 @default.
• W2057307546 creator A5009869916 @default.
• W2057307546 creator A5037592152 @default.
• W2057307546 creator A5086049856 @default.
• W2057307546 date "2013-07-20" @default.
• W2057307546 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2057307546 title "Comment on Wei et al.: Comparison of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials" @default.
• W2057307546 cites W2107328434 @default.
• W2057307546 doi "https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-1991-5" @default.
• W2057307546 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/3779556" @default.
• W2057307546 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23873172" @default.
• W2057307546 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W2057307546 type Work @default.
• W2057307546 sameAs 2057307546 @default.
• W2057307546 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W2057307546 countsByYear W20573075462018 @default.
• W2057307546 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2057307546 hasAuthorship W2057307546A5003240235 @default.
• W2057307546 hasAuthorship W2057307546A5009869916 @default.
• W2057307546 hasAuthorship W2057307546A5037592152 @default.
• W2057307546 hasAuthorship W2057307546A5086049856 @default.
• W2057307546 hasBestOaLocation W20573075462 @default.
• W2057307546 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2057307546 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2057307546 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2057307546 hasConcept C168563851 @default.
• W2057307546 hasConcept C1862650 @default.
• W2057307546 hasConcept C204787440 @default.
• W2057307546 hasConcept C2775998654 @default.
• W2057307546 hasConcept C2778051963 @default.
• W2057307546 hasConcept C2780907711 @default.
• W2057307546 hasConcept C44249647 @default.
• W2057307546 hasConcept C44575665 @default.
• W2057307546 hasConcept C68312169 @default.
• W2057307546 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2057307546 hasConcept C82789193 @default.
• W2057307546 hasConcept C95190672 @default.
• W2057307546 hasConceptScore W2057307546C126322002 @default.
• W2057307546 hasConceptScore W2057307546C141071460 @default.
• W2057307546 hasConceptScore W2057307546C142724271 @default.
• W2057307546 hasConceptScore W2057307546C168563851 @default.
• W2057307546 hasConceptScore W2057307546C1862650 @default.
• W2057307546 hasConceptScore W2057307546C204787440 @default.
• W2057307546 hasConceptScore W2057307546C2775998654 @default.
• W2057307546 hasConceptScore W2057307546C2778051963 @default.
• W2057307546 hasConceptScore W2057307546C2780907711 @default.
• W2057307546 hasConceptScore W2057307546C44249647 @default.
• W2057307546 hasConceptScore W2057307546C44575665 @default.
• W2057307546 hasConceptScore W2057307546C68312169 @default.
• W2057307546 hasConceptScore W2057307546C71924100 @default.
• W2057307546 hasConceptScore W2057307546C82789193 @default.
• W2057307546 hasConceptScore W2057307546C95190672 @default.
• W2057307546 hasLocation W20573075461 @default.
• W2057307546 hasLocation W20573075462 @default.
• W2057307546 hasLocation W20573075463 @default.
• W2057307546 hasLocation W20573075464 @default.
• W2057307546 hasOpenAccess W2057307546 @default.
• W2057307546 hasPrimaryLocation W20573075461 @default.
• W2057307546 hasRelatedWork W1498901379 @default.
• W2057307546 hasRelatedWork W1551187735 @default.
• W2057307546 hasRelatedWork W1875474704 @default.
• W2057307546 hasRelatedWork W1980019449 @default.
• W2057307546 hasRelatedWork W1993051970 @default.
• W2057307546 hasRelatedWork W1999515093 @default.
• W2057307546 hasRelatedWork W2005371124 @default.
• W2057307546 hasRelatedWork W2018382269 @default.
• W2057307546 hasRelatedWork W2044381503 @default.
• W2057307546 hasRelatedWork W2044633989 @default.
• W2057307546 hasRelatedWork W2108949652 @default.
• W2057307546 hasRelatedWork W2116909035 @default.
• W2057307546 hasRelatedWork W2123540582 @default.
• W2057307546 hasRelatedWork W2135883756 @default.
• W2057307546 hasRelatedWork W2150752797 @default.
• W2057307546 hasRelatedWork W2151638652 @default.
• W2057307546 hasRelatedWork W2164957370 @default.
• W2057307546 hasRelatedWork W2415651704 @default.
• W2057307546 hasRelatedWork W2526873899 @default.
• W2057307546 hasRelatedWork W3152185978 @default.
• W2057307546 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2057307546 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2057307546 magId "2057307546" @default.
• W2057307546 workType "article" @default.