Suppr超能文献

临床膝关节软骨研究的局限性和偏倚来源。

Limitations and sources of bias in clinical knee cartilage research.

机构信息

St. Vincent's Orthopedics, Birmingham, Alabama, U.S.A.

出版信息

Arthroscopy. 2012 Sep;28(9):1315-25. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2012.02.022. Epub 2012 May 23.

Abstract

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to systematically review the limitations and biases inherent to surgical trials on the management of knee chondral defects.

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed/Medline, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted in September 2010 and updated in August 2011 to identify all English-language, Level I evidence, prospective, randomized controlled trials published from 1996 to present. The keyword search included the following: "autologous chondrocyte," "cartilage graft," "cartilage repair," "chondroplasty," "microfracture," "mosaicplasty," and/or "osteochondral." Nonoperative studies, nonhuman studies, ex vivo studies, non-knee studies, and/or studies with follow-up of less than 1 year were excluded. A systematic review was performed on all included studies, and limitations and/or biases were identified and quantitated.

RESULTS

Of 15,311 citations, 33 abstracts were reviewed and 11 prospective, randomized controlled trials were included. We identified 9 major limitations (subject age, subject prior surgery, subject duration of symptoms, lesion location, lesion size, lesion number, procedure selection, procedure standardization, and limited histologic analysis) and 7 common biases (selection, performance, transfer, nonresponder, detection, publication, and study design).

CONCLUSIONS

Level I therapeutic studies investigating the surgical management of human knee cartilage defects have substantial identified biases and limitations. This review has limitations because other classifications of bias or limitation exist. Optimal management of cartilage defects is controversial, and future rigorous research methods could minimize common biases through strict study design and patient selection criteria, larger patient enrollment, more extended follow-up, and standardization of clinical treatment pathways.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, systematic review of Level I studies.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在系统地回顾膝关节软骨缺损治疗的外科试验所固有的局限性和偏倚。

方法

2010 年 9 月对 PubMed/Medline、CINAHL(护理与联合健康文献累积索引)、EMBASE 和 Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库进行了文献检索,并于 2011 年 8 月进行了更新,以确定自 1996 年以来发表的所有英文、一级证据、前瞻性、随机对照试验。关键词搜索包括:“自体软骨细胞”、“软骨移植物”、“软骨修复”、“软骨成形术”、“微骨折术”、“马赛克plasty”和/或“骨软骨”。排除非手术研究、非人类研究、离体研究、非膝关节研究和/或随访时间少于 1 年的研究。对所有纳入的研究进行了系统评价,并确定和量化了局限性和/或偏倚。

结果

在 15311 条引文中,有 33 篇摘要进行了审查,有 11 项前瞻性随机对照试验被纳入。我们确定了 9 个主要的局限性(患者年龄、患者既往手术史、患者症状持续时间、病变位置、病变大小、病变数量、手术选择、手术标准化和有限的组织学分析)和 7 个常见的偏倚(选择、执行、转移、无应答、检测、发表和研究设计)。

结论

一级治疗研究调查了人类膝关节软骨缺损的外科治疗,具有明显的已识别偏倚和局限性。本综述存在局限性,因为存在其他类型的偏倚或局限性。软骨缺损的最佳治疗方法存在争议,未来严格的研究方法可以通过严格的研究设计和患者选择标准、更大的患者招募、更长的随访时间以及临床治疗途径的标准化来最大限度地减少常见偏倚。

证据水平

一级,一级研究的系统评价。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验