Suppr超能文献

脊柱文献中阳性研究与阴性研究的比例。

Rates of positive vs negative studies in the spine literature.

作者信息

Levin Samantha, Levin Joshua

机构信息

Mountain View High School in Mountain View, CA, USA.

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, 450 Broadway St., Pavilion C, 4th Floor, MC 6342, Redwood City, CA, 94063, USA.

出版信息

Interv Pain Med. 2024 Jul 17;3(3):100423. doi: 10.1016/j.inpm.2024.100423. eCollection 2024 Sep.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Accuracy in the interpretation of data, and publication of studies regardless of outcomes are vital to the development of the scientific literature.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the proportion of studies in the spine literature that report positive results.

STUDY DESIGN

Review article of studies published in nine major spine, pain, and physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) journals from January 1, 2018-December 31, 2022.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Not applicable.

METHODS

Articles that reported on pain and/or function from 2018 to 2022 in nine major journals were reviewed by two independent evaluators. The articles were graded as either positive or negative based on the authors' own conclusions about their work.

RESULTS

Overall, 91 % [95 % CI 88-94 %] of all articles were reported to have positive results. No significant differences were found between the broad categories of spine, pain, and PM&R journals. When comparing different categories of treatments, there were lower rates of positive results from medication/supplement studies (54 % [95 % CI 27-81 %]) compared to studies of spine injections/interventions (95 % [95 % CI 91-99 %]) and those of surgery (100 % [95 % CI 96-100 %]), and a lower rate of positive results from studies on physical treatments (85 % [95 % CI 75-95 %]) compared to those of surgery (100 % [95 % CI 96-100 %]). Studies with placebo controls were less likely to report positive results (60 % [95 % CI 44-76 %]) compared to those that did not use placebo controls (96 % [95 % CI 94-98 %]).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the vast majority of studies in the spine literature concluding positive results, the high disease prevalence of spine conditions and the enormous burden on the healthcare system remain.

摘要

背景

数据解读的准确性以及无论结果如何都发表研究对于科学文献的发展至关重要。

目的

确定脊柱文献中报告阳性结果的研究比例。

研究设计

对2018年1月1日至2022年12月31日在九种主要脊柱、疼痛及物理医学与康复(PM&R)期刊上发表的研究进行综述文章。

患者样本

不适用。

方法

由两名独立评估人员对九种主要期刊中2018年至2022年报告疼痛和/或功能的文章进行综述。根据作者对其工作的自身结论,将文章分为阳性或阴性。

结果

总体而言,所有文章中有91%[95%CI 88 - 94%]报告有阳性结果。在脊柱、疼痛和PM&R期刊的大类之间未发现显著差异。在比较不同类别的治疗方法时,药物/补充剂研究的阳性结果率(54%[95%CI 27 - 81%])低于脊柱注射/干预研究(95%[95%CI 91 - 99%])和手术研究(100%[95%CI 96 - 100%]),物理治疗研究的阳性结果率(85%[95%CI 75 - 95%])低于手术研究(100%[95%CI 96 - 100%])。与未使用安慰剂对照的研究(96%[95%CI 94 - 98%])相比,有安慰剂对照的研究报告阳性结果的可能性较小(60%[95%CI 44 - 76%])。

结论

尽管脊柱文献中的绝大多数研究得出了阳性结果,但脊柱疾病的高患病率和医疗保健系统的巨大负担依然存在。

相似文献

1
Rates of positive vs negative studies in the spine literature.脊柱文献中阳性研究与阴性研究的比例。
Interv Pain Med. 2024 Jul 17;3(3):100423. doi: 10.1016/j.inpm.2024.100423. eCollection 2024 Sep.
5
7
Treatment for osteoporosis in people with beta-thalassaemia.β-地中海贫血患者骨质疏松的治疗。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 May 9;5(5):CD010429. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010429.pub3.
9
Balneotherapy (or spa therapy) for rheumatoid arthritis.类风湿关节炎的温泉疗法(或水疗)
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Apr 11;2015(4):CD000518. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000518.pub2.

本文引用的文献

9
Negative results: why do they need to be published?阴性结果:为何需要发表?
Int J Stroke. 2012 Jan;7(1):32-3. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-4949.2011.00723.x.

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