• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

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.
2
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
3
School-based interventions for reducing disciplinary school exclusion: a systematic review.基于学校的减少校内纪律性开除的干预措施:一项系统综述
Campbell Syst Rev. 2018 Jan 9;14(1):i-216. doi: 10.4073/csr.2018.1. eCollection 2018.
4
Complementary and alternative therapies for back pain II.背痛的补充和替代疗法II。
Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2010 Oct(194):1-764.
5
6
The differential diagnosis of low back pain: a primer on the evolving paradigm.腰痛的鉴别诊断:不断演变的范例入门
Neuromodulation. 2014 Oct;17 Suppl 2:11-7. doi: 10.1111/ner.12173.
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.
8
Is immediate imaging important in managing low back pain?在处理下腰痛时,立即进行影像学检查重要吗?
J Athl Train. 2011 Jan-Feb;46(1):99-102. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-46.1.99.
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.
10
Comprehensive Evidence-Based Guidelines for Facet Joint Interventions in the Management of Chronic Spinal Pain: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) Guidelines Facet Joint Interventions 2020 Guidelines.综合循证指南:脊柱关节突关节介入治疗慢性脊柱疼痛管理:美国介入疼痛医师学会(ASIPP)指南 2020 年脊柱关节突关节介入治疗指南。
Pain Physician. 2020 May;23(3S):S1-S127.

本文引用的文献

1
Global, regional, and national burden of low back pain, 1990-2020, its attributable risk factors, and projections to 2050: a systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021.1990年至2020年全球、区域和国家腰痛负担及其可归因风险因素,以及到2050年的预测:全球疾病负担研究2021的系统分析
Lancet Rheumatol. 2023 May 22;5(6):e316-e329. doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(23)00098-X. eCollection 2023 Jun.
2
Global, regional, and national burden of neck pain in the general population, 1990-2017: systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017.全球、地区和国家一般人群颈部疼痛负担,1990-2017 年:2017 年全球疾病负担研究的系统分析。
BMJ. 2020 Mar 26;368:m791. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m791.
3
US Health Care Spending by Payer and Health Condition, 1996-2016.美国按支付方和健康状况划分的医疗保健支出,1996-2016 年。
JAMA. 2020 Mar 3;323(9):863-884. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.0734.
4
Dealing with the positive publication bias: Why you should really publish your negative results.应对阳性发表偏倚:为什么您真的应该发表阴性结果。
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2017 Oct 15;27(3):030201. doi: 10.11613/BM.2017.030201.
5
Scientific citations favor positive results: a systematic review and meta-analysis.科学引文倾向于正面结果:一项系统评价与荟萃分析。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Aug;88:92-101. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.002. Epub 2017 Jun 8.
6
Negative results: negative perceptions limit their potential for increasing reproducibility.负面结果:负面认知限制了它们提高可重复性的潜力。
J Negat Results Biomed. 2015 Jul 7;14:12. doi: 10.1186/s12952-015-0033-9.
7
How does under-reporting of negative and inconclusive results affect the false-positive rate in meta-analysis? A simulation study.阴性和不确定结果报告不足如何影响荟萃分析中的假阳性率?一项模拟研究。
BMJ Open. 2014 Aug 28;4(8):e004831. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004831.
8
Citation bias favoring statistically significant studies was present in medical research.医学研究中存在着倾向于统计学显著的研究的引用偏倚。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Mar;66(3):296-301. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.09.015.
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.
10
Do pressures to publish increase scientists' bias? An empirical support from US States Data.发表压力会增加科学家的偏见吗?来自美国各州数据的实证支持。
PLoS One. 2010 Apr 21;5(4):e10271. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010271.

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.

DOI:10.1016/j.inpm.2024.100423
PMID:39502901
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11536283/
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。