通过专家小组预防骨科创伤手术观察性研究中的混杂因素：一项系统综述
Preventing confounding in observational studies in orthopedic trauma surgery through expert panels: a systematic review.
作者信息
Groenwold Rolf H H, van Rossenberg L X, Smeeing D P J, Houwert R M, Schoones J W, Muijs S P J, Oner F C, de Jong Y, van de Wall B J M
机构信息
Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, Leiden, 2333 ZA, the Netherlands.
Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
出版信息
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2025 Jan 24;51(1):36. doi: 10.1007/s00068-024-02690-w.
PURPOSE
Confounding in observational studies can be mitigated by selecting only those patients, in whom equipoise of both treatments is secured by experts' disagreement over optimal therapy.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review to identify observational studies in the field of orthopedic trauma surgery that utilized expert panels for patient inclusion in order to limit the potential for confounding.
RESULTS
Four studies were identified that used expert panels to select participants based on expert disagreement. Derived from these studies and our own experience, recommendations were made regarding reporting of the size and composition of the expert panel, the information the expert panel receives, criteria for disagreement, selection of patients, and statistical analysis.
CONCLUSION
With this review we aim to provide insight into this study design and to stimulate discussions about the potential of expert panels to control for confounding in studies of medical treatments.
目的
在观察性研究中，通过仅选择那些因专家对最佳治疗方案存在分歧而确保两种治疗方法均处于平衡状态的患者，可减轻混杂因素的影响。
方法
我们进行了一项系统评价，以识别骨科创伤外科领域中利用专家小组来纳入患者以限制混杂因素可能性的观察性研究。
结果
确定了四项研究，这些研究基于专家分歧，利用专家小组来选择参与者。根据这些研究和我们自己的经验，就专家小组的规模和组成、专家小组所接收的信息、分歧标准、患者选择以及统计分析的报告提出了建议。
结论
通过本综述，我们旨在深入了解这种研究设计，并激发关于专家小组在医学治疗研究中控制混杂因素潜力的讨论。
Zotero 插件