Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 8/2017

13.06.2017 | Editorial

While modern medicine evolves continuously, evidence-based research methodology remains: how register studies should be interpreted and appreciated

verfasst von: Eleonor Svantesson, Eric Hamrin Senorski, Kurt P. Spindler, Olufemi R. Ayeni, Freddie H. Fu, Jón Karlsson, Kristian Samuelsson

Erschienen in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Ausgabe 8/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Excerpt

In just a few decades, the scientific stage has undergone some dramatic changes. Novel studies are produced at a “faster than ever” pace, and technological advances enable insights into areas that would previously have been referred to as science fiction. However, the purpose of research will always be the same—to serve as a firm foundation to practise evidence-based medicine and ultimately improve the treatment of our patients. Is the explosive evolvement of research publications and technological advances always beneficial when it comes to fulfilling this purpose? As we are served with a steady stream of new “significant” findings, it is more important than ever critically to evaluate the evidence that is presented and be aware of the limitations and pitfalls that we encounter every day as modern scientists and clinicians.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Albert RK (2013) “Lies, damned lies…” and observational studies in comparative effectiveness research. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 187(11):1173–1177CrossRefPubMed Albert RK (2013) “Lies, damned lies…” and observational studies in comparative effectiveness research. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 187(11):1173–1177CrossRefPubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat An VV, Scholes C, Mhaskar VA, Hadden W, Parker D (2016) Limitations in predicting outcome following primary ACL reconstruction with single-bundle hamstring autograft—A systematic review. Knee 24(2):170–178CrossRefPubMed An VV, Scholes C, Mhaskar VA, Hadden W, Parker D (2016) Limitations in predicting outcome following primary ACL reconstruction with single-bundle hamstring autograft—A systematic review. Knee 24(2):170–178CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Anglemyer A, Horvath HT, Bero L (2014) Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:Mr000034 Anglemyer A, Horvath HT, Bero L (2014) Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:Mr000034
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Benson K, Hartz AJ (2000) A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med 342(25):1878–1886CrossRefPubMed Benson K, Hartz AJ (2000) A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med 342(25):1878–1886CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Carter RE, McKie PM, Storlie CB (2017) The Fragility Index: a P-value in sheep’s clothing? Eur Heart J 38(5):346–348PubMed Carter RE, McKie PM, Storlie CB (2017) The Fragility Index: a P-value in sheep’s clothing? Eur Heart J 38(5):346–348PubMed
6.
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI (2000) Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med 342(25):1887–1892CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI (2000) Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med 342(25):1887–1892CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, Polly DW Jr, Schuler TC (2007) Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J 7(5):541–546CrossRefPubMed Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, Polly DW Jr, Schuler TC (2007) Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J 7(5):541–546CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Fisher R (1973) Statistical methods and scientific inference, 3rd edn. Hafner Publishing Company, New York Fisher R (1973) Statistical methods and scientific inference, 3rd edn. Hafner Publishing Company, New York
11.
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Greene WL, Concato J, Feinstein AR (2000) Claims of equivalence in medical research: are they supported by the evidence? Ann Intern Med 132(9):715–722CrossRefPubMed Greene WL, Concato J, Feinstein AR (2000) Claims of equivalence in medical research: are they supported by the evidence? Ann Intern Med 132(9):715–722CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Inacio MC, Paxton EW, Dillon MT (2016) Understanding orthopaedic registry studies: a comparison with clinical studies. J Bone Joint Surg Am 98(1):e3CrossRefPubMed Inacio MC, Paxton EW, Dillon MT (2016) Understanding orthopaedic registry studies: a comparison with clinical studies. J Bone Joint Surg Am 98(1):e3CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Ioannidis JA (2005) Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA 294(2):218–228CrossRefPubMed Ioannidis JA (2005) Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA 294(2):218–228CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Ioannidis JP, Haidich AB, Pappa M, Pantazis N, Kokori SI, Tektonidou MG, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Lau J (2001) Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies. JAMA 286(7):821–830CrossRefPubMed Ioannidis JP, Haidich AB, Pappa M, Pantazis N, Kokori SI, Tektonidou MG, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Lau J (2001) Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies. JAMA 286(7):821–830CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Khan M, Evaniew N, Gichuru M, Habib A, Ayeni OR, Bedi A, Walsh M, Devereaux PJ, Bhandari M (2016) The fragility of statistically significant findings from randomized trials in sports surgery. Am J Sports Med. doi:10.1177/0363546516674469 PubMed Khan M, Evaniew N, Gichuru M, Habib A, Ayeni OR, Bedi A, Walsh M, Devereaux PJ, Bhandari M (2016) The fragility of statistically significant findings from randomized trials in sports surgery. Am J Sports Med. doi:10.​1177/​0363546516674469​ PubMed
17.
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Lowe WR (2016) Editorial Commentary: “There, It Fits!”—Justifying Nonsignificant P Values. Arthroscopy 32(11):2318–2321CrossRefPubMed Lowe WR (2016) Editorial Commentary: “There, It Fits!”—Justifying Nonsignificant P Values. Arthroscopy 32(11):2318–2321CrossRefPubMed
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Mark DB, Lee KL, Harrell FE Jr (2016) Understanding the role of P values and hypothesis tests in clinical research. JAMA Cardiol 1(9):1048–1054CrossRefPubMed Mark DB, Lee KL, Harrell FE Jr (2016) Understanding the role of P values and hypothesis tests in clinical research. JAMA Cardiol 1(9):1048–1054CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Methodology Committee of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) (2012) Methodological standards and patient-centeredness in comparative effectiveness research: the PCORI perspective. JAMA 307(15):1636–1640CrossRef Methodology Committee of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) (2012) Methodological standards and patient-centeredness in comparative effectiveness research: the PCORI perspective. JAMA 307(15):1636–1640CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Nuzzo R (2014) Statistical errors—P values, the ‘golden standard’ of statistical validity, are not as reliable as many scientists assume. Nature 508:150–152CrossRef Nuzzo R (2014) Statistical errors—P values, the ‘golden standard’ of statistical validity, are not as reliable as many scientists assume. Nature 508:150–152CrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Salsburg D (2002) The lady tasting tea, 31728th edn. Holt Paperbacks, New York Salsburg D (2002) The lady tasting tea, 31728th edn. Holt Paperbacks, New York
24.
Zurück zum Zitat von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP (2007) The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 370(9596):1453–1457CrossRef von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP (2007) The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 370(9596):1453–1457CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
While modern medicine evolves continuously, evidence-based research methodology remains: how register studies should be interpreted and appreciated
verfasst von
Eleonor Svantesson
Eric Hamrin Senorski
Kurt P. Spindler
Olufemi R. Ayeni
Freddie H. Fu
Jón Karlsson
Kristian Samuelsson
Publikationsdatum
13.06.2017
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy / Ausgabe 8/2017
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Elektronische ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4582-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 8/2017

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 8/2017 Zur Ausgabe

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie. Erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen. 
» Jetzt entdecken

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.