Rationalising animal research synthesis in orthopaedic literature.

Konstantinos Tsikopoulos, Konstantinos Sidiropoulos, Dimitrios Kitridis, Lorenzo Drago, Rakesh Ebnezar, David Lavalette
{"title":"Rationalising animal research synthesis in orthopaedic literature.","authors":"Konstantinos Tsikopoulos,&nbsp;Konstantinos Sidiropoulos,&nbsp;Dimitrios Kitridis,&nbsp;Lorenzo Drago,&nbsp;Rakesh Ebnezar,&nbsp;David Lavalette","doi":"10.5662/wjm.v11.i3.75","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Systematic reviews in orthopaedic literature are frequently criticised for offering inconsistent conclusions. On top of that, high-quality randomized human evidence on crucial orthopaedic topics is more often than not lacking. In this situation, pooling animal literature could offer an excellent insight into unanswered critical clinical questions, thus potentially improving healthcare. In this paper, we sought to present the rationale and basic principles governing meta-analysis of animal research. More specifically, we elaborated on the available evidence-based methods to achieve a scientifically sound animal data synthesis. In addition, we discussed result interpretation, strength of recommendations and clinical implications based on the results of these meta-analytic modalities.</p>","PeriodicalId":23729,"journal":{"name":"World journal of methodology","volume":"11 3","pages":"75-80"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/84/1c/WJM-11-75.PMC8127423.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World journal of methodology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5662/wjm.v11.i3.75","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Systematic reviews in orthopaedic literature are frequently criticised for offering inconsistent conclusions. On top of that, high-quality randomized human evidence on crucial orthopaedic topics is more often than not lacking. In this situation, pooling animal literature could offer an excellent insight into unanswered critical clinical questions, thus potentially improving healthcare. In this paper, we sought to present the rationale and basic principles governing meta-analysis of animal research. More specifically, we elaborated on the available evidence-based methods to achieve a scientifically sound animal data synthesis. In addition, we discussed result interpretation, strength of recommendations and clinical implications based on the results of these meta-analytic modalities.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
骨科文献中动物研究综合的合理化。
骨科文献的系统综述经常被批评为提供不一致的结论。最重要的是,在关键的骨科主题上,往往缺乏高质量的随机人类证据。在这种情况下,汇集动物文献可以为未解决的关键临床问题提供极好的见解,从而有可能改善医疗保健。在本文中,我们试图提出动物研究荟萃分析的基本原理和基本原则。更具体地说,我们详细阐述了现有的循证方法,以实现科学合理的动物数据合成。此外,我们还讨论了基于这些荟萃分析模式结果的结果解释、推荐的强度和临床意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Sequential extraction of RNA, DNA and protein from cultured cells of the same group Crohn's disease and clinical management today: How it does? Assessing the readability of online information about jones fracture Adult eosinophilic esophagitis and advances in its treatment. Epidemiological trends in acute pancreatitis: A retrospective cohort in a tertiary center over a seven year period.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1