尸体生物力学矫形研究至关重要,需要质量和有效性指标。

{"title":"尸体生物力学矫形研究至关重要,需要质量和有效性指标。","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.arthro.2024.02.014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Evidence-based medicine is the commanding philosophy of patient care in the field of orthopaedic surgery, and analysis of clinical research is facilitated by instruments and scales developed for assessing methodologic quality and validity of conclusions. In contrast, little consideration has been given to developing metrics to assess the quality and validity of orthopaedic ex vivo and laboratory research. This is easier said than done because these studies may be heterogeneous and complex in design, and methodologic details may not be intuitive to (non-engineer) readers. The recently described Biomechanics Objective Basic Science Quality Assessment Tool (BOBQAT) represents a reliable means to assess cadaveric biomechanical studies. The BOBQAT emphasizes essential study elements including a clinically relevant, answerable purpose; detailed description of the specimens studied; thorough description of surgical technique; and careful consideration of loading conditions including clinically relevant cyclic loading. The BOBQAT provides a logical recipe for the design of future studies, a mechanism of quality assessment for systematic reviews, and a framework for readers to assess biomechanical research consistent with the ethos of evidence-based medicine.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55459,"journal":{"name":"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Editorial Commentary: Cadaveric Biomechanical Orthopaedic Research Is Essential and Requires Quality and Validity Metrics\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.arthro.2024.02.014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Evidence-based medicine is the commanding philosophy of patient care in the field of orthopaedic surgery, and analysis of clinical research is facilitated by instruments and scales developed for assessing methodologic quality and validity of conclusions. In contrast, little consideration has been given to developing metrics to assess the quality and validity of orthopaedic ex vivo and laboratory research. This is easier said than done because these studies may be heterogeneous and complex in design, and methodologic details may not be intuitive to (non-engineer) readers. The recently described Biomechanics Objective Basic Science Quality Assessment Tool (BOBQAT) represents a reliable means to assess cadaveric biomechanical studies. The BOBQAT emphasizes essential study elements including a clinically relevant, answerable purpose; detailed description of the specimens studied; thorough description of surgical technique; and careful consideration of loading conditions including clinically relevant cyclic loading. The BOBQAT provides a logical recipe for the design of future studies, a mechanism of quality assessment for systematic reviews, and a framework for readers to assess biomechanical research consistent with the ethos of evidence-based medicine.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55459,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074980632400149X\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074980632400149X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

循证医学(EBM)是矫形外科领域患者护理的主导思想,为评估方法质量和结论有效性而开发的工具和量表有助于对临床研究进行分析。相比之下,人们很少考虑制定衡量标准来评估骨科体外研究和实验室研究的质量和有效性。说起来容易做起来难,因为这些研究在设计上可能各不相同且十分复杂,对于(非工程师)读者来说,方法细节可能并不直观。最近推出的生物力学客观基础科学质量评估工具(BOBQAT)是评估尸体生物力学研究的可靠方法。该工具强调研究的基本要素,包括与临床相关的、可回答的目的;对所研究标本的详细描述;对手术技术的全面描述;以及对加载条件的仔细考虑,包括与临床相关的循环加载。BOBQAT 为未来研究的设计提供了合理的方法,为系统性综述提供了质量评估机制,并为读者提供了一个评估生物力学研究的框架,使其符合 EBM 的精神。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Editorial Commentary: Cadaveric Biomechanical Orthopaedic Research Is Essential and Requires Quality and Validity Metrics

Evidence-based medicine is the commanding philosophy of patient care in the field of orthopaedic surgery, and analysis of clinical research is facilitated by instruments and scales developed for assessing methodologic quality and validity of conclusions. In contrast, little consideration has been given to developing metrics to assess the quality and validity of orthopaedic ex vivo and laboratory research. This is easier said than done because these studies may be heterogeneous and complex in design, and methodologic details may not be intuitive to (non-engineer) readers. The recently described Biomechanics Objective Basic Science Quality Assessment Tool (BOBQAT) represents a reliable means to assess cadaveric biomechanical studies. The BOBQAT emphasizes essential study elements including a clinically relevant, answerable purpose; detailed description of the specimens studied; thorough description of surgical technique; and careful consideration of loading conditions including clinically relevant cyclic loading. The BOBQAT provides a logical recipe for the design of future studies, a mechanism of quality assessment for systematic reviews, and a framework for readers to assess biomechanical research consistent with the ethos of evidence-based medicine.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.30
自引率
17.00%
发文量
555
审稿时长
58 days
期刊介绍: Nowhere is minimally invasive surgery explained better than in Arthroscopy, the leading peer-reviewed journal in the field. Every issue enables you to put into perspective the usefulness of the various emerging arthroscopic techniques. The advantages and disadvantages of these methods -- along with their applications in various situations -- are discussed in relation to their efficiency, efficacy and cost benefit. As a special incentive, paid subscribers also receive access to the journal expanded website.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Commentary: Arthroscopic Bone Grafting Using Suspensory Fixation for Anterior Glenohumeral Fixation with Bone Loss May Supersede Latarjet Using Coracoid Transfer. Editorial Commentary: In Cases of Cam Over-resection and Irreparable Hip Labral Tear Requiring Revision, Acetabular Circumferential Labral Reconstruction with Larger Graft Width Is Indicated. Editorial Commentary: Repair of Radial Meniscus Tears. Editorial Commentary:Varus Recurrence After Medial Opening Wedge HTO. Introducing Foundations of Arthroscopy Techniques.
×
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