European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society
-
A critical evaluation of existing scientific evidence of treatment efficacy can be an important part of communicating risk and benefits of treatment options to patients during the course of clinical practice. A checklist of key methodological issues to examine when reading a research study is presented and discussed. Steps in reading a paper include: identifying the research question; identifying the manner in which subjects get enrolled in the study; identifying the treatments and outcomes used; identifying the study design and the comparisons being made; evaluating the study methods for the possibility of bias and uncontrolled confounding; assessing whether the statistical analysis used is appropriate for the study design; assessing whether the study has sufficient statistical power to demonstrate hypotheses being tested. Finally, procedures for grading and evaluating evidence, as used by systematic review groups and international best evidence synthesis consensus groups is briefly described.
-
At present, there is an increasing international trend towards evidence-based health care. The field of low back pain (LBP) research in primary care is an excellent example of evidence-based health care because there is a huge body of evidence from randomized trials. These trials have been summarized in a large number of systematic reviews. ⋯ There is no evidence that any of these interventions provides long-term effects on pain and function. Also, many trials showed methodological weaknesses, effects are compared to placebo, no treatment or waiting list controls, and effect sizes are small. Future trials should meet current quality standards and have adequate sample size.
-
A literature review of the most widely used condition specific, self administered assessment questionnaires for low back pain had been undertaken. General and historic aspects, reliability, responsiveness and minimum clinically important difference, external validity, floor and ceiling effects, and available languages were analysed. ⋯ Of similar importance are the content, wording of questions and answers in each of the six questionnaires and an analysis of the different score results. The issue of score bias is discussed and suggestions are given in order to increase the construct validity in the practical use of the individual questionnaires.
-
Review Case Reports
Cerebellar hemorrhage after spinal surgery: case report and review of the literature.
Recent reports indicate that cerebellar hemorrhage after spinal surgery is infrequent, but it is an important and preventable problem. This type of bleeding is thought to occur secondary to venous infarction, but the exact pathogenetic mechanisms are unknown. This report details the case of a 48-year-old woman who developed remote cerebellar hemorrhage after spinal surgery. ⋯ At 6 months after surgery, she was neurologically normal. The case is discussed in relation to the ten previous cases of remote cerebellar hemorrhage documented in the literature. The only possible etiological factors identified in the reported case were opening of the dura and large-volume cerebrospinal fluid loss.