Same trials, different conclusions: sorting out discrepancies between reviews on interventional procedures of the spine
- 31 August 2009
- journal article
- editorial
- Published by Elsevier BV in The Spine Journal
- Vol. 9 (8), 679-689
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2009.05.003
Abstract
No abstract availableKeywords
This publication has 61 references indexed in Scilit:
- Prospective, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trials in interventional spine: what the highest quality literature tells usThe Spine Journal, 2009
- Nonsurgical Interventional Therapies for Low Back PainSpine, 2009
- What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians?BMJ, 2008
- Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviewsBMC Medical Research Methodology, 2007
- Grading Strength of Recommendations and Quality of Evidence in Clinical GuidelinesChest, 2006
- External validity of randomised controlled trials: “To whom do the results of this trial apply?”The Lancet, 2005
- Systematic reviews in health care: Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysisBMJ, 2001
- A Critical Review of Reviews on the Treatment of Chronic Low Back PainSpine, 2001
- Systematic Reviews: Rationale for systematic reviewsBMJ, 1994
- Validation of an index of the quality of review articlesJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1991