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

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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信