{"title":"脊柱文献中阳性研究与阴性研究的比率","authors":"Samantha Levin , Joshua Levin","doi":"10.1016/j.inpm.2024.100423","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Accuracy in the interpretation of data, and publication of studies regardless of outcomes are vital to the development of the scientific literature.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To determine the proportion of studies in the spine literature that report positive results.</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>Review article of studies published in nine major spine, pain, and physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) journals from January 1, 2018–December 31, 2022.</p></div><div><h3>Patient sample</h3><p>Not applicable.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Articles that reported on pain and/or function from 2018 to 2022 in nine major journals were reviewed by two independent evaluators. The articles were graded as either positive or negative based on the authors’ own conclusions about their work.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Overall, 91 % [95 % CI 88–94 %] of all articles were reported to have positive results. No significant differences were found between the broad categories of spine, pain, and PM&R journals. When comparing different categories of treatments, there were lower rates of positive results from medication/supplement studies (54 % [95 % CI 27–81 %]) compared to studies of spine injections/interventions (95 % [95 % CI 91–99 %]) and those of surgery (100 % [95 % CI 96–100 %]), and a lower rate of positive results from studies on physical treatments (85 % [95 % CI 75–95 %]) compared to those of surgery (100 % [95 % CI 96–100 %]). Studies with placebo controls were less likely to report positive results (60 % [95 % CI 44–76 %]) compared to those that did not use placebo controls (96 % [95 % CI 94–98 %]).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Despite the vast majority of studies in the spine literature concluding positive results, the high disease prevalence of spine conditions and the enormous burden on the healthcare system remain.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100727,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Pain Medicine","volume":"3 3","pages":"Article 100423"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772594424000438/pdfft?md5=c8ca4929b810a826b0d680b9f057a306&pid=1-s2.0-S2772594424000438-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rates of positive vs negative studies in the spine literature\",\"authors\":\"Samantha Levin , Joshua Levin\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.inpm.2024.100423\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Accuracy in the interpretation of data, and publication of studies regardless of outcomes are vital to the development of the scientific literature.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To determine the proportion of studies in the spine literature that report positive results.</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>Review article of studies published in nine major spine, pain, and physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) journals from January 1, 2018–December 31, 2022.</p></div><div><h3>Patient sample</h3><p>Not applicable.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Articles that reported on pain and/or function from 2018 to 2022 in nine major journals were reviewed by two independent evaluators. The articles were graded as either positive or negative based on the authors’ own conclusions about their work.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Overall, 91 % [95 % CI 88–94 %] of all articles were reported to have positive results. No significant differences were found between the broad categories of spine, pain, and PM&R journals. When comparing different categories of treatments, there were lower rates of positive results from medication/supplement studies (54 % [95 % CI 27–81 %]) compared to studies of spine injections/interventions (95 % [95 % CI 91–99 %]) and those of surgery (100 % [95 % CI 96–100 %]), and a lower rate of positive results from studies on physical treatments (85 % [95 % CI 75–95 %]) compared to those of surgery (100 % [95 % CI 96–100 %]). Studies with placebo controls were less likely to report positive results (60 % [95 % CI 44–76 %]) compared to those that did not use placebo controls (96 % [95 % CI 94–98 %]).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Despite the vast majority of studies in the spine literature concluding positive results, the high disease prevalence of spine conditions and the enormous burden on the healthcare system remain.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100727,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Interventional Pain Medicine\",\"volume\":\"3 3\",\"pages\":\"Article 100423\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772594424000438/pdfft?md5=c8ca4929b810a826b0d680b9f057a306&pid=1-s2.0-S2772594424000438-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Interventional Pain Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772594424000438\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interventional Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772594424000438","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景数据解读的准确性以及无论结果如何都发表研究报告对科学文献的发展至关重要。目的确定脊柱文献中报告阳性结果的研究比例。研究设计对2018年1月1日至2022年12月31日期间在九种主要脊柱、疼痛、物理医学和康复(PM&R)期刊上发表的研究文章进行回顾性研究。患者样本不适用。方法由两名独立评估员对2018年至2022年期间九种主要期刊上报告疼痛和/或功能的文章进行回顾性研究。根据作者自己对其工作的结论,文章被评为阳性或阴性。结果总体而言,所有文章中有 91% [95 % CI 88-94%]报告了阳性结果。脊柱、疼痛和 PM&R 期刊大类之间没有发现明显差异。在比较不同类别的治疗方法时,药物/补充剂研究的阳性结果率(54 % [95 % CI 27-81%])低于脊柱注射/干预研究(95 % [95 % CI 91-99%])和手术研究(100 % [95 % CI 96-100%]),物理治疗研究的阳性结果率(85 % [95 % CI 75-95%])低于手术研究(100 % [95 % CI 96-100%])。与不使用安慰剂对照的研究(96 % [95 % CI 94-98%])相比,使用安慰剂对照的研究报告阳性结果的可能性较低(60 % [95 % CI 44-76%])。结论尽管脊柱文献中的绝大多数研究都得出了阳性结果,但脊柱疾病的高发病率和对医疗系统造成的巨大负担依然存在。
Rates of positive vs negative studies in the spine literature
Background
Accuracy in the interpretation of data, and publication of studies regardless of outcomes are vital to the development of the scientific literature.
Objective
To determine the proportion of studies in the spine literature that report positive results.
Study design
Review article of studies published in nine major spine, pain, and physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) journals from January 1, 2018–December 31, 2022.
Patient sample
Not applicable.
Methods
Articles that reported on pain and/or function from 2018 to 2022 in nine major journals were reviewed by two independent evaluators. The articles were graded as either positive or negative based on the authors’ own conclusions about their work.
Results
Overall, 91 % [95 % CI 88–94 %] of all articles were reported to have positive results. No significant differences were found between the broad categories of spine, pain, and PM&R journals. When comparing different categories of treatments, there were lower rates of positive results from medication/supplement studies (54 % [95 % CI 27–81 %]) compared to studies of spine injections/interventions (95 % [95 % CI 91–99 %]) and those of surgery (100 % [95 % CI 96–100 %]), and a lower rate of positive results from studies on physical treatments (85 % [95 % CI 75–95 %]) compared to those of surgery (100 % [95 % CI 96–100 %]). Studies with placebo controls were less likely to report positive results (60 % [95 % CI 44–76 %]) compared to those that did not use placebo controls (96 % [95 % CI 94–98 %]).
Conclusions
Despite the vast majority of studies in the spine literature concluding positive results, the high disease prevalence of spine conditions and the enormous burden on the healthcare system remain.