Literature DB >> 19404712

Role of technology assessment in orthopaedics.

Charles Turkelson1, Joshua J Jacobs.   

Abstract

A technology assessment is a literature-based research project that seeks to determine whether a medical device, drug, procedure, or biologic is effective or to summarize literature on a given technology. A well-conducted assessment is a form of secondary research that employs the same steps used in primary research studies (ie, well-designed clinical trials). The primary difference is that in technology assessment the investigator does not collect the raw data. Rather, (s)he must use data collected by someone else. Nevertheless, a well-designed assessment, like a well-designed study, employs the scientific method, which is a method designed to combat bias. When there is little available information, such as with new technologies, unbiased examinations can typically show that enthusiasm for that technology is not backed by much data. When there is more information, assessments can not only determine whether a technology is effective, but also how effective it is. Technology assessments can provide busy orthopaedic surgeons (who do not have the time to keep up with and critically evaluate current literature) with succinct information that enables them to rapidly determine what is and what is not known about any given medical technology.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19404712      PMCID: PMC2745459          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-009-0859-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  44 in total

Review 1.  Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses.

Authors:  D Moher; D J Cook; S Eastwood; I Olkin; D Rennie; D F Stroup
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1999-11-27       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 2.  Meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery. A systematic review of their methodologies.

Authors:  M Bhandari; F Morrow; A V Kulkarni; P Tornetta
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  An observational study of orthopaedic abstracts and subsequent full-text publications.

Authors:  Mohit Bhandari; P J Devereaux; Gordon H Guyatt; Deborah J Cook; Marc F Swiontkowski; Sheila Sprague; Emil H Schemitsch
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Do orthopaedic journals provide high-quality evidence for clinical practice?

Authors:  E Kiter; V Karatosun; I Günal
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2003-03-22       Impact factor: 3.067

5.  Effect of applying different "levels of evidence" criteria on conclusions of Cochrane reviews of interventions for low back pain.

Authors:  P H Ferreira; M L Ferreira; C G Maher; K Refshauge; R D Herbert; J Latimer
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  Multivariable adjustments counteract spectrum and test review bias in accuracy studies.

Authors:  Lucas M Bachmann; Gerben ter Riet; Wim E J Weber; Alfons G H Kessels
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2008-07-14       Impact factor: 6.437

7.  Identifying clinical trials in the medical literature with electronic databases: MEDLINE alone is not enough.

Authors:  M E Suarez-Almazor; E Belseck; J Homik; M Dorgan; C Ramos-Remus
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  2000-10

Review 8.  Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative.

Authors:  Patrick M Bossuyt; Johannes B Reitsma; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Paul P Glasziou; Les M Irwig; Jeroen G Lijmer; David Moher; Drummond Rennie; Henrica C W de Vet
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2003-01-07       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 9.  Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative.

Authors:  Patrick M Bossuyt; Johannes B Reitsma; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Paul P Glasziou; Les M Irwig; Jeroen G Lijmer; David Moher; Drummond Rennie; Henrica C W de Vet
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-01-04

10.  How objective are systematic reviews? Differences between reviews on complementary medicine.

Authors:  Klaus Linde; Stefan N Willich
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 18.000

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.