Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

“Garbage in, garbage out”—the importance of detailing methodological reasoning in orthopaedic meta-analysis

  • Letter to the Editor
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Smith TO, Blake V, Hing CB (2010) Minimally invasive versus conventional exposure for total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical and radiological outcomes. Int Orthop. doi:10.1007/s00264-010-1075-8, In Press

    Google Scholar 

  2. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman D (1995) Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 273:408–412

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hopewell S, Clarke M, Mallett S (2005) Grey literature and systematic reviews. In: Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M (eds) Publication bias in meta-analysis. Wiley, Chichester, UK, pp 49–72

    Google Scholar 

  4. Slavin RE (2002) Evidence-based education policies: transforming educational practice and research. Educ Researcher 31:15–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cheng T, Feng JG, Liu T, Zhang XL (2009) Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. Int Orthop 33:1473–1481

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bennett D, Ogonda L, Elliott D, Humphreys L, Lawlor M, Beverland D (2007) Comparison of immediate postoperative walking ability in patients receiving minimally invasive and standard incision hip arthroplasty: a prospective blinded study. J Arthroplasty 22:490–495

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ogonda L, Wilson R, Archbold P, Lawlor M, Humphreys P, O'Brien S et al (2005) A minimal-incision technique in total hip arthroplasty does not improve early postoperative outcomes. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg 87-A:701–710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sculco TP, Jordan LC, Walter WL (2004) Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: the Hospital for Special Surgery experience. Orthop Clin North Am 35:137–142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chimento GF, Pavone V, Sharrock N, Kahn B, Cahill J, Sculco T (2005) Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study. J Arthroplasty 20:139–144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 62:1006–1012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Health, Queen’s Building, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK

    Toby O. Smith

  2. Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, St George’s Hospital, Tooting, London, SW17 0QT, UK

    Caroline B. Hing

Authors
  1. Toby O. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Caroline B. Hing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Toby O. Smith.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Smith, T.O., Hing, C.B. “Garbage in, garbage out”—the importance of detailing methodological reasoning in orthopaedic meta-analysis. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 35, 301–302 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-1171-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-1171-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation