Advertisement

Level 1 Evidence: Long-Term Clinical Results

  • Daisuke ArakiEmail author
  • Ryosuke Kuroda
Chapter

Abstract

The level of evidence system is an evidence-based medicine tool that applies a hierarchal rating to a study’s strength based on its study design. Among these, the studies categorized as level 1 are the highest that include randomized control trials, meta-analyses, and high-quality clinical follow-up results. The precise definition of high-quality clinical follow-up results has not been determined. However, to obtain the high-quality design, careful planning of research protocols such as comprehensive initial data collection, flexible scheduling, identification of locators, data blinding, systematic subject tracking, monitoring subject loss, and systematically approaching problem cases is very important. In addition, a minimum 2-year follow-up period is also essential. This article presents how to perform the level 1 study of the long-term clinical results.

References

  1. 1.
    Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328(7454):1490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bhandari M, Guyatt GH, Swiontkowski MF. User’s guide to the orthopaedic literature: how to use an article about a surgical therapy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83-A(6):916–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bhandari M, Guyatt GH, Swiontkowski MF. User’s guide to the orthopaedic literature: how to use an article about prognosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83-A(10):1555–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bhandari M, Morrow F, Kulkarni AV, Tornetta P 3rd. Meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery. A systematic review of their methodologies. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83-A(1):15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dettori J. Class or level of evidence: epidemiologic basis. Evid Based Spine Care J. 2012;3(3):9–12.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nardini C. The ethics of clinical trials. Ecancermedicalscience. 2014;8:387.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Poolman RW, Petrisor BA, Marti RK, Kerkhoffs GM, Zlowodzki M, Bhandari M. Misconceptions about practicing evidence-based orthopedic surgery. Acta Orthop. 2007;78(1):2–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 1996;312(7023):71–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Woolard RH, Carty K, Wirtz P, et al. Research fundamentals: follow-up of subjects in clinical trials: addressing subject attrition. Acad Emerg Med. 2004;11(8):859–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wright JG, Swiontkowski MF. Introducing a new journal section: evidence-based orthopaedics. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82(6):759–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wright JG, Swiontkowski MF, Heckman JD. Introducing levels of evidence to the journal. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A(1):1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    The periodic health examination. Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. Can Med Assoc J. 1979;121(9):1193–254.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ISAKOS 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryKobe University Graduate School of MedicineKobeJapan

Personalised recommendations