首页> 外文期刊>Journal of bodywork and movement therapies >Why reservations remain: A critical reflection about the systematic review and meta-analysis 'Osteopathic manipulative treatment for low back pain' by Licciardone et al.
【24h】

Why reservations remain: A critical reflection about the systematic review and meta-analysis 'Osteopathic manipulative treatment for low back pain' by Licciardone et al.

机译:为什么仍然保留:对Licciardone等人的系统评价和荟萃分析“腰椎痛的骨病性手法治疗”的批判性思考。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

In 2005 John Licciardone, Angela Brimhall, and Linda King published a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with the title: Osteopathic manipulative treatment for low back pain. The conclusions of systematic review and meta-analysis depend highly on the right search strategy, the quality of the included studies (internal validity), and the error-free, unbiased and transparent evaluation of the review. As illustrated by the following article Licciardone's review includes elements that could lead to biased results. It is concluded that Licciardone et al. focused too much on the statistical significance, and overlooked that the problem of the review lay not in the calculations but in the quality and compilation of the studies.
机译:2005年,John Licciardone,Angela Brimhall和Linda King发表了系统评价和荟萃分析的随机对照试验,标题为:整骨疗法治疗腰痛。系统评价和荟萃分析的结论高度取决于正确的检索策略,纳入研究的质量(内部有效性)以及对评价的无错误,无偏见和透明的评估。如下文所示,利卡多(Licciardone)的审查包含可能导致结果有偏差的要素。结论是Licciardone等。过于关注统计意义,而忽略了审查的问题不在于计算,而在于研究的质量和汇编。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号