首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Annals of Translational Medicine >Further reflections on TOPKAT and Partial vs. Total Knee Replacement—response to authors
【2h】

Further reflections on TOPKAT and Partial vs. Total Knee Replacement—response to authors

机译:关于TOPKAT和部分与全膝关节置换的进一步思考—对作者的回应

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

The acknowledgement by Argenson ( ) about establishing appropriate inclusion criteria for TOPKAT is appreciated and shows substantial insight. The potential for selection bias (particularly, but not exclusively, with cohort and non-randomised data) is ever present when considering comparative efficacy between two types of knee replacement. Even sophisticated post hoc adjustments and analyses can only account for, but never entirely obviate, such a critical and initial selection bias. Thresholds of disease and individual choice characteristics for implant type, by both surgeons and patients, are highly varied in normal practice and equipoise is often difficult to achieve (hence the Expertise design employed for TOPKAT) ( ). Thus, the slightest bias, in an area which clearly lacks high effect sizes and enormous differences, will influence interpretation, conclusions (and therefore recommended practice). Using a randomised design in a carefully selected large population (suitable for both TKR and PKR) was a deliberate and key feature of the study and addresses some of the issues from other high quality cohort work ( , ).
机译:感谢Argenson()对建立TOPKAT的适当纳入标准的认可,并显示出实质性的见识。当考虑两种类型的膝关节置换术之间的比较疗效时,选择偏倚的可能性(特别是但非排他性的队列和非随机数据)一直存在。即使是复杂的事后调整和分析也只能解决但绝不能完全避免这种关键的初始选择偏差。在正常实践中,外科医生和患者的疾病阈值和针对植入物类型的个体选择特征在很大程度上差异很大,并且通常很难达到平衡(因此,TOPKAT采用了专门技术设计)()。因此,在明显缺乏高影响力和巨大差异的领域中,最小的偏见将影响解释,结论(并因此推荐实践)。在精心挑选的大量人群(适合TKR和PKR)中使用随机设计是研究的故意和关键特征,并解决了其他高质量队列研究中的一些问题()。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

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