Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Orthopaedics
Literature
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
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 273:408–412PubMedCrossRef
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
4.
Slavin RE (2002) Evidence-based education policies: transforming educational practice and research. Educ Researcher 31:15–21CrossRef
5.
Cheng T, Feng JG, Liu T, Zhang XL (2009) Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. Int Orthop 33:1473–1481PubMedCrossRef
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 22:490–495PubMedCrossRef
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:701–710CrossRef
8.
Sculco TP, Jordan LC, Walter WL (2004) Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: the Hospital for Special Surgery experience. Orthop Clin North Am 35:137–142PubMedCrossRef
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 20:139–144PubMedCrossRef
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 62:1006–1012PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
“Garbage in, garbage out”—the importance of detailing methodological reasoning in orthopaedic meta-analysis
Authors
Toby O. Smith
Caroline B. Hing
Publication date
01-02-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
International Orthopaedics / Issue 2/2011
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-1171-9

Other articles of this Issue 2/2011

International Orthopaedics 2/2011 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Results of hip resurfacing

Original Paper

The dual mobility socket concept: experience with 668 cases

Original Paper

Distal locking stem for revision femoral loosening and peri-prosthetic fractures

Original Paper

Twenty-year results of the cementless Corail stem

Review

Revision total hip arthroplasty: the femoral side using cemented implants

Original Paper

Metal-on-metal: history, state of the art (2010)