Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1007/s12178-017-9399-2 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1007/s12178-017-9399-2 C5435630!5435630!28337733     free     free     free       Curr+Rev+Musculoskelet+Med 2017 ; 10 (2): 170-6 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=28337733|t=2017. Bias in cervical total disc replacement trials |pdf=|usr=}}{{28337733}} gab.com Text Bias in cervical total disc replacement trials JO: Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=28337733 #FOAvip Purpose of review: Cervical disc replacement (CDR) has emerged as a motion-preserving alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in selected cases. Despite favorable literature, CDR is not universally accepted because of concerns regarding bias in the existing literature. The purpose of this review is to identify the possible biases in the disc replacement literature. Recent findings: Recent studies that compare CDR and ACDF have demonstrated equivalent or superior outcomes, lower rates of secondary surgery, and equivalent safety at medium- and long-term follow-up. In our review, we identified four types of bias that may affect the CDR literature: publication bias, external validity, confounding bias, and financial conflicts of interest. Summary: Bias, whether intentional or unintentional, can impact the interpretation and outcome of CDR studies. Recognition of this issue is critical when utilizing the existing literature to determine the efficacy of CDR and designing future studies. Twit Text FOAVip Bias in cervical total disc replacement trials ????Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=28337733 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=28337733 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|28337733}}</ref> Bias in cervical total disc replacement trials #MMPMID28337733 Radcliff K; Siburn S; Murphy H; Woods B; Qureshi S Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2017[Jun]; 10 (2): 170-6 PMID28337733show ga Purpose of review: Cervical disc replacement (CDR) has emerged as a motion-preserving alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in selected cases. Despite favorable literature, CDR is not universally accepted because of concerns regarding bias in the existing literature. The purpose of this review is to identify the possible biases in the disc replacement literature. Recent findings: Recent studies that compare CDR and ACDF have demonstrated equivalent or superior outcomes, lower rates of secondary surgery, and equivalent safety at medium- and long-term follow-up. In our review, we identified four types of bias that may affect the CDR literature: publication bias, external validity, confounding bias, and financial conflicts of interest. Summary: Bias, whether intentional or unintentional, can impact the interpretation and outcome of CDR studies. Recognition of this issue is critical when utilizing the existing literature to determine the efficacy of CDR and designing future studies. äBias in cervical total disc replacement trials (epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing