MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1302/0301-620x.74b5.1388172

Медицинская библиотека · The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume · 1992

Lack of scientific evidence for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis of the elbow. An attempted meta-analysis.

Labelle H, Guibert R, Joncas J, Newman N, Fallaha M, Rivard C H

Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализРандомизированное исследованиеПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

We have reviewed 185 articles published since 1966 to assess the scientific evidence for methods of treatment for lateral epicondylitis of the elbow. Of the 185 articles, 78 discussed treatment, but since the natural history of the syndrome is uncertain we considered only those series with concurrent control groups. Only 18 of these were randomised and controlled studies. We then graded these papers for scientific validity, using the methods of Chalmers et al (1981). The mean score of the 18 articles was only 33%, with a range from 6% to 73%. A minimum of 70% is required for a valid clinical trial, and we therefore concluded that there was insufficient scientific evidence to support any of the current methods of treatment. There were too many methodological differences to allow a quantitative meta-analysis, but our qualitative review established the importance of the natural evolution of the syndrome and of the placebo effect of all treatments. Properly designed, controlled trials are needed.

Для цитирования: Labelle H, Guibert R, Joncas J, Newman N, Fallaha M, Rivard C H. Lack of scientific evidence for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis of the elbow. An attempted meta-analysis.. The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume. 1992. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.74b5.1388172.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.