1 / 36

김다현 김영문 김인겸 이동렬 이준원 임창진 정상훈 책임교수 엄상화

7. 김다현 김영문 김인겸 이동렬 이준원 임창진 정상훈 책임교수 엄상화. Comparison between MD and MED in VAS, MacNab and complications: Meta-analysis. 7. 김다현 김영문 김인겸 이동렬 이준원 임창진 정상훈 책임교수 엄상화. Comparison between MD and MED in VAS, MacNab and complications: Meta-analysis. 80 %.

zinna
Download Presentation

김다현 김영문 김인겸 이동렬 이준원 임창진 정상훈 책임교수 엄상화

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 7 김다현 김영문 김인겸 이동렬 이준원 임창진 정상훈 책임교수 엄상화

  2. Comparison between MD and MED in VAS, MacNab and complications: Meta-analysis

  3. 7 김다현 김영문 김인겸 이동렬 이준원 임창진 정상훈 책임교수 엄상화

  4. Comparison between MD and MED in VAS, MacNab and complications: Meta-analysis

  5. 80% Life-time prevalence of back pain * Adam and Victor’s Principles of Neurology, McGrew-hill, 2009

  6. Herniated intervertebral disc Most common in lumbar lesion

  7. Lumbar Discectomy • No response to conservative Tx. for 6wks • Early, progressive neurologic symptom • Microsugicaldiscectomy (MD)Microendoscopicdiscectomy (MED)

  8. MD vs MED MD MED Less bleeding Fast tissue recovery Short hospital stay Less Postop. pain • Standard • Short op. time • Wide indication (?)

  9. Meta-analysis

  10. Weakness Process Hypothesis Strategy Collection Coding Analysis Conclusion • Qualitative research • Uneven article quality • Publication bias

  11. Method

  12. Search strategy • JAMA & Archives • PubMed • MEDLINE • EMBASE • Ovid • English • January, 2000~ September, 2010

  13. Selection of keywords

  14. Selection criteria

  15. VAS

  16. MacNab

  17. Complications

  18. Quality assessment • Type of studies • Prospective, clinical trial • Retrospective + cohort • Retrospective • Journal grade? • JAMA, NEJM, Lancet • SCI • Domestic, etc • : 1 point • : 0.8 point • : 0.6 point • : 1 point • : 0.8 point • : 0.6 point

  19. Data analysis? (분석방법) • Tools • Excel 2007, RASW statistics 18, MedCalc • Mean-difference 평균차검정? • VAS • 교차분석? • MacNab • Complications

  20. 8 VAS 8 MacNab 10 Complications

  21. 8 VAS 8 From To MacNab 14 82 10 Cx.

  22. Study characteristics

  23. Study characteristics

  24. Result

  25. VAS Baby one more time.

  26. MacNab p-value = 0.001

  27. Complications p-value = 0.962 OR(MED/MD) = 1.010 (95% CI 0.67 – 1.51)

  28. Summary

  29. VAS MacNab Cx. I don’t know No difference No difference

  30. Limitation

  31. Limited language • Changed diagnostic criteria • Uneven article quality • Publications bias • Limited patient indication?

  32. Conclusion

  33. 논문이 끝났다는 것이지.

  34. 회식은 구제역으로 어려움에 처한 축산농가를 살리기 위해서 돼지고기가 좋겠다는게 개인적인 의견이라능…

More Related