Effectiveness of an annular closure device in a “real-world” population: stratification of registry data using screening criteria from a randomized controlled trial

References

• BlackNWhy we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health careBMJ19963127040121512188634569
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PriceDBatemanEDChisholmAComplementing the randomized controlled trial evidence base. Evolution not revolutionAnn Am Thorac Soc201411Suppl 2S92S9824559027
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kennedy-MartinTCurtisSFariesDRobinsonSJohnstonJA literature review on the representativeness of randomized controlled trial samples and implications for the external validity of trial resultsTrials20151649526530985
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LisspersKTeixeiraPBlomCAre pharmacological randomised controlled clinical trials relevant to real-life asthma populations? A protocol for an UNLOCK study from the IPCRGNPJ Prim Care Respir Med2016261601627074713
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RuokoniemiPSundRArffmanMAre statin trials in diabetes representative of real-world diabetes care: a population-based study on statin initiators in FinlandBMJ Open201446e005402
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ZiemssenFFeltgenNHolzFGDemographics of patients receiving Intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment in real-world practice: healthcare research data versus randomized controlled trialsBMC Ophthalmol2017171728103831
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CostaDJAmouyalMLambertPHow representative are clinical study patients with allergic rhinitis in primary care?J Allergy Clin Immunol20111274920926.e92121269670
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HlatkyMACaliffRMHarrellFEJrLeeKLMarkDBPryorDBComparison of predictions based on observational data with the results of randomized controlled clinical trials of coronary artery bypass surgeryJ Am Coll Cardiol19881122372453276752
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WongGWMiravitllesMChisholmAKrishnanJARespiratory guidelines – which real world?Ann Am Thorac Soc201411Suppl 2S85S9124559026
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• MalchauHIntroducing new technology: a stepwise algorithmSpine (Phila Pa 1976)200025328510703097
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CarrageeEJHanMYSuenPWKimDClinical outcomes after lumbar discectomy for sciatica: the effects of fragment type and anular competenceJ Bone Joint Surg Am200385-A110210812533579
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KimKTLeeDHChoDCSungJKKimYBPreoperative risk factors for recurrent lumbar disk herniation in L5–S1J Spinal Disord Tech20152810E571E57725089673
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ZhouBKunWHongXAdjacent level disc degeneration: a prognostic factor for recurrent lumbar disc herniation after transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy in 409 casesInt J Clin Exp Med20169112185421859
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VirkSSDiwanAPhillipsFMSandhuHKhanSNWhat is the rate of revision discectomies after primary discectomy on a national scale?Clin Orthop Relat Res2017475112752276228849429
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MillerLEMcGirtMJGarfinSRBonoCMAssociation of annular defect width after lumbar discectomy with risk of symptom recurrence and reoperation: systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studiesSpine (Phila Pa 1976)2018435E308E31529176471
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bailey A, Araghi A, Blumenthal S, Huffmon GV; Anular Repair Clinical Study Group. Prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled study of anular repair in lumbar discectomy: two-year follow-upSpine (Phila Pa 1976)201338141161116923392414
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• QiLLiMSiHThe clinical application of “jetting suture” technique in annular repair under microendoscopic discectomy: a prospective single-cohort observational studyMedicine (Baltimore)20169531e450327495101
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KlassenPDBernsteinDTKohlerHPBone-anchored annular closure following lumbar discectomy reduces risk of complications and reoperations within 90 days of dischargeJ Pain Res2017102047205528894388
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WilkeHJResselLHeuerFGrafNRathSCan prevention of a reherniation be investigated? Establishment of a herniation model and experiments with an anular closure deviceSpine (Phila Pa 1976)20133810E587E59323429676
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MillerLEBlockJEInterspinous spacer implant in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: preliminary results of a multicenter, randomized, controlled trialPain Res Treat2012201282350922448323
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ZiglerJEGlennJDelamarterRBFive-year adjacent-level degenerative changes in patients with single-level disease treated using lumbar total disc replacement with ProDisc-L versus circumferential fusionJ Neurosurg Spine201217650451123082849
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BergSTroppHResults from a randomized controlled study between total disc replacement and fusion compared with results from a spine registerSAS J201043687425802653
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• JeeYMBakJSWeinlanderEAndersonPAComparing nonrandomized observational studies with randomized controlled trials in cervical disc arthroplasty: a meta-analysisSpine (Phila Pa 1976)201641541942826679870
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• StaubLPRyserCRoderCTotal disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical interbody fusion: use of the Spine Tango registry to supplement the evidence from randomized control trialsSpine J201616213614526674445
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OstermanHSundRSeitsaloSKeskimakiIRisk of multiple reoperations after lumbar discectomy: a population-based studySpine (Phila Pa 1976)200328662162712642772
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KursumovicAKienzlerJCBoumaGJMorphology and clinical relevance of vertebral endplate changes following limited lumbar discectomy with or without bone-anchored annular closureSpine (Phila Pa 1976) Epub2018313
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar