Surgical techniques and perioperative surgical outcomes after discectomy for calcified lumbar disc herniation: a review and meta-analysis

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Because of specific methodological difficulties in conducting randomized trials, surgical research remains dependent predominantly on observational or non-randomized studies. Few validated instruments are available to determine the methodological quality of such studies either from the reader's perspective or for the purpose of meta-analysis. The aim of the present study was to develop and validate such an instrument. After an initial conceptualization phase of a methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS), a list of 12 potential items was sent to 100 experts from different surgical specialties for evaluation and was also assessed by 10 clinical methodologists. Subsequent testing involved the assessment of inter-reviewer agreement, test-retest reliability at 2 months, internal consistency reliability and external validity. The final version of MINORS contained 12 items, the first eight being specifically for non-comparative studies. Reliability was established on the basis of good inter-reviewer agreement, high test-retest reliability by the kappa-coefficient and good internal consistency by a high Cronbach's alpha-coefficient. External validity was established in terms of the ability of MINORS to identify excellent trials. MINORS is a valid instrument designed to assess the methodological quality of non-randomized surgical studies, whether comparative or non-comparative. The next step will be to determine its external validity when used in a large number of studies and to compare it with other existing instruments.

The paper ''Nomenclature and classification of lumbar disc pathology, recommendations of the combined task forces of the North American Spine Society, the American Society of Spine Radiology and the American Society of Neuroradiology,'' was published in 2001 in Spine (© Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins). It was authored by David Fardon, MD, and Pierre Milette, MD, and formally endorsed by the American Society of Spine Radiology (ASSR), American Society of Neuroradiology (ASNR), and North American Spine Society (NASS). Its purpose was to promote greater clarity and consistency of usage of spinal terminology, and it has served this purpose well for over a decade. Since 2001, there has been sufficient evolution in our understanding of the lumbar disc to suggest the need for revision and updating of the original document. The revised document is presented here, and it represents the consensus recommendations of contemporary combined task forces of the ASSR, ASNR, and NASS. This article reflects changes consistent with current concepts in radiologic and clinical care.