Spinal Research — A Field in Need of Standardization

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   1. Chalmers I,
   2. Glasziou P

   . Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 2009;374:86–9.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Clarke M

   . Standardising outcomes for clinical trials and systematic reviews. Trials 2007;8:39.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   1. Winget MD,
   2. Baron JA,
   3. Spitz MR,
   4. Brenner DE,
   5. Warzel D,
   6. Kincaid H,
   7. et al.

   Development of common data elements: the experience of and recommendations from the early detection research network. Int J Med Inform 2003;70:41–8.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Gargon E,
   2. Gorst SL,
   3. Harman NL,
   4. Smith V,
   5. Matvienko-Sikar K,
   6. Williamson PR

   . Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 4th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research. PLoS One 2018;13:e0209869.

   OpenUrl
5. 5.↵
   1. Kirkham JJ,
   2. Clarke M,
   3. Williamson PR

   . A methodological approach for assessing the uptake of core outcome sets using ClinicalTrials.gov: findings from a review of randomised controlled trials of rheumatoid arthritis. BMJ 2017;357:j2262.

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   1. James SL,
   2. Abate D,
   3. Abate KH,
   4. Abay SM,
   5. Abbafati C,
   6. Abbasi N,
   7. et al.

   Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 2018;392:1789–858.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Dieleman JL,
   2. Squires E,
   3. Bui AL,
   4. Campbell M,
   5. Chapin A,
   6. Hamavid H,
   7. et al.

   Factors associated with increases in US health care spending, 1996–2013. JAMA 2017;318:1668–78.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Davies BM,
   2. Khan DZ,
   3. Mowforth OD,
   4. McNair AGK,
   5. Gronlund T,
   6. Kolias AG,
   7. et al.

   RE-CODE DCM (Research Objectives and Common Data Elements for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy): A consensus process to improve research efficiency in DCM, through establishment of a standardized dataset for clinical research and the definition of the research priorities. Global Spine J 2019;9(1 Suppl):65S–76S.

   OpenUrl
9. 9.↵
   1. Davies BM,
   2. Mowforth OD,
   3. Smith EK,
   4. Kotter MR

   . Degenerative cervical myelopathy. BMJ 2018;360:k186.

   OpenUrlFREE Full Text
10. 10.↵
    1. Hilton B,
    2. Tempest-Mitchell J,
    3. Davies B,
    4. Kotter M

    . Route to diagnosis of degenerative cervical myelopathy in a UK healthcare system: a retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open 2019;9:e027000.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text