维普期刊资源整合服务平台（V6.5）

维普中文期刊产品整合服务

10篇 您的检索式：作者名="Vanderthommen"

选中清除导出查看参考文献查看引证文献引用追踪共1页首页上一页第1页下一页末页 /1 跳转

		题名	作者	年代	出处	被引量
	1	Recommendations for a basic functional assessment of low back pain显示文摘	Fauconnier C Vanderthommen M	2005	Rev Med Liege2005，60，78：	1
	2	Spinal muscle evaluation in healthy indi- viduals and low-back-pain patients:a litera- ture review显示文摘	Demoulin C Crielaard JM Vanderthommen M	2007	Joint Bone Spine2007，74，：	1
	3	Recommendations for a basic functional assessment of low back pain 显示文摘	Demoulin C Fauconnier C Vanderthommen M	2005	Rev ivied Liege2005，60，78：	1
	4	Spinal muscle evaluation in healthy individuals and low-back-pain patients:a literature review显示文摘	Demoulin C Crielaard JM Vanderthommen M	2007	Joint Bone Spine2007，74，：	1
	5	Lumbar functional instability: a critical appraisal of the literature显示文摘	C. Demoulin V. Distrée M. Tomasella J.-M. Crielaard M. Vanderthommen	2007	Annales de réadaptation et de médecine physique2007，，8：	1
	6	Spinal muscle evaluation in healthy individuals and low-back-pain patients:a literature review显示文摘	Demoulin C Crielaard JM Vanderthommen M	2007	JOINT BONE SPINE2007，，74：	1
	7	Spinal mus- cle evaluation in healthy individuals and low-back-pain pa- tients: a literature review显示文摘	Demoulin C Crielaard JM Vanderthommen M	2007	Joint Bone Spine2007，74，1：	1
	8	Spinal muscle evaluation using the Sorensen test:a critical appraisal of the literature显示文摘	Demoulin C Vanderthommen M Duysens C	2006	JOINT BONE SPINE2006，，73：	1
	9	Muscle electric stimulation in sports medicine 显示文摘	Vanderthommen M Crielaard JM	2001	Rev Med Liege2001，56，：	1
	10	Low back pain-related meta-analysis:Caution is needed when interpreting published research results显示文摘The systematic reviews(SRs) including a meta-analysis are considered as the top level of evidence.Although the existence of more than a hundred of low back pain(LBP)-related SRs seems very appealing and might therefore suggest significant evidence on the topic,adeep analysis indicates that several of these SRs included only very few studies.Other SRs raise concerns because they included some randomized controlled trials which had a low methodological quality,or some studies which differed significantly regarding the studied populations and/or the experimental procedure.The sometimes controversial results of different SRs conducted on the same topic also highlight the significant influence of the inclusion/exclusion criteria used in the SRs to select the articles.To conclude,although meta-analysis is at the top of the evidence pyramid and have several strengths,the conclusions drawn from SRs should always be interpreted with caution because they can also have weaknesses.This is true,whether it be for LBP-related SRs including a meta-analysis,or any other.Therefore a critical analysis of any SR is always needed before integrating the results of the SR in its own clinical practice.Furthermore,clinical reasoning remains crucial,especially to consider the potential differences between one's patient and the patients included in the meta-analysis.	Christophe Demoulin Olivier Bruyère Pierre-René Somville Marc Vanderthommen	2015	World Journal of Meta-Analysis2015，3，2：	0

返回顶部每页显示：

共1页首页上一页第1页下一页末页 /1 跳转

goolge学术搜索-维普

网站首页 | 关于我们 | 联系我们 | 产品服务 | 客服中心 | 广告服务 | 版权声明 | 网站联盟 | 友情链接 | 售卡网点

版权所有© 渝B2-20050021-1　渝公网安备 50019002500403号　违法和不良信息举报中心

互联网出版许可证新出网证(渝)字10号全国400电话 - 免长途话费