Letter to the editor regarding “Clinical effectiveness and safety of powered exoskeleton-assisted walking in patients with spinal cord injury: systematic review with meta-analysis”

Medical Devices: Evidence and Research, 2016 · DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S125211 · Published: November 29, 2016

Spinal Cord Injury Assistive Technology Research Methodology & Design

Simple Explanation

This letter to the editor raises concerns about a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of powered exoskeletons for spinal cord injury patients. The authors suggest that the meta-analysis may have included duplicate patient data, which could affect the results. They argue that including duplicate subjects violates statistical assumptions and can lead to inaccurate conclusions.

Study Duration

Not specified

Participants

SCI patients in meta-analysis

Evidence Level

Letter to the editor

Key Findings

1
The letter identifies potential duplicate patient data in the meta-analysis by Miller et al.
2
Identical values were reported in different primary studies.
3
The authors calculated a very low probability that subjects in different studies are unique.

Research Summary

Dijkers et al raise concerns about potential duplicate data in a meta-analysis regarding the clinical effectiveness and safety of powered exoskeletons for spinal cord injury (SCI) patients. They highlight instances where different primary studies report identical values for proportions and means, suggesting that the same patients may have been included in multiple studies. The authors recommend that Miller et al address these concerns and correct their report to remove any erroneous information from the scientific literature.

Practical Implications

Data Integrity

Highlights the importance of verifying the uniqueness of patient data in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Systematic Review Rigor

Emphasizes the need for systematic reviewers to be vigilant in detecting duplicate publications and to follow up on any leads.

Author Responsibility

Encourages authors to explicitly state when they are publishing multiple reports from common patients.

Study Limitations

1
Letter to the editor, not a primary research study.
2
Concerns raised are based on observations and calculations, not definitive proof of duplicate data.
3
The response from the original authors suggests discrepancies were not duplicates

Your Feedback

Was this summary helpful?

Back to Spinal Cord Injury