Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Confirmation Biases01:31

Confirmation Biases

8.3K
The confirmation bias is the tendency to focus on information that confirms our existing beliefs and ignore information that is inconsistent with our expectations. For example, if you think that your professor is not very nice, you notice all of the instances of rude behavior exhibited by the professor while ignoring the countless pleasant interactions he is involved in on a daily basis. Have you ever fallen prey to the confirmation bias, either as the source or target of such bias?
8.3K
Hindsight Biases01:12

Hindsight Biases

4.3K
Hindsight bias leads you to believe that the event you just experienced was predictable, even though it really wasn’t. In other words, you knew all along that things would turn out the way they did. Can you relate this to the phrase "Hindsight is 20/20" now? 
4.3K
Bias01:22

Bias

7.4K
Bias refers to any tendency that prevents a question from being considered unprejudiced. In research, bias occurs when one outcome or answer is selected or encouraged over others in sampling or testing. Bias can occur during any research phase, including study design, data collection, analysis, and publication.
In statistics, a sampling bias is created when a sample is collected from a population, and some members of the population are not as likely to be chosen as others (remember, each member...
7.4K
Trial and Error and Algorithm01:12

Trial and Error and Algorithm

429
A problem-solving strategy is a plan of action used to find a solution. Different strategies have distinct action plans. Trial and error involves trying different solutions until one works. For instance, to fix a broken printer, you might check ink levels, ensure the paper tray isn't jammed, and verify the printer's connection to your laptop. This method can be time-consuming but is commonly used. Thomas Edison, for example, used trial and error to find a suitable filament for the light...
429
Clinical Trials: Overview01:11

Clinical Trials: Overview

5.0K
Clinical development focuses on how the drug will interact with the human body and encompasses four key phases of clinical trials, each serving a specific purpose in assessing the safety and effectiveness of new drugs. These phases overlap and build upon one another. Phase I involves a small group of healthy volunteers (typically 20-80 individuals) or, in cases where significant toxicity is expected, patients with the targeted disease, such as cancer or AIDS. The volunteers are tested for...
5.0K
Clinical Trials01:16

Clinical Trials

10.9K
Clinical trials are prospective experimental studies conducted on humans to determine the safety and efficacy of treatments, drugs, diet methods, and medical devices. Using statistics in clinical trials enables researchers to derive reasonable and accurate conclusions from the collected data, allowing them to make wise decisions in uncertain situations. In medical research, statistical methods are crucial for preventing errors and bias.
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
10.9K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Predictors of In-Hospital Mortality After Operative Cervical Spinal Cord Injury: A National Trauma Data Bank Analysis From 2021 to 2023.

Global spine journal·2026
Same author

Testosterone Replacement Therapy in Posterior Lumbar Fusion Patients: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Long-Term Outcomes.

Global spine journal·2026
Same author

Forgotten Spine Surgery Score Cervical (FS3-C): A Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Assessing the Impact of Motion Preservation in Cervical Spine Surgery.

Global spine journal·2026
Same author

Outcomes after cervical disc replacement compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at medium- to long-term follow-up: a propensity score-matched TriNetX analysis.

Neurosurgical focus·2026
Same author

Discrepancy Between Global-Specific and Disease-Specific Outcome Measures Following Cervical Spine Surgery.

Clinical spine surgery·2026
Same author

Robotic Assistance in Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion Is Associated with Higher Comorbidity Burden, Greater 90-Day Infectious Complications, and Increased Episode Costs.

The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Feb 10, 2026

Treatment of Ankle Osteoarthritis with Total Ankle Replacement Through a Lateral Transfibular Approach
09:01

Treatment of Ankle Osteoarthritis with Total Ankle Replacement Through a Lateral Transfibular Approach

Published on: January 24, 2018

12.4K

Bias in cervical total disc replacement trials.

Kristen Radcliff1, Sean Siburn2, Hamadi Murphy3

  • 1Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Department of Neurological Surgery, Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, 2500 English Creek Ave, Egg Harbor, NJ, 08234, USA. kris.radcliff@rothmaninstitute.com.

Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine
|March 25, 2017
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Concerns about bias in cervical disc replacement (CDR) literature persist. This review identifies publication bias, external validity issues, confounding factors, and financial conflicts of interest that may impact CDR study interpretations.

Keywords:
Anterior cervical discectomy fusionBiasCervical disc replacementCervical radiculopathy

More Related Videos

An In Vitro Organ Culture Model of the Murine Intervertebral Disc
08:03

An In Vitro Organ Culture Model of the Murine Intervertebral Disc

Published on: April 11, 2017

10.3K
Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in the Ovine Model
06:11

Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in the Ovine Model

Published on: October 5, 2009

13.3K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Feb 10, 2026

Treatment of Ankle Osteoarthritis with Total Ankle Replacement Through a Lateral Transfibular Approach
09:01

Treatment of Ankle Osteoarthritis with Total Ankle Replacement Through a Lateral Transfibular Approach

Published on: January 24, 2018

12.4K
An In Vitro Organ Culture Model of the Murine Intervertebral Disc
08:03

An In Vitro Organ Culture Model of the Murine Intervertebral Disc

Published on: April 11, 2017

10.3K
Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in the Ovine Model
06:11

Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in the Ovine Model

Published on: October 5, 2009

13.3K

Area of Science:

  • Spine surgery
  • Biomechanical engineering
  • Medical device research

Background:

  • Cervical disc replacement (CDR) offers a motion-preserving alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).
  • Despite positive outcomes reported in literature, widespread adoption of CDR is hindered by concerns over potential biases in existing studies.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To systematically identify and analyze potential biases within the scientific literature comparing cervical disc replacement (CDR) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).
  • To critically evaluate the existing evidence base for CDR to inform clinical decision-making and future research design.

Main Methods:

  • Literature review and critical analysis of studies comparing CDR with ACDF.
  • Identification and categorization of bias types, including publication bias, external validity limitations, confounding variables, and financial conflicts of interest.

Main Results:

  • Recent comparative studies indicate that CDR yields equivalent or superior outcomes compared to ACDF, with lower rates of secondary surgery and comparable safety profiles.
  • Four primary types of bias were identified in the CDR literature: publication bias, issues with external validity, confounding bias, and financial conflicts of interest.

Conclusions:

  • Bias, whether intentional or unintentional, significantly influences the interpretation and reported outcomes of CDR studies.
  • Awareness and critical assessment of these biases are essential for accurately evaluating CDR efficacy and for designing robust future research in spinal surgery.