title: Classics in Spine. Surgery literature revisited.
abstract: METHODS
  This article reviews the criteria for evaluating the quality of clinical trials.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To outline the current methodologic standards by which the validity of controlled trials need to be evaluated.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  Weber's study, published in 1983 in Spine, is the only randomized trial comparing surgery and conservative management of sciatica in herniated lumbar discs.
  
  
  METHODS
  Weber's article is revisited to illustrate basic principles in the design of clinical trials.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Weber's study is a classic in spine surgery and has changed thinking regarding the benefit of surgery in sciatica related to herniated lumbar discs. However, the authors found potentially critical flaws in this study: a large number of crossovers, inadequate sample size, and insensitive outcome measurements.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  A randomized, controlled trial is the most rigorous way to evaluate health intervention. Despite the difficulties of performing such studies, investigators should use the most appropriate scientific methodology.
authors: Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Robert B. Brigham Multipurpose Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Disease Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
authors: L
authors: L
authors: Bessette
authors: M H
authors: MH
authors: Liang
authors: R A
authors: RA
authors: Lew
authors: J N
authors: JN
authors: Weinstein
mesh_terms: D002986:Clinical Trials as Topic / Q000379:methods* / Q000592:standards; D005069:Evaluation Studies as Topic; D006801:Humans; D010043:Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care; D011787:Quality of Health Care; D013131:Spine / Q000601:surgery*; D014481:United States