The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal Review: a survey of the "medical" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2014.

Abstract

2014 was a year of change for the European Spine Journal. From its beginning in 1991, the editorial responsibility for the journal was in the competent hands of Max Aebi who, along with Springer, was the founder and pioneer of the journal. Although no longer Editor-inChief, Max Aebi has announced that he will remain active on the Editorial Board. Thanks to the remarkable professional efforts of its Editors, the European Spine Journal has followed a steady international course upward. The present impact factor is excellent, ranking the European Spine Journal number two among journals dedicated to the spine. An increasing number of paper submissions come from all parts of the world. Maintaining and improving such a leading position is a challenging task, considering the present difficulties and levels of competition encountered in scientific publishing. I am confident that under Robert Gunzburg, the new Editor-in-Chief, and the Editorial Board, the European Spine Journal will continue to maintain its leadership. In the course of overviewing the 2014 issues, I have observed throughout the editorials and articles that clinicians and researchers are more and more aware of the continuing discrepancy between clinical practice and evidence-based literature. High-quality Cochrane systematic reviews examining efficacy of treatments often conclude that because of the low or very low quality of evidence of efficacy or inefficacy, no clear recommendations can be formulated. This is generally attributed to the poor quality of the RCTs, as shown in the very informative paper by Chen et al. [1]. Several propositions have been made to correct this situation, which leaves decision making based only on the personal experience and preference of physicians and surgeons. It is well known that traditional experience can be misleading and quickly outdated. One proposition made by Gunzburg [2] is, in addition to registries, to pursue higher standard RCTs using various means and at different levels. In this regard, the emergence of the Research Task Force initiated in the USA by the NIH to develop research standards for chronic low-back pain in the hope of improving future research is an important step forward [3]. On the other hand, as pointed out by Mannion et al. [4], evidence is difficult to obtain, especially when dealing with surgical and rehabilitation subjects where RCTs are not easy to perform and can be a source of bias. These authors propose an alternative method based on a detailed systematic review of the literature, followed by a collective multi-disciplinary expert opinion. All these new strategies aim at closing the gap between scientific M. Benoist (&) Service de Chirurgie Orthopedique, Departement de Rhumatologie, Hopital Beaujon, 100 Boulevard General Leclerc, 92118 Clichy, France e-mail: MBMDParis@aol.com