Improving the evidence-base in surgery: Evaluating surgical effectiveness

ANZ Journal of Surgery

Volumn 73, Issue 7, 2003, Pages 507-510

  Young, Jane M ^a,b,c   Solomon, Michael J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^c ROYAL PRINCE ALFRED HOSPITAL   (Australia)

Author keywords

Bias (epidemiology); Epidemiology; Evaluation studies; Evidence based medicine; Randomized controlled trial

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL STUDY; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; EPIDEMIOLOGY; EVALUATION; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REVIEW; SURGERY; VALIDATION PROCESS;

ALGORITHMS; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; RESEARCH; RESEARCH DESIGN; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, OPERATIVE;

EID: 0042232317     PISSN: 14451433     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1445-1433.2003.02662.x     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Rothman KJ. Epidemiology in clinical settings. In: Rothman KJ (ed.) Epidemiology: An Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002; Ch. 11.
2. Solomon MJ, McLeod RS. Clinical studies in surgical journals - have we improved? Dis. Colon Rectum 1993; 36: 43-8.
3. Schulz KF. Subverting randomisation in controlled trials. JAMA 1995; 274: 1456-8.
4. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995; 273: 408-12.
5. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 1998; 352: 609-13.
6. Clarke M, Oxman AD. Assessment of study quality. Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook 2002, 4.1.5 [updated April 2002] Section 6. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 2. Oxford: Update Software. Updated quarterly.
7. Solomon MJ, McLeod RS. Surgery and the randomised controlled trial: past, present and future. MJA 1998; 169: 380-3.
8. McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M, Lovett B, Griffin D. Randomised trials in surgery: Problems and possible solutions. BMJ 2002; 324: 1448-51.
9. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG for the CONSORT group. The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 2001; 357: 1191-4.
10. Black N. Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ 1996; 312: 1215-8.
11. Britton A, McKee M, Black N, McPherson K, Sanderson C, Bain C. Threats to applicability of randomised trials: Exclusions and selective participation. J. Health Services Res. Policy 1999; 4: 112-21.
12. Fisher B, Bauer M, Margolese R et al. Five-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy and segmental mastectomy with or without radiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 1985; 312: 665-73.
13. Taylor KM, Margolese RG, Soskolne CI. Physicians' reasons for not entering eligible patients in a randomized clinical trial of surgery for breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 1984; 310: 1363-7.
14. North West Uro-oncology Group. A preliminary report on a patient-preference study to compare treatment options in early prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2002; 90: 253-6.
15. Llewellyn-Thomas HA, McGreal MJ, Thiel EC, Fine S, Erlichman C. Patients' willingness to enter clinical trials: Measuring the association with perceived benefit and preference for decision participation. Soc. Sci. Med. 1991; 32: 35-42.
16. Solomon MJ, McLeod RS. Should we be performing more randomized controlled trials evaluating surgical operations? Surgery 1995; 118: 459-67.
17. Gattellari M, Ward JE, Solomon MJ. Randomized, controlled trials in surgery: Perceived barriers and attitudes of Australian colorectal surgeons. Dis. Colon Rectum 2001; 44: 1413-20.
18. Fielding LP, Stewart-Brown S, Dudley HAF. Surgeon-related variables and the clinical trial. Lancet 1978; ii: 778-9.
19. Van der Linden W. Pitfalls in randomized surgical trials. Surgery 1980; 87: 258-62.
20. Ellis PM, Butow PN, Simes RJ, Tattersall MH, Dunn SM. Barriers to participation in randomized controlled trials for early breast cancer among Australian cancer specialists. ANZ J. Surg. 1999; 69: 486-91.
21. Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N. Engl. J. Med. 1987; 317: 141-5.
22. Feinstein AR, Horwitz RI. Double standards, scientific methods, and epidemiologic research. N. Engl. J. Med. 1982; 307: 1611-7.
23. Mulrow CD. The medical review article: State of the science. Ann. Intern. Med. 1987; 106: 485-8.
24. Egger M, Davey Smith G, O'Rourke K. Rationale, potentials, and promise of systematic reviews. In: Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG (eds) Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-Analysis in Context, 2nd edn. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 2001.
25. Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, Ancona-Berk VA, Chalmers TC. Meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. N. Engl. J. Med. 1987; 316: 450-4.
26. Sacks HS, Reitman D, Pagano D, Kupelnick B. Meta-analysis: an update. Mt Sinai J. Med. 1996; 63: 216-24.
27. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A et al. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA 1998; 280: 278-80.
28. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S et al. for the QUORUM group. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUORUM statement. Br. J. Surg. 2000; 87: 1448-54.
29. Iezzoni LI. The risks of risk adjustment. JAMA 1997; 278: 1600-7.
30. General Accounting Office (GAO). Cross Design Synthesis: A New Strategy for Medical Effectiveness Research. Washington, DC: GAO, 1992.
31. Anonymous. Cross design synthesis: A new strategy for studying medical outcomes? Lancet 1992; 340: 944-6.
32. Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, Sheldon TA, Song F. Generalised synthesis of evidence. In: Methods for Meta-Analysis in Medical Research. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 2000; 259-73.
33. Kunz R, Vist G, Oxman AD. Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials (Cochrane Methodology Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 3. Oxford: Update Software, 2002.
34. Spiegelhalter DJ, Myles JP, Jones DR, Abrams KR. Bayesian methods in health technology assessment: A review. Health Technol. Assessment 2000; 4: 1-130.
35. Bland JM, Altman DG. Bayesians and frequentists. BMJ 1998; 317: 1151.