Improving the evidence base in surgery: Sources of bias in surgical studies

ANZ Journal of Surgery

Volumn 73, Issue 7, 2003, Pages 504-506

  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; Evidence based medicine

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; EPIDEMIOLOGY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; HUMAN; MEASUREMENT; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; PATIENT CARE; REVIEW; SURGERY;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SELECTION BIAS; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, OPERATIVE;

EID: 0042733256     PISSN: 14451433     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1445-1433.2003.02611.x     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Muir Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence-based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 1996; 312: 71-2.
2. Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Guyatt GH, Tugwell P. Clinical Epidemiology: a Basic Science for Clinical Medicine, 2nd edn. Boston: Little & Brown, 1991.
3. Weiss NS. Clinical epidemiology. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Modern Epidemiology 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1998.
4. Last JM (ed.). A Dictionary of Epidemiology, 4th edn. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
5. Sackett DL. Bias in analytic research. J. Chronic Dis. 1979; 32: 51-63.
6. Fink R, Shapiro S, Roester R. Impact of efforts to increase participation in repetitive screenings for early breast cancer. Am. J. Public Health 1972; 62: 328-36.
7. Hurley SF, Kaldor JM. The benefits and risks of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Epidemiol. Rev. 1992; 14: 101-30.
8. Shapiro S. Evidence on screening for breast cancer from a randomised trial. Cancer 1977; 39: 2772-82.
9. Solomon MJ, McLeod RS. The clinical assessment of biomedical technology: accuracy, reliability and validity. Dis. Colon Rectum 1993; 36: 301-7.
10. Altman DG. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman & Hall, 1991.
11. Young JM, Muscatello D, Ward JE. Are men with lower urinary tract symptoms at increased risk of prostate cancer? A systematic review and critique of the available evidence. BJU Int. 2000; 85: 1037-48.
12. Merzenich H, Ahrens W, Stang A et al. Sorting the hype from the facts in testicular cancer: is testicular cancer related to trauma? J. Urol. 2000; 164: 2143-4.
13. Hunt J, Solomon MJ. Screening for cancer: the science behind the rhetoric. Int. J. Surg. Sci. 1996; 2: 161-7.
14. Falk PM, Beart RW, Wexner SD et al. Laparoscopic colectomy: a critical appraisal. Dis. Colon Rectum 1993; 36: 28-34.
15. Fleshman JW, Fry RD, Birnbaum EH, Kodner IJ. Laparoscopic-assisted and minilaparotomy approaches to colorectal diseases are similar in early outcome. Dis. Colon Rectum 1996; 39: 15-22.
16. Weeks JC, Nelson H, Gelber S et al. for the Clinical Outcomes of Surgery (COST) Study Group. Short-term quality-of-life outcomes following laparoscopically-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for colon cancer: a randomized trial. JAMA 2002; 287: 321-8.
17. Guyatt GH, Rennie D. Users' guides to the medical literature. JAMA 1993; 270: 2096-7.
18. Solomon MJ, McLeod RS. Clinical studies in surgical journals - have we improved? Dis. Colon Rectum 1993; 36: 43-8.
19. National Health and Medical Research Council. How to Use the Evidence: Assessment and Application of Scientific Evidence. Canberra: NHMRC, 2000; 8.