Interpreting Study Designs in Surgical Research: A Practical Guide for Surgeons and Surgical Residents

Journal of the American College of Surgeons

Volumn 208, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 635-645

  Ridgway, Paul F ^a   Guller, Ulrich ^a  

^a PRINCESS MARGARET HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; NOMENCLATURE; NULL HYPOTHESIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESIDENT; RISK FACTOR; SURGEON;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; COHORT STUDIES; CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; GENERAL SURGERY; HUMANS; INTERNSHIP AND RESIDENCY; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 62349109234     PISSN: 10727515     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.01.005     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Cochrane A.L. Effectiveness and efficiency: random reflections on health services (1972), Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, London
2. Guller U., and DeLong E.R. Interpreting statistics in medical literature: a vade mecum for surgeons. J Am Coll Surg 198 (2004) 441-458
3. Guller U. Caveats in the interpretation of the surgical literature. Br J Surg 95 (2008) 541-546
4. Guller U., and Oertli D. Sample size matters: a guide for surgeons. World J Surg 29 (2005) 601-605
5. nd ed. (2001), Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia
6. Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med 317 (1987) 141-145
7. Sackett D.L., Rosenberg W.M., et al. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 312 (1996) 71-72
8. Brater D.C., and Daly W.J. Clinical pharmacology in the middle ages: principles that presage the 21st century. Clin Pharmacol Ther 67 (2000) 447-450
9. Evidence-Based Working Group. Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA 268 (1992) 2420-2425
10. The Periodic Health Examination. Canadian task force on the periodic health examination. Can Med Assoc J 121 (1979) 1193-1254
11. Harbour R., and Miller J. A new system for grading recommendations in evidence based guidelines. BMJ 323 (2001) 334-336
12. Sox Jr. H.C., and Woolf S.H. Evidence-based practice guidelines from the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 269 (1993) 2678
13. Waugh N. Grading of scientific evidence-a discussion paper from SHPIC. Health Bull (Edinb) 57 (1999) 53-63
14. Woolf S.H. Practice guidelines: a new reality in medicine. Recent developments. Arch Intern Med 150 (1990) 1811-1818
15. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Levels of evidence (2001). www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025 Accessed November 21, 2008
16. Ridgway P.F., and Darzi A.W. The role of total mesorectal excision in the management of rectal cancer. Cancer Control 10 (2003) 205-211
17. Tonelli M.R. The limits of evidence-based medicine. Respir Care 46 (2001) 1435-1440 discussion 1440-1441
18. Litynski G.S. Erich Muhe and the rejection of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (1985): a surgeon ahead of his time. JSLS 2 (1998) 341-346
19. Hasson H.M. A modified instrument and method for laparoscopy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 110 (1971) 886-887
20. Whipple A.O., Parsons W.B., and Mullins C.R. Treatment of carcinoma of the ampulla of vater. Ann Surg 102 (1935) 763-779
21. Dawber T.R., Meadors G.F., and Moore Jr. F.E. Epidemiological approaches to heart disease: the Framingham Study. Am J Public Health Nations Health 41 (1951) 279-281
22. Guller U. Surgical outcomes research based on administrative data: inferior or complementary to prospective randomized clinical trials?. World J Surg 30 (2006) 255-266
23. Prescott R.J., Counsell C.E., Gillespie W.J., et al. Factors that limit the quality, number and progress of randomised controlled trials. Health Technol Assess 3 (1999) 1-143
24. Schulz K.F., and Grimes D.A. Generation of allocation sequences in randomised trials: chance, not choice. Lancet 359 (2002) 515-519
25. Ridgway P.F., and Darzi A.W. Placebos and standardizing new surgical techniques. BMJ 325 (2002) 560
26. Horng S., and Miller F.G. Is placebo surgery unethical?. N Engl J Med 347 (2002) 137-139
27. Moseley J.B., O'Malley K., Petersen N.J., et al. A controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. N Engl J Med 347 (2002) 81-88
28. Ike R.W., Arnold W.J., Rothschild E.W., and Shaw H.L. Tidal irrigation versus conservative medical management in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: a prospective randomized study. Tidal Irrigation Cooperating Group J Rheumatol 19 (1992) 772-779
29. A proposal for structured reporting of randomized controlled trials. The Standards of Reporting Trials Group. JAMA 272 (1994) 1926-1931
30. Call for comments on a proposal to improve reporting of clinical trials in the biomedical literature. Working group on recommendations for reporting of clinical trials in the biomedical literature. Ann Intern Med 121 (1994) 894-895
31. Begg C., Cho M., Eastwood S., et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 276 (1996) 637-639
32. ACOSOG Z9031. www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/ACOSOG-Z9031 Accessed November 21, 2008
33. Schulz K.F., and Grimes D.A. Sample size slippages in randomised trials: exclusions and the lost and wayward. Lancet 359 (2002) 781-785
34. Moher D., Dulberg C.S., and Wells G.A. Statistical power, sample size, and their reporting in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 272 (1994) 122-124
35. Freiman J.A., Chalmers T.C., Smith Jr. H., and Kuebler R.R. The importance of beta, the type II error and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomized control trial. Survey of 71 "negative" trials. N Engl J Med 299 (1978) 690-694
36. Perera R., and Heneghan C. Interpreting metaanalysis in systematic reviews. Evid Based Med 13 (2008) 67-69
37. Guller U. Metaanalyses: advantages and caveats. Swiss Knife 2008;4. [not indexed].
38. Guller U. Metaanalyses: advantages and caveats. Swiss Knife 4 (2008) [not indexed]
39. Engels E.A., Falagas M.E., Lau J., and Bennish M.L. Typhoid fever vaccines: a metaanalysis of studies on efficacy and toxicity. BMJ 316 (1998) 110-116
40. O'Rourke K. An historical perspective on metaanalysis: dealing quantitatively with varying study results. The James Lind Library. www.jameslindlibrary.org Accessed xxxxx, 2006
41. Lewis S., and Clarke M. Forest plots: trying to see the wood and the trees. BMJ 322 (2001) 1479-1480
42. Dickersin K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA 263 (1990) 1385-1389
43. Egger M., Davey Smith G., Schneider M., and Minder C. Bias in metaanalysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315 (1997) 629-634
44. Barone J.E. Comparing apples and oranges: a randomised prospective study. BMJ 321 (2000) 1569-1570
45. Sauerland S., and Seiler C.M. Role of systematic reviews and metaanalysis in evidence-based medicine. World J Surg 29 (2005) 582-587
46. Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group. A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 350 (2004) 2050-2059
47. Guillou P.J., Quirke P., Thorpe H., et al. Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 365 (2005) 1718-1726
48. Zmora O., Gervaz P., and Wexner S.D. Trocar site recurrence in laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Surg Endosc 15 (2001) 788-793
49. McAuley L., Pham B., Tugwell P., and Moher D. Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in metaanalyses?. Lancet 356 (2000) 1228-1231