Power of negative thinking

British Journal of Anaesthesia

Volumn 114, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 3-5

  Avidan, M S ^a   Wildes, T S ^a  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADVERSE EFFECTS; FEMALE; HEART SURGERY; HUMAN; INHALATION ANESTHESIA; INTRAVENOUS ANESTHESIA; MALE; PROCEDURES;

ANESTHESIA, INHALATION; ANESTHESIA, INTRAVENOUS; CARDIAC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE;

EID: 84925555171     PISSN: 00070912     EISSN: 14716771     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aeu263     Document Type: Editorial

References (17)

1. Han, PK, Klein, WM, Arora, NK, Varieties of uncertainty in health care: a conceptual taxonomy. Med Decis Making 31 (2011), 828–838.
2. Parfrey, P, Ravani, P, On framing the research question and choosing the appropriate research design. Methods Mol Biol 473 (2009), 1–17.
3. Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Kunz, R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 64 (2011), 395–400.
4. Landoni, G, Guarracino, F, Cariello, C, et al. Volatile versus total intravenous anaesthesia in patients undergoing high risk cardiac surgery. A multicenter randomized study. Br J Anaesth Advance Access published on September 3, 2014. doi:10.1093/bja/aeu290.
5. Zhao, J, Wang, F, Zhang, Y, et al. Sevoflurane preconditioning attenuates myocardial ischemia/reperfusion injury via caveolin-3-dependent cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition. Circulation 128 (2013), S121–S129.
6. Zaugg, M, Lucchinetti, E, Uecker, M, Pasch, T, Schaub, MC, Anaesthetics and cardiac preconditioning. Part I. Signalling and cytoprotective mechanisms. Br J Anaesth 91 (2003), 551–565.
7. Zaugg M, Lucchinetti E, Behmanesh S, Clanachan AS. Anesthetic cardioprotection in clinical practice from proof-of-concept to clinical applications. Curr Pharm Des Advance Access published on February 4, 2014.
8. Landoni, G, Greco, T, Biondi-Zoccai, G, et al. Anaesthetic drugs and survival: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized trials in cardiac surgery. Br J Anaesth 111 (2013), 886–896.
9. Ioannidis, JP, Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med, 2, 2005, e124.
10. Jager, LR, Leek, JT, An estimate of the science-wise false discovery rate and application to the top medical literature. Biostatistics 15 (2014), 1–12.
11. Prasad, V, Vandross, A, Toomey, C, et al. A decade of reversal: an analysis of 146 contradicted medical practices. Mayo Clin Proc 88 (2013), 790–798.
12. Johnson, VE, Revised standards for statistical evidence. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110 (2013), 19313–19317.
13. Prieto-Merino, D, Smeeth, L, Staa, TP, Roberts, I, Dangers of non-specific composite outcome measures in clinical trials. Br Med J, 347, 2013, f6782.
14. Halpern, SD, Karlawish, JH, Berlin, JA, The continuing unethical conduct of underpowered clinical trials. J Am Med Assoc 288 (2002), 358–362.
15. Edwards, SJ, Lilford, RJ, Braunholtz, D, Jackson, J, Why ‘underpowered' trials are not necessarily unethical. Lancet 350 (1997), 804–807.
16. Popper, K, The Poverty of Historicism, 1957, The Beacon Press, Boston Chapter 29, The Unity of Method.
17. Tabarrok, A, Marginal Revolution. Why Most Published Research Findings are False. http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/09/why_most_publis.html (accessed 8 August 2014).