Abstract
Every year thousands of articles appear in the surgical literature. While many present the results of careful investigations based on good methodology, many others report studies whose results are either invalid because of defects in their conduct or analysis, or ungeneralizable to other settings because of biases in the way they were executed. This chapter describes a framework within which the validity and generalizability of published research can be appraised and judged. We will examine two frequently published types of research, controlled trials of therapeutic interventions and review articles, according to six easily remembered appraisal criteria:
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Freiman JA, Chalmers TC, Smith H Jr, Keubler RR. The importance of beta, the type II error, andsample size in the design and interpretation of therandomized control trial.Survey of 71 negative trials. N Engl J Med 1978;299:690–694
Laupacis A, Sackett DL, Roberts RS. An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment. N Engl J Med 1988;318: 1728–1733
Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Cook DJ. Users’ guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. A. Are the results of the study valid? JAMA 1993;270:2598–2601
Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Cook DJ. Users’ guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. B. What were the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? JAMA 1994;271:59–63
Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med 1987;106:485–488
Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, Ancona-Berk VA, Chalmers TC. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med 1987;316:450–455
Chalmers TC, Celano P, Sacks HS, Smith H Jr. Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. N Engl J Med 1983;309:1358–1361
DerSimonian R, Charette LJ, McPeek B, Mosteller F. Reporting on methods in clinical trials. N Engl J Med 1982;306:1332–1337
Emerson JD, McPeek B, Mosteller F. Reporting clinical trials in general surgical journals. Surgery 1984;95:572–579
Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. Clinical research in medical journals. N Engl J Med 1979;301:1809–1883
Sackett DL, Tugwell PT. Deciding on the best therapy. In: Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Tugwell PT, eds. Clinical Epidemiology: A Basic Science for Clinicians. Boston/Toronto: Little Brown, 1985, pp. 171–197
Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Tugwell PT. How to read a clinical journal. In: Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Tugwell PT, eds. Clinical Epidemiology: A Basic Science for Clinicians, Boston/Toronto: Little Brown, 1985, pp. 285–321
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1998 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schechter, M.T., LeBlanc, F.E., Lawrence, V.A. (1998). Appraising New Information. In: Troidl, H., McKneally, M.F., Mulder, D.S., Wechsler, A.S., McPeek, B., Spitzer, W.O. (eds) Surgical Research. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1888-3_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1888-3_7
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4612-7325-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-4612-1888-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive