Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Systematically Reviewing Previous Work

  • Chapter
Principles and Practice of Research

  • 234 Accesses

Abstract

Many of us regard reviewing previous literature as an unexciting chore, perhaps because well-read laboratory chiefs appear to consider the research review as a low-priority activity to be delegated to a research assistant or the most junior member of the team. For many, the excitement lies in carrying out a new experiment to add more information to what already exists. They regard poring over old research reports as a boring or less creative step. This is a major error in thinking The accumulation of evidence is an important goal underlying all scientific inquiry. This is as true of medicine and surgery as of theoretical physics. An individual study is seldom an isolated event, but rather part of a continuum in which each new endeavor builds on preceding work. New findings lose much of their value if they are not linked with the accumulated wisdom, both theoretical and empirical, of earlier reports.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Hedges LV, Olkin I. Vote-counting methods in research synthesis. Psychol Bull 1980; 88: 359–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Glass GV. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educ Res 1976; 5: 3–8.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Glass GV. Meta-analysis: an approach to the synthesis of research results. Res Sci Teach 1982; 19: 93–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. University Group Diabetes Program (UGDP) Study. J Diabetes 1970; 19 (Suppl 2): 740–850.

    Google Scholar 

  5. McPeek B, Gilbert JP. Onset of postoperative jaundice related to anesthetic history. Br Med J 1974; 3: 615–17.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Moses LE, Mosteller F. Afterword for the study of death rates. In: The National Halothane Study; A study of the Possible Association Between Halo-thane Anesthesia and Postoperative Hepatic Necrosis, Bunker JP, Forrest WH Jr, Mosteller F, Vandam LD, eds. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1969: 395–408.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Jenicek M. Meta-analysis in medicine. Where we are and where we want to go. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 35–44.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Light lu, Smith PV. Accumulating evidence: procedures for resolving contradictions among different research studies. Harvard Educ Rev 1971; 41: 429–71.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Rosenthal R. Combining results of independent studies. Psychol Bull 1978; 85: 185–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rosenthal R. Assessing the statistical and social importance of effects of psychotherapy. J Consult Clin Psychol 1983; 51: 4–13.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hedges LV. Statistical Methodology in Meta-Analysis. Princeton, NJ: ERIC Clearinghouse on Tests, Measurement and Evaluation, Educational Testing Service, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Evaluation Studies, Review Annual, Light RI, ed. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1983: 8.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Glass GV, McGraw B, Smith ML. Meta-Analysis of Social Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hunter JE, Schmidt FL, Jackson GB. Meta-Analysis: Cumulating Research Findings Across Studies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Borg WR, Gall MD: Critical Evaluation of Research, Educational Research. An Introduction, 4th ed. New York: Longman, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Light JRJ, Pillemer DB. Summing-Up. The Science of Reviewing Research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Rosenthal R. Meta-analytic Procedures for Social Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hedges LV, Olkin I. Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. New York: Academic Press, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mullen B, Rosenthal R. Basic Meta-Analysis: Procedures and Programs. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Jenicek M. Meta-analyse en medecine. Evaluation et synthése de l’information clinique et epidemiologique. St-Hyacinthe and Paris: EDISEM and Maloine, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Dickersin K, Hewitt P, Mutch I, et al. Perusing the literature: comparison of MEDLINE searching with a perinatal trials data base. Controlled Clin Trials 1985; 6: 306–17.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Mahon WA, Daniel EE. A method for the assessment of reports of drug trials. Can Med Assoc J 1964; 90: 565–69.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Lionel NDW, Herxheimer A. Assessing reports of therapeutic trials. Br Med J 1970; 3: 637–40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Horwitz RI, Feinstein AR. Methodologic standards and contradictory results in case-control research. Am J Med 1979; 66: 556–64.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Levine J. Trial Assessment Procedure Scale (TAPS). Printed by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration, National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, MA, 1980. Available from Dr. Levine, University of Maryland, Maryland Psychiatric Research Center, P.O. Box 3235, Catonsville, MD 21228.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Chalmers TC, Smith H Jr, Blackburn B, et al. A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Controlled Clin Trials 1981; 2: 31–49.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Weintraub M. How to critically assess clinical drug trials. Drug Ther 1982; 12: 131–48.

    Google Scholar 

  28. DerSimonian R, Charette LJ, McPeek B, et al. Reporting on methods in clinical trials. N Engl J Med 1982; 306: 1332–37.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Haynes RB, Sackett DL, Tugwell P. Problems in the handling of clinical and research evidence by medical practitioners. Arch Intern Med 1983; 143: 1971–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Bailar JC III., Louis TA, Lavori PW, et al. Studies without internal controls. N Engl J Med 1984; 311: 156–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Evans M, Pollock AV. A score system for evaluating random control clinical trials of prophylaxis of abdominal surgical wound infection. Br J Surg 1985; 72: 256–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Neugebauer E, Lorenz W, Maroske D, et al. The role of mediators in septic/endotoxic shock. A meta-analysis evaluating the current status of histamine. Theor Surg 1987; 2: 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Neugebauer E, Dietrich A, Bouillon B, et al. Steroids in trauma patients-right or wrong? A qualitative meta-analysis of clinical studies. Theor Surg 1990; 5: 44–53.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hovell MF. The experimental evidence for weight-loss treatment of essential hypertension: a critical review. Am J Public Health 1982; 72: 359–68.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Bassan MM, Shalev 0, Eliakim A. Improved prognosis during long-term treatment with beta-blockers after myocardial infarction: analysis of randomized trials and pooling of results. Heart Lung 1984; 13: 164–68.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Rentrop KP, Feit F, Blanke H, et al. Effects of intracoronary streptokinase and intracoronary nitroglycerin infusion on coronary angiographic patterns and mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1984; 311: 1457–63.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Baum ML, Anish DS, Chalmers TC, et al. A survey of clinical trials of antibiotic prophylaxis in colon surgery: evidence against further use of no-treatment controls. N Engl J Med 1981; 305: 795–99.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Yusuf S, Collins R, Peto R, et al. Intravenous and intracoronary fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction: overview of results on mortality, reinfarction, and side-effects from 33 randomized controlled trials. Eur Heart J 1985; 6: 556–85.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Collins R, Langman M. Treatment with histamine H2 antagonists in acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage. N Engl J Med 1985; 313: 660–66.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Wortman PM, Yeaton WH. Cumulating quality of life results in controlled trials of coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Controlled Clin Trials 1985; 6: 289–305.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Proceedings of “Methodological Issues in Overviews of Randomized Clinical Trials?’ Stat Med 1987;6:217–409.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Boissel JP, Perrieux JC, Panak E, et al. Guidelines for meta-analysis of clinical trials. 1989 (submitted for publication).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Sacks HS, Bernier J, Reitman D, et al. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med 1987; 316: 450–55.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Hewett P, Chalmers TC. Using MEDLINE to peruse the literature. Controlled Clin Trials 1985; 6: 75–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Hewett P, Chalmers TC. Perusing the literature: methods of assessing MEDLINE and related databases. Controlled Clinical Trials 1985; 6: 168–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Chalmers TC. The randomized controlled trial as a basis for therapeutic decisions. In: The Randomized Clinical Trial and Therapeutic Decisions, Lachin J, Tygstrup N, Juhl E, eds. New York: Dekker, 1982, Chapter 2.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Gilbert JP, McPeek B, Mosteller F. Statistics and ethics in surgery and anesthesia. Science 1977; 198: 684–99.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Gilbert JP, McPeek B, Mosteller F. Progress in surgery and anesthesia: benefits and risks of innovative therapy. In: Costs, Risks and Benefits of Surgery, Bunker JP, Barnes BA, and Mosteller F, eds. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977: 124–69.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Bearman JB, Loewenson DB, Gullen WH. Muench’s postulates, laws and corollaries. Biometrics Note 4. Bethesda, MD: Office of Biometry and Epidemiology, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Stock WA, Okun M, Haring M, Witter R. Age difference in subjective well-being: a meta-analysis. In: Evaluation Studies Review Annual, vol. 8, Light RJ, ed. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1983;8:279–302.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Straw RB. Deinstitutionalization in mental health: a meta-analysis. In: Evaluation Studies Review Annual, vol. 8, Light RJ, ed. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1983: 253–78.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Yin RK, Yates D. Street level governments: assess ing decentralization and urban services. Los Angeles: Rand Corp., 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Ottenbacher KJ, Peterson P. The efficacy of vestibular stimulating as a form of specific sensory enrichment. Clin Pediatr 1983; 23: 418–33.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Smith ML, Glass GV. Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies. Am Psychol 1976; 32: 752–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. LAbbe KA, Detsky AS, O’Rourke K. Meta-analysis in clinical research. Ann Intern Med 1987; 107: 224–33.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Rosenthal R. The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychol Bull 1979; 86: 638–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Begg CB. A measure to aid the interpretation of published clinical trials. Stat Med 1985; 4: 1–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Neugebauer E, Lorenz W. Meta-analysis: from classical review to a new refined methodology. Introduction to the discussion forum about an example of meta-analysis in basic surgical research: the role of mediators in septic/endotoxic shock [Theor Surg (1987) 2:1–28]. Theor Surg 1989; 4: 79–85.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Cooper HM. Scientific guidelines for conducting integrative research reviews. Rev Educ Res 1982; 52: 291–302.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. E. A. M. Neugebauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B. McPeek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Wood-Dauphinée
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of Cologne, Surgical Clinic Merheim, D-5000, Cologne 91, Federal Republic of Germany

    Hans Troidl

  2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McGill University, H3A 1A2, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

    Walter O. Spitzer

  3. Department of Anaesthesia, Harvard University, Massachusetts General Hospital, 02114-2696, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    Bucknam McPeek

  4. Department of Surgery, McGill University, Montreal General Hospital, H3G 1A4, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

    David S. Mulder

  5. Division of Thoracic Surgery, Toronto General Hospital, Eaton North 10-226, M5G2C4, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Martin F. McKneally

  6. Department of Surgery, Medical College of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth University, 23298-0645, Richmond, Virginia, USA

    Andrew S. Wechsler

  7. Department of General Surgery, MD Anderson Cancer Center, 77030, Houston, Texas, USA

    Charles M. Balch

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1991 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Neugebauer, E.A.M., McPeek, B., Wood-Dauphinée, S. (1991). Systematically Reviewing Previous Work. In: Troidl, H., et al. Principles and Practice of Research. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-0371-8_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-0371-8_9

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4684-0373-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4684-0371-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation