Journal of the American College of Surgeons
Volume 208, Issue 4 , Pages 635-645 , April 2009

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

  • Paul F. Ridgway, MD, MMedSc, FRCS(GenSurg)
    • ,
  • Ulrich Guller, MD, MHS

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationCorrespondence address: Ulrich Guller, MD, MHS, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital, 600 University Ave, Rm 3-130, Toronto, ON M5G 2M9, Canada

Received 13 October 2008 ,Revised 22 November 2008 ,Accepted 17 December 2008.

References 

  1. Cochrane AL. Effectiveness and efficiency: random reflections on health services. London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust; 1972;
  2. Guller U, DeLong ER. Interpreting statistics in medical literature: a vade mecum for surgeons. J Am Coll Surg. 2004;198:441–458
  3. Guller U. Caveats in the interpretation of the surgical literature. Br J Surg. 2008;95:541–546
  4. Guller U, Oertli D. Sample size matters: a guide for surgeons. World J Surg. 2005;29:601–605
  5. Hulley SB, Cummings SR, Browner WS, et al. Designing clinical research: an epidemiologic approach. 2nd ed.. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001;
  6. Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1987;317:141–145
  7. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, et al. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 1996;312:71–72
  8. Brater DC, Daly WJ. Clinical pharmacology in the middle ages: principles that presage the 21st century. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2000;67:447–450
  9. Evidence-Based Working Group. Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA. 1992;268:2420–2425
  10. The Periodic Health Examination. Canadian task force on the periodic health examination. Can Med Assoc J. 1979;121:1193–1254
  11. Harbour R, Miller J. A new system for grading recommendations in evidence based guidelines. BMJ. 2001;323:334–336
  12. Sox HC, Woolf SH. Evidence-based practice guidelines from the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 1993;269:2678
  13. Waugh N. Grading of scientific evidence—a discussion paper from SHPIC. Health Bull (Edinb). 1999;57:53–63
  14. Woolf SH. Practice guidelines: a new reality in medicine (Recent developments). Arch Intern Med. 1990;150:1811–1818
  15. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Levels of evidence. www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=10252001;Accessed November 21, 2008
  16. Ridgway PF, Darzi AW. The role of total mesorectal excision in the management of rectal cancer. Cancer Control. 2003;10:205–211
  17. Tonelli MR. The limits of evidence-based medicine. Respir Care. 2001;46:1435–1440discussion 1440−1441
  18. Litynski GS. Erich Muhe and the rejection of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (1985): a surgeon ahead of his time. JSLS. 1998;2:341–346
  19. Hasson HM. A modified instrument and method for laparoscopy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1971;110:886–887
  20. Whipple AO, Parsons WB, Mullins CR. Treatment of carcinoma of the ampulla of vater. Ann Surg. 1935;102:763–779
  21. Dawber TR, Meadors GF, Moore FE. Epidemiological approaches to heart disease: the Framingham Study. Am J Public Health Nations Health. 1951;41:279–281
  22. Guller U. Surgical outcomes research based on administrative data: inferior or complementary to prospective randomized clinical trials?. World J Surg. 2006;30:255–266
  23. Prescott RJ, Counsell CE, Gillespie WJ, et al. Factors that limit the quality, number and progress of randomised controlled trials. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3:1–143
  24. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Generation of allocation sequences in randomised trials: chance, not choice. Lancet. 2002;359:515–519
  25. Ridgway PF, Darzi AW. Placebos and standardizing new surgical techniques. BMJ. 2002;325:560
  26. Horng S, Miller FG. Is placebo surgery unethical?. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:137–139
  27. Moseley JB, O'Malley K, Petersen NJ, et al. A controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:81–88
  28. Ike RW, Arnold WJ, Rothschild EW, Shaw HL. Tidal irrigation versus conservative medical management in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: a prospective randomized study. Tidal Irrigation Cooperating Group J Rheumatol. 1992;19:772–779
  29. A proposal for structured reporting of randomized controlled trials. The Standards of Reporting Trials Group. JAMA. 1994;272:1926–1931
  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. 1994;121:894–895
  31. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (The CONSORT statement). JAMA. 1996;276:637–639
  32. ACOSOG Z9031. www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/ACOSOG-Z9031Accessed November 21, 2008
  33. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Sample size slippages in randomised trials: exclusions and the lost and wayward. Lancet. 2002;359:781–785
  34. Moher D, Dulberg CS, Wells GA. Statistical power, sample size, and their reporting in randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 1994;272:122–124
  35. Freiman JA, Chalmers TC, Smith H, Kuebler RR. 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. 1978;299:690–694
  36. Perera R, Heneghan C. Interpreting metaanalysis in systematic reviews. Evid Based Med. 2008;13:67–69
  37. Guller U. Metaanalyses: advantages and caveats. Swiss Knife 2008;4. [not indexed].Guller U. Metaanalyses: advantages and caveats. Swiss Knife. 2008;4:[not indexed]
  38. Engels EA, Falagas ME, Lau J, Bennish ML. Typhoid fever vaccines: a metaanalysis of studies on efficacy and toxicity. BMJ. 1998;316:110–116
  39. O'Rourke K. An historical perspective on metaanalysis: dealing quantitatively with varying study results (The James Lind Library). www.jameslindlibrary.orgAccessed xxxxx, 2006
  40. Lewis S, Clarke M. Forest plots: trying to see the wood and the trees. BMJ. 2001;322:1479–1480
  41. Dickersin K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA. 1990;263:1385–1389
  42. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in metaanalysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629–634
  43. Barone JE. Comparing apples and oranges: a randomised prospective study. BMJ. 2000;321:1569–1570
  44. Sauerland S, Seiler CM. Role of systematic reviews and metaanalysis in evidence-based medicine. World J Surg. 2005;29:582–587
  45. Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group. A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2050–2059
  46. Guillou PJ, 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. 2005;365:1718–1726
  47. Zmora O, Gervaz P, Wexner SD. Trocar site recurrence in laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2001;15:788–793
  48. McAuley L, Pham B, Tugwell P, Moher D. Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in metaanalyses?. Lancet. 2000;356:1228–1231

 Disclosure Information: Nothing to disclose.

PII: S1072-7515(09)00007-6

doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.01.005

Journal of the American College of Surgeons
Volume 208, Issue 4 , Pages 635-645 , April 2009

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution