Study design in evidence-based surgery: What is the role of case-control studies?

Cao, Amy M.; Cox, Michael R.; Eslick, Guy D.

doi:10.5662/wjm.v6.i1.101

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As an interventional study type, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard in terms of study design, but this was not the preference of our surgeons. It may be related to the observation of Cao et al [ 6 ] that in the surgical setting, conducting RCTs can often be unethical or logistically impossible. They suggested that case-control studies should be the primary study design used in surgical research when RCTs are not feasible.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They suggested that case-control studies should be the primary study design used in surgical research when RCTs are not feasible. [ 6 ] The applications from surgeons also received the greatest number of requests for correction from the EC. Nearly all clinicians, including surgeons in research hospitals, work according to the “publish or perish” principle, which contributes the additional difficulty of acting as a researcher to the work of being a treating physician.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of the design and methodology of applications to the local ethics committee

Altuntas

2021

Sisli Etfal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Proposals for scientific studies must have an original hypothesis and the appropriate design and methodology to test the premise. Methods: This study is an evaluation of the suitability of applications submitted to a local ethics committee (EC) and the rate of publication of that research. Results: A total of 899 files submitted for EC approval were retrospectively assessed. The EC found that the description of the methods in 44% of the applications was inaccurate, and that this type of error was most often seen in submissions from the surgical branch. In all, 52% of the applications for which we were informed about their final status were not published. Conclusion: The results suggest that improved training in epidemiology is required to reduce the number of application errors and that new regulations could help to motivate healthcare personnel to conduct scientific research and publish their findings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the design and methodology of applications to the local ethics committee

Altuntas

2021

Sisli Etfal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Though surgical RCTs are considered the gold standard study design [6], they are difficult to perform, and observational studies are an important evidence base in surgical research [7]. However, surgical observational studies often fail to address sources of bias suchasthroughinadequatematchingandaresometimesatriskof beingunderpowered [8].Thesechallengeshaveimplicationsforclinicalpracticeguidelinesinsurgery,asguidelinesoftenstrugglewith having low or very low certainty evidence [9].…”

Section: Limitations Of Surg Ic Al Re S E Archmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proposing a new surgical evidence ecosystem

Huo,

Smart,

Antoniou

2023

Colorectal Disease

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Level of evidence in high impact surgical literature: the way forward

ElHawary,

Kaleeny,

ElSewify

et al. 2024

Updates Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence-based medicine stipulates that clinical decision-making should revolve around scientific evidence. The goal of the present study is to evaluate the methodological quality of surgical research recently published in JAMA Surgery, International Journal of Surgery, and British Journal of Surgery, the three surgical journals with the highest impact factor. An electronic search of the PUBMED database was performed to retrieve all articles published in the JAMA Surgery, International Journal of Surgery, and British Journal of Surgery in the year 2022. Three authors independently reviewed all retrieved articles and methodological designs of the publications were analyzed and rated using a modification of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence (Oxford Levels of Evidence scale). The initial search identified 1236 articles of which 809 were excluded after title and abstract screening. The remaining 427 underwent full text/methods read, of which 164 did not meet the inclusion/exclusion criteria. A total of 273 studies were included in the analysis. The average level of evidence was 2.5 ± 0.8 across all studies assessed. The majority of study designs were comprised of retrospective cohorts (n = 119), prospective cohorts (n = 47), systematic reviews of non RCTs (n = 39), and RCTs (n = 37). There was no significant difference in the average level of evidence between the top three journals (p = 0.50). Most clinical studies in the highest impact factor surgical journals are of level III evidence, consistent with earlier literature. However, our analysis demonstrates a relatively higher percentage of LOE I and II compared to what was previously published in the literature.

show abstract

Study design in evidence-based surgery: What is the role of case-control studies?

Cited by 5 publications

References 21 publications

Evaluation of the design and methodology of applications to the local ethics committee

Evaluation of the design and methodology of applications to the local ethics committee

Proposing a new surgical evidence ecosystem

Level of evidence in high impact surgical literature: the way forward

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About