Have We Progressed in the Surgical Literature? Thirty-Year Trends in Clinical Studies in 3 Surgical Journals

BACKGROUND:We practice in an era of evidence-based medicine. In 1993, Solomon and McLeod published an article examining study designs in 3 surgical journals from 1980 and 1990. OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to evaluate subsequent 30-year trends in the quality of selected literature. DESIGN...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Diseases of the colon & rectum 2015-01, Vol.58 (1), p.115-121
Hauptverfasser: Shawhan, Robert R, Hatch, Quinton M, Bingham, Jason R, Nelson, Daniel W, Fitzpatrick, Emile B, McLeod, Robin, Johnson, Eric K, Maykel, Justin A, Steele, Scott R
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:BACKGROUND:We practice in an era of evidence-based medicine. In 1993, Solomon and McLeod published an article examining study designs in 3 surgical journals from 1980 and 1990. OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to evaluate subsequent 30-year trends in the quality of selected literature. DESIGN:All of the articles from Diseases of the Colon & Rectum, Surgery, and the British Journal of Surgery during 2000 and 2010 were classified by study design. Nonclinical studies were substratified by animal/laboratory, surgical technique, editorial/review, or miscellaneous articles. Clinical articles were categorized as case or comparative studies, further categorized by study design, and rated on a 10-point scale to determine strength. We compared interobserver reliability using a random sample. SETTING:This study was conducted at 3 North American medical centers. PATIENTS:Patients described in the scope of the literature were included in this study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Frequency, type, and strength of study design were measured. RESULTS:We evaluated 1911 articles (967 clinical; 17% comparative). There was a significant increase in multicenter clinical studies (from 12% to 27%; p < 0.0001) and mean study population (from 326 to 6775; p < 0.05). Studies using administrative data increased from 14% to 43% (p < 0.0001). Case reports decreased from 16% to 7% of all clinical studies (p < 0.001), whereas the percentage of comparative studies increased from 14% to 21% (p = 0.001). The percentage of randomized controlled trials did not increase significantly (8.5% in 2000; 10.0% in 2010; p = 0.44). The mean 10-point score for comparative studies was 6.7 for both years (p = 0.50). There was good interobserver agreement in the classification of studies (κ = 0.70) and moderate agreement in scoring comparative studies (κ = 0.47). LIMITATIONS:This descriptive study cannot fully account for the reasons behind the identified differences. CONCLUSIONS:Comparative and multicenter studies, mean study population, and the use of administrative data increased from 2000 to 2010. This suggests that increased use of administrative databases has allowed larger populations of patients from more institutions to be studied and may be more generalizable. Researchers should strive toward improving the level of evidence (see Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/DCR/A167).
ISSN:0012-3706
1530-0358
DOI:10.1097/DCR.0000000000000273