Literature DB >> 15887796

Users' guide to the surgical literature. Case-control studies in surgical journals.

Alexandra Mihailovic1, Chaim M Bell, David R Urbach.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Some articles in surgical journals identify themselves as case-control studies, but their methods differ substantially from conventional epidemiologic case-control study (ECC) designs. Most of these studies appear instead to be retrospective cohort studies or comparisons of case series.
METHODS: We identified all self-identified "case-control" studies published between 1995 and 2000 in 6 surgical journals, to determine the proportion that were true ECCs and to identify study characteristics associated with being true ECCs.
RESULTS: Only 19 out of 55 articles (35%) described true ECCs. More likely to be ECCs were those articles that reported "odds ratios" (ORs) (the OR for being an ECC if a study reported "ORs" compared with those reporting no "ORs" 15.3; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.8-82.6) and whose methods included logistic regression analysis (OR 3.6, CI 1.0-12.9). Studies that focused on the evaluation of a surgical procedure were less likely to be ECCs (OR 0.2, CI 0.1-0.7) than other types of studies, such as those focusing on risk factors for disease.
CONCLUSIONS: The term "case-control study" is frequently misused in the surgical literature.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15887796      PMCID: PMC3211621     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Surg        ISSN: 0008-428X            Impact factor:   2.089


  6 in total

1.  Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs.

Authors:  J Concato; N Shah; R I Horwitz
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2000-06-22       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Are all evidence-based practices alike? Problems in the ranking of evidence.

Authors:  Ross E G Upshur
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2003-09-30       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  Sensitivity and specificity of clinical trials. Randomized v historical controls.

Authors:  H S Sacks; T C Chalmers; H Smith
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1983-04

4.  The effect of patient selection on comorbidity-adjusted operative mortality risk. Implications for outcomes studies of surgical procedures.

Authors:  David R Urbach; Chaim M Bell
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Randomized versus historical controls for clinical trials.

Authors:  H Sacks; T C Chalmers; H Smith
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1982-02       Impact factor: 4.965

6.  Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials.

Authors:  T C Chalmers; P Celano; H S Sacks; H Smith
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1983-12-01       Impact factor: 91.245

  6 in total
  2 in total

1.  Misclassification of Case-Control Studies in the Orthopedic Literature Is Common: A Bibliometric Analysis.

Authors:  Drake G LeBrun; Jen Bido; Mininder S Kocher; Keith D Baldwin; Peter D Fabricant
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2020-03-30

Review 2.  Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Jan P Vandenbroucke; Erik von Elm; Douglas G Altman; Peter C Gøtzsche; Cynthia D Mulrow; Stuart J Pocock; Charles Poole; James J Schlesselman; Matthias Egger
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2007-10-16       Impact factor: 11.069

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.