Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Chirurgische Innovationen brauchen die Überprüfung in kontrollierten klinischen Studien

Surgical innovations require testing in controlled clinical studies

  • Leserbrief
  • Published:
Der Chirurg Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  1. Cooper R (2014) On deciding to have a lobotomy: Either lobotomies were justified or decisions under risk should not always seek to maximise expected utility. Med Health Care Philos 17:143–154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Karha J, Topol EJ (2004) The sad story of Vioxx, and what we should learn from it. Cleve Clin J Med 71:933–934 (936, 938–939)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lerner BH (2005) Last-ditch medical therapy – revisiting lobotomy. N Engl J Med 353:119–121

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mcculloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB et al (2009) No surgical innovation without evaluation: The IDEAL Recommendations. Lancet 374:1105–1112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Neugebauer E, Troidl H, Spangenberger W et al (1991) Conventional versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the randomized controlled trial. Cholecystectomy Study Group. Br J Surg 78:150–154

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rogers EM (2010) Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster, New York

    Google Scholar 

  7. Schrader P (2005) Technique evaluation for orthopedic use of Robodoc. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 143:329–336

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Trentzsch H, Piltz S, Tager G et al (2009) Randomized clinical trials in trauma surgery: Decision-making in an area of conflict between eminence and evidence. Unfallchirurg 112:742–748

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Forschung in der Operativen Medizin (IFOM), Universität Witten/Herdecke, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, Haus 38, 51109, Köln, Deutschland

    D. Pieper MPH &  E. Neugebauer

Authors
  1. D. Pieper MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. Neugebauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. Pieper MPH.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

D. Pieper und E. Neugebauer geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pieper, D., Neugebauer, E. Chirurgische Innovationen brauchen die Überprüfung in kontrollierten klinischen Studien. Chirurg 87, 976–977 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-016-0304-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-016-0304-0

Search

Navigation