Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How to Appraise a Prognostic Study

  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Prognostic studies are studies that examine selected predictive variables or risk factors and assess their influence on the outcome of a disease. They allow clinicians to understand better the natural history of a disease, guide clinical decision-making by facilitating the selection of appropriate treatment options, and allow more accurate prediction of disease outcomes. Appraising prognostic studies involves determining the internal validity of the study design and evaluating the influence of systemic errors or bias. In studies examining multiple prognostic variables, care must be taken to minimize the confounding influence each variable would have on the other parameters. Evaluating the results of appropriate statistical analysis enables conclusions to be made that may influence clinical practice. Care must be taken to ensure that the conditions under which the prognostic study were conducted resemble circumstances in the local institution so as to allow the conclusions to be applied to local practices.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. DG Altman (2001) ArticleTitleSystemic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables B. M. J 323 224–228

    Google Scholar 

  2. JC Ranson KM Rifkin DF Roses et al. (1974) ArticleTitlePrognostic signs and the role of operative management in acute pancreatitis Surg. Gynecol. Obstet 139 69–81 Occurrence Handle4834279

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. M Larvin M McMahon (1989) ArticleTitleAPACHE-II score for the assessment and monitoring of acute pancreatitis Lancet 2 201–205 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0140-6736(89)90381-4 Occurrence Handle2568529

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. A Pisanu A Cois A Uccheddu (2004) ArticleTitleSurgical treatment of perforated diverticular disease: evaluation of factors predicting prognosis in the elderly Int. Surg 89 35–38 Occurrence Handle15085996

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. DL Sackett WS Richardson W Rosenberg et al. (1997) Evidence-based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM Churchill Livingstone New York

    Google Scholar 

  6. A Laupacis G Wells S Richardson et al. (1994) ArticleTitleUsers’ guides to the medical literature. V. How to use an article about prognosis J. A. M. A 272 234–237 Occurrence Handle8022043

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. P Juni DG Altman M Egger (2001) ArticleTitleAssessing the quality of controlled clinical trials B. M. J 323 42–46

    Google Scholar 

  8. M Acalovschi D Blendea C Feier (2003) ArticleTitleRisk factors for symptomatic gallstones in patients with liver cirrhosis: a case-control study Am. J. Gastroenterol 98 1856–1860 Occurrence Handle12907344

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. MA Memon NJ Cooper B Memom et al. (2003) ArticleTitleMeta-analyses of randomized clinical trials comparing open and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair Br. J. Surg 90 1479–1492 Occurrence Handle10.1002/bjs.4301 Occurrence Handle14648725

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. A Czechowski A. Schafmayer (2003) ArticleTitleTAPP versus TEP: a retrospective analysis 5 years after laparoscopic transperitoneal and total endoscopic extraperitoneal repair in inguinal and femoral hernia Chirurg 74 1143–1149 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s00104-003-0738-z Occurrence Handle14673537

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. R Lilford D Braunholtz J Harris et al. (2004) ArticleTitleTrials in surgery Br. J. Surg 91 6–16 Occurrence Handle10.1002/bjs.4418 Occurrence Handle14716788

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. DJ Gouma RC Geenen Particlevan TM Gulik Particlevan et al. (2000) ArticleTitleRates of complications and death after pancreaticoduodenectomy: risk factors and the impact of hospital volume Ann. Surg 232 786–795 Occurrence Handle10.1097/00000658-200012000-00007 Occurrence Handle11088073

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. H Ueno H Mochizuki Y Hashiguchi et al. (2004) ArticleTitlePredictors of extrahepatic recurrence after resection of colorectal liver metastases Br. J. Surg 91 327–333 Occurrence Handle10.1002/bjs.4429 Occurrence Handle14991634

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. CJ Bulpitt (1987) ArticleTitleConfidence intervals Lancet 1 494–497 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0140-6736(87)92100-3 Occurrence Handle2881050

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. MJ Gardner DG Altman (1986) ArticleTitleConfidence intervals rather than P values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing B. M. J 292 746–750

    Google Scholar 

  16. HJC Ranson (1979) ArticleTitleThe timing of biliary surgery in acute pancreatitis Ann. Surg 189 654–662 Occurrence Handle443917

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, National University Hospital, 5 Lower Kent Ridge Road, 119074, Singapore

    Kenneth Mak F.R.C.S.

  2. Gleneagles Medical Centre, 6 Napier Road, 258499 Singapore

    Cheng Kiong Kum F.R.C.S.

Authors
  1. Kenneth Mak F.R.C.S.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cheng Kiong Kum F.R.C.S.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kenneth Mak F.R.C.S..

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mak, K., Kum, C.K. How to Appraise a Prognostic Study. World J. Surg. 29, 567–569 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-005-7914-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-005-7914-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation