Abstract
Every year thousands of articles appear in the surgical literature. While many present the results of careful investigations based on good methodology, many others report studies whose results are either invalid because of defects in their conduct or analysis, or ungeneralizable to other settings because of biases in the way they were executed. This chapter describes a framework within which published research can be appraised and judged as to its validity and generalizability. We will examine a frequently encountered type of research, i.e., controlled trials of therapeutic interventions, According to six easily-remembered appraisal criteria: WHY, HOW, WHO, WHAT, HOW MANY, and SO WHAT.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Freiman JA, Chalmers TC, Smith H Jr., Kuebler RR. The importance of beta, the type II error and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomized control trial. Survey of 71 negative trials. N Engl J Med 1978; 299: 690–694.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1986 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schechter, M.T., LeBlanc, F.E. (1986). Critical Appraisal of Published Research. In: Troidl, H., Spitzer, W.O., McPeek, B., Mulder, D.S., McKneally, M.F. (eds) Principles and Practice of Research. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-96942-3_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-96942-3_13
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-96944-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-96942-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive