Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Systematically Reviewing Previous Work

  • Chapter
Surgical Research

Abstract

Reviewing previously published literature seems time-consuming and boring when compared to performing clinical or laboratory experiments to develop new information in surgery. For this reason, the task of reviewing and summarizing the literature is often delegated to a research assistant or the most junior member of the team.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Neugebauer EA, Holaday JW. Handbook of Mediators in Septic Shock. Boca Raton, FL: CRC, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hedges LV, Olkin I. Vote-Counting Methods in Research Synthesis. Psychol Bull 1980;88:359–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Glass GV Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysisof Research. Educ Res 1976;5:3–8

    Google Scholar 

  4. Glass GV. Meta-Analysis: an Approach to the Synthesis of Research Results. Res Sci Teach 1982; 19: 93–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. University Group Diabetes Program (UGDP) Study. J Diab 1970;19(suppl. 2):740–850

    Google Scholar 

  6. Moses LE, Mosteller F. Afterword for the Study of Death Rates. In: Bunker JP, Forrest WH Jr, Mosteller F, Vandam LD, eds. The National Halothane Study: a Study of the Possible Association Between Halothane Anesthesia and Postoperative Hepatic Necrosis. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969, pp. 395–408

    Google Scholar 

  7. Jenicek M. Meta-Analysis in Medicine. Where we are and Where we Want to go. J Clin Epidemiol 1989;42:35–44

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Light RJ, Smith PV Accumulating Evidence: Pro-cedures for Resolving Contradictions Among Different Research Studies. Harvard Educ Rev 1971;41: 429–471

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cochran WG. The Combination of Estimates from Different Experiments. Biometrics 1954;10:101–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Mantel N, Haenzel W. Statistical Aspect of Theanalysis of data from Retrospective Studies of Disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 1959;22:719–748

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Rosenthal R. Combining Results of Independent Studies. Psychol Bull 1978;85:185–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Rosenthal R. Assessing the Statistical and Social Importance of Effects of Psychotherapy. J Consult Clin Psychol 1983;51:4–13

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hedges LV. Statistical Methodology in Meta-Analysis. Princeton, NJ: ERIC Clearinghouse on Tests, Measurement and Evaluation, Educational Testing Service, 1982

    Google Scholar 

  14. Light RJ, ed. Evaluation Studies, Review Annual. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1983, p. 8

    Google Scholar 

  15. Glass GV, McGraw B, Smith ML. Meta-Analysis of Social Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1981

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hunter JE, Schmidt FL, Jackson GB. Meta-Analysis: Cumulating Research Findings Across Studies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1982

    Google Scholar 

  17. Borg WR, Gall MD. Critical Evaluation of Research. Educational Research: An Introduction, 4th edn. New York: Longman, 1983

    Google Scholar 

  18. Light JRJ, Pillemer DB. Summing-Up. The Science of Reviewing Research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1984

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rosenthal R. Meta-analytic Procedures for Social Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1984

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hedges LV, Olkin I. Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. New York: Academic, 1985

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mullen B, Rosenthal R. Basic Meta-Analysis: Procedures and Programs. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1985

    Google Scholar 

  22. Bollschweiler E, Feussner H, Huber F, Siewert JF. Ist die Cholezystektomie ein Risikofaktor für das kolorektale Karzinom? Eine Metaanalyse. Langen-becks Arch Chir 1993;378:304–312

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Cheatham ML, Chapman WE, Key SP, Sawyers JL. A meta-analysis of selective versus routine nasogastric decompression after elective laparatomy. Ann Surg 1995;221:469–478

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Detsky AS, Baker JP, O’Rourke K, Goel V Perioperative Parenteral Nutrition: a Meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med1987;107:195–203

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Imperiale TF, Teran JC, McCullough AJ. A Metaanalysis of Somatostatin Versus Vasopressin in Themanagement of Acute Esophageal Variceal Hemorrhage. Gastroenterology 1995;109:1289–1294

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Lefering R, Neugebauer EAM. Steroid Controversy in Sepsis and Septic Shock: a Meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 1995;23:1294–1303

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Meijer WS, Schmitz PIM, Jeekel J. Meta-analysis of Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trials of Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Biliary Tract Surgery. Br J Surg 1990;77:283–290

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Neugebauer E, Dietrich A, Bouillon B, Lorenz W, Lechleuthner A, Troidl H. Steroids in Traumapatients—right or Wrong? A Qualitative Metaanalysis of Clinical Studies. J Theor Surg 1990;5: 44–53

    Google Scholar 

  29. Nurmohamed MT, Rosendaal FR, Büller HR, Dekker E, Hommes DW, Vandenbroucke JP, Briet E. Low Molecular Weight Heparin Versus Standard Heparin in General and Orthopaedic Surgery: a Meta-analysis. Lancet 1992;340:152–156

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Selective Decontamination of the Digestive Tract Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of selective decontamination of the digestive tract. Br Med J 1993; 307;525–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Spitzer WO, Lawrence V, Dales R, Hill G, Archer MC, Clark P, Abenhaim L, Hardy J, Sampalis J, Pinfold SP. Links Between Passive Smoking and Disease: a Best-evidence Synthesis. Clin Invest Med 1990;13:17–42

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Slavin RE. Best-evidence Synthesis: an Alternative to Meta-analytic and Traditional Reviews. Educ Res 1986;15:5–11

    Google Scholar 

  33. Jenicek M. Meta-analyse en Medecine. Evaluation et Synthése de L’information Clinique et Epidemiol-ogique. St-Hyacinthe and Paris: EDISEM and Maloine, 1987

    Google Scholar 

  34. Dickersin K, Hewitt P, Mutch I, Chalmers I, Chalmers TC. Perusing the Literature: Comparison of MEDLINE Searching with a Perinatal Trials data Base. Control Clin Trials 1985;6:306–317

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Mahon WA, Daniel EE. A method for the assessment of reports of drug trials. Can Med Assoc J 1964;90:565–569

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Lionel NDW, Herxheimer A. Assessing reports of therapeutic trials. Br Med J 1970;3:637–640

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Horwitz RI, Feinstein AR. Methodologic standards and contradictory results in case-control research. Am J Med 1979;66:556–564

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Levine J. Trial Assessment Procedure Scale(TAPS). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration, National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, MD, 1980. Available from Dr. Levine, University of Maryland, Maryland Psychiatric Research Center, P. O. Box 3235, Catonsville, MD 21228

    Google Scholar 

  39. Chalmers TC, Smith H Jr, Blackburn B, Silverman B, Schroeder B, Reitman D, Ambroz A. A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Control Clin Trials 1981;2:31–49

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Weintraub M. How to critically assess clinical drug trials. Drug Ther 1982;12:131–148

    Google Scholar 

  41. DerSimonian R, Charette LJ, McPeek B, Mos-teller F Reporting on methods in clinical trials. New Engl J Med 1982;306:1332–1337

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Bailar JC III, Louis TA, Lavori PW, Polansky M. Studies without internal controls. New Engl J Med 1984;311:156–162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Evans M, Pollock AV. A score system for evaluating random control clinical trials of prophylaxis of abdominal surgical wound infection. Br J Surg 1985;72:256–260

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Neugebauer E, Lorenz W, Maroske D, et al. Therole of mediators in septic/endotoxic shock. Ameta-analysis evaluating the current status of histamine. Theor Surg 1987;2:1–28

    Google Scholar 

  45. Colditz GA, Miller JN, Mosteller F How studydesign affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy.I. Medical. Stat Med 1989;8:441–454

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Miller JN, Colditz GA, Mosteller F How studydesign affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy. II. Surgical. Stat Med 1989;8:455–466

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Ter Riet G, Kleijnen J, Knipschild P. Acupuncture and chronic pain: a criteria-based meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1990;43:1191–1199

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH, Cook DJ, Jaeschke R, Heddle N, Keller J. An index of scientific quality of health reports in the lay press. J Clin Epidemiol 1993;46:987–1001

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Goodman SN, Berlin J, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Ann Intern Med 1994;121:11–21

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, Penman M, Tug-well P, Walsh S. Assessing the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials: an Annotated Bibliography of Scales and Checklists. Control Clin Trials 1995; 16: 62–73

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Proceedings of “Methodological Issues in Overviews. of Randomized Clinical Trials.” Stat Med 1987;6:217–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Cooka DJ, Sackett DL, Spitzer WO. Methodologic Guidelines for Systematic Reviews of Randomized Controlled Trials in Health Care From the Potsdam Consultation of Meta-Analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48:167–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, Ancona-Berk VA, Chalmers TC. Meta-analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials. New Engl J Med 1987;316:450–455

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Hewett P, Chalmers TC. Using MEDLINE to Peruse the Literature. Control Clin Trials 1985;6: 75–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Hewett P, Chalmers TC. Perusing the Literature:methods of Assessing MEDLINE and Related Databases. Control Clinical Trials 1985;6:168–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Chalmers TC. The Randomized Controlled Trial as a Basis for Therapeutic Decisions. In: Lachin J, Tygs-trup N, Juhl E, eds. The Randomized Clinical Trial and Therapeutic Decisions. New York: Dekker, 1982, ch. 2

    Google Scholar 

  57. Gilbert JP, McPeek B, Mosteller F. Statistics and Ethics in Surgery and Anesthesia. Science 1977; 198:684–699

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Gilbert JP, McPeek B, Mosteller F. Progress in Surgery and Anesthesia: Benefits and Risks of Innovative Therapy. In: Bunker JP, Barnes BA, and Mosteller F, eds. Costs, Risks, and Benefits of Surgery. New York: Oxford University, 1977:124–169

    Google Scholar 

  59. Bearman JB, Loewenson DB, Gullen WH. Muench’s postulates, laws, and corollaries. Biometrics Note 4. Bethesda MD: Office of Biometry and Epidemiology, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, 1974

    Google Scholar 

  60. Stock WA, Okun M, Haring M, Witter R. Agedifference in Subjective Well-being: a Meta-analysis.In: Light RJ, ed. Evaluation Studies Review Annual, vol. 8. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1983, pp. 279–302

    Google Scholar 

  61. Straw RB. Deinstitutionalization in Mental Health:a Meta-analysis. In: Light RJ, ed. Evaluation Studiec.Review Annual, vol. 8. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1983, pp. 253–278

    Google Scholar 

  62. Yin RK, Yates D. Street Level Governments: Assessing Decentralization and Urban Services. Los Angeles: Rand, 1974

    Google Scholar 

  63. Ottenbacher KJ, Peterson P. The Efficacy of Vestibular Stimulating as a Form of Specific Sensory Enrichment. Clin Pediatr 1983;23:418–433

    Google Scholar 

  64. Smith ML, Glass GV. Meta-analysis of Psychotherapy Outcome Studies. Am Psychol 1976;32: 752–760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. L’Abbe KA, Detsky AS, O’Rourke K. Metaanalysis in Clinical Research. Ann Intern Med 1987;107:224–233

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Rosenthal R. The File Drawer Problem and Tolerance for Null Results. Psychol Bull 1979;86:638–641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Begg CB. A measure to aid the interpretation ofpublished clinical trials. Stat Med 1985;4:1–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Neugebauer E, Lorenz W. Meta-analysis: from classical review to a new refined methodology. Introduction to the discussion forum about an example of meta-analysis in basic surgical research: the role of mediators in septic/endotoxic shock (Theor Surg 1987;2:1-28). Theor Surg 1989;4:79–85

    Google Scholar 

  69. Cooper HM. Scientific Guidelines for Conductingintegrative Research Reviews. Rev Educ Res 1982;52:291–302

    Google Scholar 

  70. Spitzer WO, ed. The Postdam International Consultation on Meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48:1–172 (special issue)

    Google Scholar 

  71. Chalmers I, Haynes B. Reporting, updating, and correcting systematic reviews of the effects of health care. Br Med J 1994;309:862–865

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Cochrane AL. 1931-1971: A critical review, with particular reference to the medical profession. In: Teeling-Smith, ed. Medicines for the Year 2000. London: Office of Health Economics, 1979, PP. 1–11

    Google Scholar 

  73. Chalmers I, Altman DG. Systematic Reviews. London: BMJ, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  74. Robinson A. Research, Practice, and the Cochrane Collaboration. Can Med Assoc J 1995;152:883–889

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. E. A. M. Neugebauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Lefering
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B. McPeek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Wood-Dauphinée
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of Cologne, Ostmerheimer Strasse 200, D-51109, Cologne, Germany

    H. Troidl

  2. Joint Centre for Bioethics, and The Toronto Hospital, University of Toronto, 200 Elizabeth Street EN 10-230, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2C4, Canada

    M. F. McKneally

  3. Department of Surgery, McGill University, Montreal General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3G 1A4

    D. S. Mulder

  4. Department of Surgery, Medical College of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, 23298-0645, USA

    A. S. Wechsler

  5. Department of Anaesthesia, Harvard University, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, 02114-2696, USA

    B. McPeek

  6. Genentech, Inc., 460 Point San Bruno Boulevard, South San Francisco, California, 94080-4990, USA

    W. O. Spitzer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1998 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Neugebauer, E.A.M., Lefering, R., McPeek, B., Wood-Dauphinée, S. (1998). Systematically Reviewing Previous Work. In: Troidl, H., McKneally, M.F., Mulder, D.S., Wechsler, A.S., McPeek, B., Spitzer, W.O. (eds) Surgical Research. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1888-3_38

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1888-3_38

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4612-7325-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4612-1888-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation