Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Wissenschaftliche Grundlagen der herzchirurgischen Fachliteratur

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Kompendium der modernen Herzchirurgie beim Erwachsenen

  • 3768 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Die meisten Ärzte lesen mehr oder weniger regelmäßig wissenschaftliche Fachliteratur, um sich über neue Entwicklungen und Erfahrungen in ihrem medizinischen Arbeitsgebiet zu informieren und diese Kenntnisse für die beste und sicherste Behandlung ihrer Patienten zu nutzen. Verständliche, objektive Berichte über Untersuchungsergebnisse, die für medizinische Entscheidungen relevant sind, erhöhen die Behandlungsqualität und kommen den Patienten zugute. In der Realität gibt es jedoch leider viele Artikel, die diesem Ideal nicht entsprechen, weil inadäquate Methoden (Design, Durchführung, Analyse, Interpretation) angewendet oder die Ergebnisse übertrieben dargestellt wurden; dominante Firmeninteressen oder mangelnde Sorgfalt können den Nutzen ebenfalls stark einschränken. Um trotz dieser Hindernisse brauchbare Informationen entnehmen und Zuverlässiges erkennen zu können, helfen gute Methodenkenntnisse. Dieses Kapitel erläutert einige Grundprinzipien und soll den Sinn für das qualitative Beurteilen herzchirurgischer Fachliteratur schärfen. Im Idealfall ist es auch beim Verfassen eines Artikels hilfreich. Es kann und will jedoch kein Lehrbuch über wissenschaftliches Arbeiten ersetzen.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
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

Similar content being viewed by others

Literatur

  • Abraham NS, Young JM, Solomon MJ (2006) A systematic review of reasons for nonentry of eligible patients into surgical randomized controlled trials. Surgery 139:469–483

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Abraham NS, Byrne CJ, Young JM, Solomon MJ (2010) Meta-analysis of well-designed nonrandomized comparative studies of surgical procedures is as good as randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 63:238–425

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Annesley TM (2010a) The title says it all. Clin Chem 56:357–600

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Annesley TM (2010b) Who, what, when, where, how, and why: the ingredients in the recipe for a succesful methods section. Clin Chem 56:897–901

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Annesley TM (2010c) The discussion section: your closing argument. Clin Chem 56:1671–1674

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Annesley TM (2010d) Bring your best to the table. Clin Chem 56:1528–1534

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Annesley TM (2010e) Put your best figure forward: line graphs and scattergrams. Clin Chem 56:1229–1233

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Annesley TM (2011) Giving credit: citations and references. Clin Chem 57:14–17

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Antunes MJ (2008) Guidelines in real life. Why are they not always enforced? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 34:935–936

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bastian H (2014) A stronger post-publication culture is needed for better science. PLoS Med 11:e1001772

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP (2003) Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 289:454–465

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin DJ et al (2017) Redefine statistical significance. Nat Hum Behav 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0189-z

  • Benson K, Hartz AJ (2000) A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med 342:1878–1886

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Benstoem C, Moza A, Autschbach R, Stoppe C, Goetzenich A (2015) Evaluating outcomes used in cardiothoracic interventional research: a systematic review of reviews to develop a core outcome set. PLoS One 10:e0122204

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Black N (1996) Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ 312:1215–1218

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Black N (1999) Evidence-based surgery: a passing fad? World J Surg 23:789–793

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Braga LH, Farrokhyar F, Bhandari M (2012) Confounding: what it is and how do we deal with it? J Can Chir 55:132–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan P, Croft P (1994) Interpreting the results of observational research: chance is not such a fine thing. BMJ 309:727–730

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • van den Broek MA, van Dam RM, Malagó M, Dejong CH, van Breukelen GJ, Olde Damink SW (2009) Feasibility of randomized controlled trials in liver surgery using surgery-related mortality or morbidity as endpoint. Br J Surg 96:1005–1014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers I, Glasziou P (2009) Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 374:86–89

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chan AW, Altman DG (2005) Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed jounals. Lancet 365:1159–1162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chan AW, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG (2004) Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 291:2457–2465

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chang L, Dhruva SS, Chu J, Bero LA, Redberg RF (2015) Selective reporting in trials of high risk cardiovascular devices: cross sectional comparison between premarket approval summaries and published reports. Br Med J 350:h2613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen CE, Dhruva SS, Redberg RF (2012) Inclusion of comparative effectiveness data in high-risk cardiovascular device studies at the time of premarket approval. JAMA 308:1740–1742

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI (2000) Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med 342:1887–1892

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Cutlip DE, Windecker S, Mehran R, Boam A, Cohen DJ, van Es GA et al (2007) Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: a case for standardized definitions. Circulation 115:2344–2351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Da Costa BR, Gahl B, Jüni P (2014) Tools and techniques – statistics: propensity score techniques. EuroIntervention 10:761–767

    Google Scholar 

  • Djulbegovic B, Clarke M (2001) Scientific and ethical issues in equivalence trials. JAMA 285:1206–1208

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahim S, Sohani ZN, Montoya L, Agarwal A, Thorlund K, Mills EJ, Ioannidis JP (2014) Reanalyses of randomized clinical trial data. JAMA 312:1024–1032

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feinstein AR (1989) Epidemiologic analyses of causation: the unlearned scientific lessons of randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol 42:481–489

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher DM (1999) Surrogate outcomes: meaningful not! Anesthesiology 90:355–356

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Flacco ME, Manzoli L, Boccia S, Capasso L, Aleksovska K, Rosso A et al (2005) Head-to-head randomized trials are mostly industry sponsored and almost always favor the industry sponsor. J Clin Epidemiol 68:811–820

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Florence AL (1960) Is thalidomide to blame? Br Med J 2:1954

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser AG, Dunstan FD (2010) On the impossibility of being expert. BMJ 341:c6815

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman LS, Richter ED (2004) Relationship between conflicts of interest and research results. J Gen Intern Med 19:51–56

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Garas G, Ibrahim A, Ashrafian H, Ahmed K, Patel V, Okabayashi K et al (2012) Evidence-based surgery: barriers, solutions, and the role of evidence synthesis. World J Surg 36:1723–1731

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Garattini S, Bertele V (2007) Non-inferiority trials are unethical because they disregard patients’ interests. Lancet 370:1875–1877

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S et al (2014) Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet 383:267–276

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goldfarb M, Drudi L, Almohammadi M, Langlois Y, Noiseux N, Perrault L et al (2015) Outcome reporting in cardiac surgery trials: systematic review and critical appraisal. J Am Heart Assoc 4:e002204

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gotzsche PC (2006) Lessons from and cautions about noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials. JAMA 295:1172–1174

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith BP, Hattler BG, Hardesty RL, Kormos RL, Pham SM, Bahnson HA (1995) The need for accurate risk-adjusted measures of outcome in surgery. Lessons learned through coronary artery bypass. Ann Surg 222:593–598

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Grimes DA, Schulz KF (2002) An overview of clinical research: the lay of the land. Lancet 359:57–61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grunkemeier GL, Jin R, Eijkemans MJ, Takkenberg JJ (2007) Actual and actuarial probabilities of competing risks: apples and lemons. Ann Thorac Surg 83:1586–1592

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hernán MA, Hernández-Díaz S, Werler MM, Mitchell AA (2002) Causal knowledge as a prerequisite for confounding evaluation: an application to birth defects epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol 155:176–184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hickey GL, Grant SW, Cosgriff R, Dimarakis I, Pagano D, Kappetein AP, Bridgewater B (2013) Clinical registries: governance, management, analysis and applications. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 44:605–614

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hickey GL, Dunning J, Seifert B, Sodeck G, Carr MJ, Burger HU, Beyersdorf F (2015) Statistical and data reporting guidelines for the European Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery and the Interactive Cardiovascular and Throracic Surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 48:180–193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Huebner M, Vach W, le Cessie S (2016) A systematic approach to initial data analysisis good research practice. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 151:25–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannides JP (2005a) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 8:e124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannides JP (2005b) Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA 294:218–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis JP (2014) How to make more published research true. PLoS Med 11:e1001747

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M (2001) Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 323:42–46

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Jüni P, Nartey L, Reichenbach S, Dieppe PA, Sterchi R, Egger M (2004) Risk of cardiovascular events and rofecoxib: cumulative meta-analysis. Lancet 364:2021–2029

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kjaergard LL, Als-Nielsen B (2002) Association between competing interests and authors’ conclusions: epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ. BMJ 325:249

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lassen K, Hϕye A, Myrmel T (2012) Randomised trials in surgery: the burden of evidence. Rev Recent Clin Trials 7:244–248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, Busuioc OA, Bero L (2012) Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12:MR000033

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall BJ, Warren JR (1984) Unidentified curved bacilli in the stomach of patients with gastritis and peptic ulceration. Lancet 1:1311–1315

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M, Lovett B, Griffin D (2002) Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions. BMJ 324:1448–1451

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • McKenna UG, Meadows JA, Brewer NS, Wilson WR, Perrault J (1980) Toxic shock syndrome, a newly recognized disease entity. Report of 11 cases. Mayo Clin Proc 55:663–672

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meakins JL (2002) Innovation in surgery: the rules of evidence. Am J Surg 183:399–405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Myles PS (2014) Meaningful outcome measures in cardiac surgery. J Extra Corpor Technol 46:23–27

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Naylor CD, Guyatt GH (1996) Users’ guides to the medical literature. X. How to use an article reporting variations in the outcomes of health services. The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 275:554–558

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nuesch E, Reichenbach S, Trelle S, Rutjes AW, Liewald K, Sterchi R et al (2009) The importance of allocation concealment and patient blinding in osteoarthritis trials: a meta-epidemiologic study. Arthritis Rheum 61:1633–1641

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Pocock SJ, Evans SJ, Altman DG, CONSORT Group (2012) Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement. JAMA 308:2594–2604

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pocock SJ, Clayton TC, Altman DG (2002) Survival plots of time-to-event outcomes in clinical trials: good practice and pitfalls. Lancet 359:1686–1689

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock AV (1989) The rise and fall of the random controlled trial in surgery. Theor Surg 4:163–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter ME, Larsson S, Lee TH (2016) Standardizing patient outcome measurement. N Engl J Med 374:504–506

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rahimi K, Malhotra A, Banning A, Jenkinson C (2010) Outcome selection and role of patient reported outcomes in contemporary cardiovascular trials: systematic review. BMJ 341:c5707

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsay CR, Grant AM, Wallace SA, Garthwaite PH, Monk AF, Russell IT (2001) Statistical assessment of the learning curves of health technologies. Health Technol Assess 5:1–79

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rising K, Bacchetti P, Bero L (2008) Reporting bias in drug trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: review of publication and presentation. PLoS Med 5:e217

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum L (2003) Understanding bias-the case for careful study. NEJM 372:1959–1963

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sackett DL, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB (1997) Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM. Churchill Livingtone, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacks H, Chalmers TC, Smith H Jr (1982) Randomized versus historical controls for clinical trials. Am J Med 72:233–240

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG (1995) Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 273:408–412

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shroyer AL, McDonald GO, Wagner BD, Johnson R, Schade LM, Bell MR, Grover FL (2008) Improving quality of care in cardiac surgery: evaluating risk factors, processes of care, structures of care, and outcomes. Semin Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 12:140–152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon MJ, McLeod RS (1995) Should we be performing more randomized controlled trials evaluating surgical operations? Surgery 118:459–467

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon MJ, Laxamana A, Devore L, McLeod RS (1994) Randomized controlled trials in surgery. Surgery 115:707–712

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Steere AC, Malawista SE, Snydman DR, Shope RE, Andiman WA, Ross MR, Steele FM (1977) Lyme arthritis: an epidemic of oligoarticular arthritis in children and adults in three connecticut communities. Arthritis Rheum 20:7–17

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg SM, Popa MR, Michalek JA, Bethel MJ, Ellison EC (2008) Comparison of risk adjustment methodologies in surgical quality improvement. Surgery 144:662–667

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, Simoons ML, Chaitman BR, White HD, Joint ESC/ACCF/AHA/WHF Task Force for the Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction (2012) Third universal definition of myocardial infarction. Circulation 126:2020–2035

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Rij AM, McDonald JR, Pettigrew RA, Putterill MJ, Reddy CK, Wright JJ (1995) CUSUM as an aid to early assessment of the surgical trainee. Br J Surg 82:1500–1503

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, STROBE Initiative et al (2014) Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Int J Surg 12:1500–1524

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vittinghoff E, McCulloch CE (2007) Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and Cox regression. Am J Epidemiol 165:710–718

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Von Allmen RS, Weiss S, Tevaearai HT, Kuemmerli C, Tinner C, Carrel TP et al (2015) Completeness of follow-up determines validity of study findings: results of a prospective repeated measures cohort study. PLoS One 10:e0140817

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vranckx P, Cutlip DE, Mehran R, Kint PP, Silber S, Windecker S, Serruys PW (2010) Myocardial infarction adjudication in contemporary all-comer stent trials: balancing sensitivity and specificity. Addendum to the historical MI definitions used in stent studies. EuroIntervention 5:871–874

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, Schulz KF, Juni P, Altman DG (2008) Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 336:601–605

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Yordanov Y, Dechartres A, Porcher R, Boutron I, Altman DG, Ravaud P (2015) Avoidable waste of research related to inadequate methods in clinical trials. BMJ 350:h809

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiac Surgery, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Schweiz

    Brigitta Gahl

  2. Helios Klinikum München West, Klinik für Gefäßchirurgie Aortenzentrum Süd, München, Deutschland

    Olaf Stanger

Authors
  1. Brigitta Gahl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Olaf Stanger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brigitta Gahl .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Helios Klinikum München West, Klinik für Gefäßchirurgie Aortenzentrum Süd, München, Germany

    Olaf Stanger

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gahl, B., Stanger, O. (2020). Wissenschaftliche Grundlagen der herzchirurgischen Fachliteratur. In: Stanger, O. (eds) Kompendium der modernen Herzchirurgie beim Erwachsenen. Springer, Vienna. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-0451-4_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-0451-4_20

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Vienna

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-7091-0450-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-7091-0451-4

  • eBook Packages: Medicine (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation