Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Updates in Surgery 1/2019

01-03-2019 | EBM | Editorial and Commentary

The dilemma of surgical research between evidences and experience, impact factor and innovation

Authors: Luca Viganò, Antonio Giuliani, Fulvio Calise

Published in: Updates in Surgery | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Excerpt

What is the strongest evidence in surgery? The lack of evidences to guide practice. Several justifications have been advanced, including difficulty randomizing patients for surgical interventions, large benefits from innovative procedures that do not need scientific confirmation, and peculiarities of surgical patients that preclude applicability of any fixed rule. In this scientific anomaly, surgical education became studded with myths that inappropriately gained the rank of evidences [1]. We are overwhelmed with surgical papers: in 2018, more than 50,000 manuscripts were published, including 11,000 about liver surgery, 6000 about colorectal surgery, 5000 about gastric surgery, and so on. Unfortunately, the quantity is not synonymous with quality. In 2010, a large amount of money was spent for biomedical research (about US$ 240 billion) and a vast number of papers was produced (about 3 million articles, of which about half are published by 6000 publishers in 25,000 journals), but 85% of studies was classified as “avoidable waste” [2]. We concur with the Altman conclusion which was “we need less research, better research, and research done for the right reasons” [3]. But the way out from this status is not obvious. …
Literature
1.
go back to reference Schein M (2004) Common myths in surgery. Surg Rounds 1:34–38 Schein M (2004) Common myths in surgery. Surg Rounds 1:34–38
2.
go back to reference Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, Dirnagl U, Chalmers I, Ioannidis JP, Al-Shahi Salman R, Chan AW, Glasziou P (2014) Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet 383:101–104CrossRefPubMed Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, Dirnagl U, Chalmers I, Ioannidis JP, Al-Shahi Salman R, Chan AW, Glasziou P (2014) Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet 383:101–104CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Altman DG (1994) The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ 29:283–284 Altman DG (1994) The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ 29:283–284
5.
go back to reference Stephan P, Veugelers R, Wang J (2017) Reviewers are blinkered by bibliometrics. Nature 26(544):411–412CrossRef Stephan P, Veugelers R, Wang J (2017) Reviewers are blinkered by bibliometrics. Nature 26(544):411–412CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Ioannidis JP, Caplan AL, Dal-Ré R (2017) Outcome reporting bias in clinical trials: why monitoring matters. BMJ 356:j408CrossRefPubMed Ioannidis JP, Caplan AL, Dal-Ré R (2017) Outcome reporting bias in clinical trials: why monitoring matters. BMJ 356:j408CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Every-Palmer S, Howick J (2014) How evidence-based medicine is failing due to biased trials and selective publication. J Eval Clin Pract 20:908–914CrossRefPubMed Every-Palmer S, Howick J (2014) How evidence-based medicine is failing due to biased trials and selective publication. J Eval Clin Pract 20:908–914CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Gavriilidis P, Roberts KJ, Askari A, Sutcliffe RP, Huo TL, Liu PH, Hidalgo E, Compagnon P, Lim C, Azoulay D (2017) Evaluation of the current guidelines for resection of hepatocellular carcinoma using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. J Hepatol 67:991–998CrossRefPubMed Gavriilidis P, Roberts KJ, Askari A, Sutcliffe RP, Huo TL, Liu PH, Hidalgo E, Compagnon P, Lim C, Azoulay D (2017) Evaluation of the current guidelines for resection of hepatocellular carcinoma using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. J Hepatol 67:991–998CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Wente MN, Seiler CM, Uhl W, Büchler MW (2003) Perspectives of evidence-based surgery. Dig Surg 20:263–269CrossRefPubMed Wente MN, Seiler CM, Uhl W, Büchler MW (2003) Perspectives of evidence-based surgery. Dig Surg 20:263–269CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference McCulloch P, Feinberg J, Philippou Y, Kolias A, Kehoe S, Lancaster G, Donovan J, Petrinic T, Agha R, Pennell C (2018) Progress in clinical research in surgery and IDEAL. Lancet 392:88–94CrossRefPubMed McCulloch P, Feinberg J, Philippou Y, Kolias A, Kehoe S, Lancaster G, Donovan J, Petrinic T, Agha R, Pennell C (2018) Progress in clinical research in surgery and IDEAL. Lancet 392:88–94CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Hade EM, Lu B (2014) Bias associated with using the estimated propensity score as a regression covariate. Stat Med 33:74–87CrossRefPubMed Hade EM, Lu B (2014) Bias associated with using the estimated propensity score as a regression covariate. Stat Med 33:74–87CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The dilemma of surgical research between evidences and experience, impact factor and innovation
Authors
Luca Viganò
Antonio Giuliani
Fulvio Calise
Publication date
01-03-2019
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Keyword
EBM
Published in
Updates in Surgery / Issue 1/2019
Print ISSN: 2038-131X
Electronic ISSN: 2038-3312
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-019-00645-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Updates in Surgery 1/2019 Go to the issue