Contemporary trends in the level of evidence in general thoracic surgery clinical research

被引:3
作者
Choe, Se-In [1 ]
Ben-Avi, Ronny [1 ]
Begum, Housne [1 ]
Pearce, Kendra [1 ]
Mehta, Meera [1 ]
Agzarian, John [1 ]
Finley, Christian J. [1 ]
Hanna, Wael C. [1 ]
Farrokhyar, Forough [1 ,2 ]
Shargall, Yaron [1 ]
机构
[1] McMaster Univ, Dept Surg, Div Thorac Surg, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[2] McMaster Univ, Dept Hlth Res Methods Evidence & Impact, Hamilton, ON, Canada
关键词
Level of evidence; Thoracic surgery; Clinical research; Evidence-based medicine; TRIALS; HIERARCHY;
D O I
10.1093/ejcts/ezab460
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVES: The large volume of scientific publications and the increasing emphasis on high-quality evidence for clinical decisionmaking present daily challenges to all clinicians, including thoracic surgeons. The objective of this study was to evaluate the contemporary trend in the level of evidence (LOE) for thoracic surgery clinical research. METHODS: All clinical research articles published between January 2010 and December 2017 in 3 major general thoracic surgery journals were reviewed. Five authors independently reviewed the abstracts of each publication and assigned a LOE to each of them using the 2011 Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine classification scheme. Data extracted from eligible abstracts included study type, study size, country of primary author and type of study designs. Three auditing processes were conducted to establish working definitions and the process was validated with a research methodologist and 2 senior thoracic surgeons. Intra-class correlation coefficient was calculated to assess inter-rater agreement. Chi-square test and Spearman correlation analysis were then used to compare the LOE between journals and by year of publication. RESULTS: Of 2028 publications reviewed and scored, 29 (1.4%) were graded level I, 75 (3.7%) were graded level II, 471 (23.2%) were graded level III, 1420 (70.2%) were graded level IV and 33 (1.6%) were graded level V (lowest level). Most publications (94.9%) were of lower-level evidence (III-V). There was an overall increasing trend in the lower LOE (P < 0.001). Inter-rater reliability was substantial with 95.5% (95%, confidence interval: 0.95-0.96) level of agreement between reviewers. CONCLUSIONS: General thoracic surgery literature consists mostly of lower LOE studies. The number of lower levels of evidence is dominating the recent publications, potentially indicating a need to increase the commitment to produce and disseminate higher-level evidence in general thoracic surgery.
引用
收藏
页码:1012 / 1019
页数:8
相关论文
共 23 条
  • [1] Evidence-based medicine
    Bernstein, J
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS, 2004, 12 (02) : 80 - 88
  • [2] Black N, 1996, BRIT MED J, V312, P1215
  • [3] An fMRI investigation of syllable sequence production
    Bohland, Jason W.
    Guenther, Frank H.
    [J]. NEUROIMAGE, 2006, 32 (02) : 821 - 841
  • [4] The Levels of Evidence and Their Role in Evidence-Based Medicine
    Burns, Patricia B.
    Rohrich, Rod J.
    Chung, Kevin C.
    [J]. PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2011, 128 (01) : 305 - 310
  • [5] The Levels of Evidence in Pediatric Orthopaedic Journals: Where Are We Now?
    Cashin, Megan S.
    Kelley, Simon P.
    Douziech, Jeffery R.
    Varghese, Renjit A.
    Hamilton, Quinn P.
    Mulpuri, Kishore
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC ORTHOPAEDICS, 2011, 31 (06) : 721 - 725
  • [6] Evidence in the Aesthetic Surgical Literature over the Past Decade: How Far Have We Come?
    Chuback, Jennifer E.
    Yarascavitch, Blake A.
    Eaves, Felmont, III
    Thoma, Achilles
    Bhandari, Mohit
    [J]. PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2012, 129 (01) : 126E - 134E
  • [7] Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs.
    Concato, J
    Shah, N
    Horwitz, RI
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2000, 342 (25) : 1887 - 1892
  • [8] Hierarchy of evidence: a framework for ranking evidence evaluating healthcare interventions
    Evans, D
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NURSING, 2003, 12 (01) : 77 - 84
  • [10] When are randomised trials unnecessary? Picking signal from noise
    Glasziou, Paul
    Chalmers, Iain
    Rawlins, Michael
    McCulloch, Peter
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2007, 334 (7589): : 349 - 351