Ethical issues in evidence-based surgery.

Ingrid Burger; Jeremy Sugarman; Steven N Goodman

doi:10.1016/j.suc.2005.10.003

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 16442426

Ethical issues in evidence-based surgery.

Ingrid Burger·Jeremy Sugarman·Steven N Goodman

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Evidence-based medicine, although ostensibly concerned with the research evidence underlying claims of efficacy for surgical procedures,has a direct connection with the ethics of surgical decision making. Questions of whether new procedures should ever be performed on patients outside of a formal research protocol, what the patient should be told about the uncertainties inherent in the use of nonvalidated innovative procedures, when formal evaluation is necessary, what form that evaluation should take, and how the burdens and results of such research can be distributed fairly all involve balancing competing ethical principles. Good ethics requires good facts, and evidence from well-controlled experiments provides best information upon which to base decisions in these areas and to build ethical surgical practice.

Explore related subjects

Clinical Trials as Topic Diffusion of Innovation Ethics, Medical Evidence-Based Medicine General Surgery Humans Informed Consent Research Design United States Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Ingrid Burger, Jeremy Sugarman, Steven N Goodman. 2006. Ethical issues in evidence-based surgery.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2005.10.003

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2008

On the exact interval estimation for the difference in paired areas under the ROC curves.

An important measure for comparison of accuracy between two diagnostic procedures is the difference in paired areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Non-parametric and maximum likelihood methods have been proposed for interval estimation for the difference in paired areas under ROC curves. However, these two methods are asymptotic procedures and their performance in finite sample sizes has not been thoroughly investigated. We propose to use the concept of generalized pivotal quantities (GPQs) to construct an exact confidence interval for the difference in paired areas under ROC curves. A simulation study is conducted to empirically investigate the probability coverage and expected length of the three methods for various combinations of sample sizes, values of the area under the ROC curve and correlations. Simulation results demonstrate that the exact confidence interval based on the concept of GPQs provides not only sufficient probability coverage but also reasonable expected length. Numerical examples using published data sets illustrate the proposed method.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗

PubMed2007

An efficient test for the analysis of dichotomized variables when the reliability is known.

A difference in an outcome variable between the treatment groups in a trial does not necessarily mean that there is a difference in the number of patients who experience relevant improvement on that variable. When the relevant improvement corresponds with an outcome or change in outcome that exceeds a certain threshold, the outcome variable can be dichotomized. A responder is a patient whose outcome exceeds the threshold. Comparisons can be made between the number of responders in the two treatment groups using logistic regression, or some other method to evaluate binary outcomes. An important disadvantage of this approach is the loss of power. In general, it is more efficient to test the difference between the mean values. We developed a statistical test that compares response rates for a dichotomized variable. It requires that an estimate of the reliability of the outcome variable is available. Simulations showed that the test was valid and robust over a wide range of distributions and sample sizes. The power was greater than the power of a chi(2) test, which would enable substantial reduction in the sample size.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗

PubMed2007

Sample size determination for logistic regression revisited.

There is no consensus on the approach to compute the power and sample size with logistic regression. Some authors use the likelihood ratio test; some use the test on proportions; some suggest various approximations to handle the multivariate case. We advocate the use of the Wald test since the Z-score is routinely used for statistical significance testing of regression coefficients. The null-variance formula became popular from early studies, which contradicts modern software, which utilizes the method of maximum likelihood estimation (MLE), when the variance of the MLE is estimated at the MLE, not at the null. We derive general Wald-based power and sample size formulas for logistic regression and then apply them to binary exposure and confounder to obtain a closed-form expression. These formulas are applied to minimize the total sample size in a case-control study to achieve a given power by optimizing the ratio of controls to cases. Approximately, the optimal number of controls to cases is equal to the square root of the alternative odds ratio. Our sample size and power calculations can be carried out online at www.dartmouth.edu/ approximately eugened.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗