Publication bias in surgery: Implications for informed consent

被引:27
作者
Syin, Dora
Woreta, Tinsay
Chang, David C.
Cameron, John L.
Pronovost, Peter J.
Makary, Martin A.
机构
[1] Johns Hopkins Univ, Sch Med, Johns Hopkins Med Inst, Dept Hlth Policy & Management, Baltimore, MD 21287 USA
[2] Johns Hopkins Med Inst, Johns Hopkins Qual & Safety Res Grp, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA
[3] Johns Hopkins Univ, Sch Med, Ctr Outcomes Res, Dept Surg, Baltimore, MD 21218 USA
[4] Johns Hopkins Univ, Sch Med, Dept Anesthesiol & Crit Care Med, Baltimore, MD 21218 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
publication bias; surgery; pancreatic; cancer; pancreaticoduodenectomy; informed consent;
D O I
10.1016/j.jss.2007.03.035
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background. Patients consenting for pancreas surgery are often quoted an operative risk of 1% to 3% based on the literature. However, these results are often from centers of excellence, and as a result the literature mortality rates may not be representative or generalizable. Methods. A MEDLINE search was performed to identify the major studies of pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and total pancreatectomy (TP) over a 6-y period (January 1998-December 2003). To obtain a literature-based mortality rate, we performed a meta-analysis of these published series and compared them with actual in-hospital mortality rates based on a representative 20% sample of hospital data in 37 states (the Nationwide Inpatient Sample). The sample included approximately 8 million patient records per year. Literature versus actual mortality rates were compared for the same 6-y period and stratified by academic versus non-academic medical centers. Results. We identified 16 major studies on PD and TP totaling 3641 patients with an overall mortality rate of 3.2% (range 0%-9.3%). The actual mortality rate based on the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (n = 7604) was 2.4-fold higher than the literature rate (adjusted rate of 7.6% versus 3.2%, P < 0.0001). All literature-based series were published from academic medical centers. By contrast, in the national database, 26.3% of PDs (2003/7604) were performed at nonacademic medical centers with a mortality rate of 11.4% (229/2003). The actual mortality rate at academic medical centers was lower than nonacademic medical centers (6.4% (360/ 5601), P < 0.0001), but still higher than the literature-based rate of 3.2% (P < 0.0001). Conclusions. Mortality rates for pancreatic resections in actual practice are 2.4-fold higher than those reported in the literature. Proper informed consent for surgical procedures should include an accurate description of the risks, using actual local and national mortality rates. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:88 / 93
页数:6
相关论文
共 53 条
[1]   Zero mortality after 152 consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies with pancreaticogastrostomy [J].
Aranha, GV ;
Hodul, PJ ;
Creech, S ;
Jacobs, W .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, 2003, 197 (02) :223-231
[2]   Management of complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy in a high volume centre: Results on 150 consecutive patients [J].
Bassi, C ;
Falconi, M ;
Salvia, R ;
Mascetta, G ;
Molinari, E ;
Pederzoli, P .
DIGESTIVE SURGERY, 2001, 18 (06) :453-457
[3]   Outcome after pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary cancer: An analysis from the veterans affairs national surgical quality improvement program [J].
Billingsley, KG ;
Hur, K ;
Henderson, WG ;
Daley, J ;
Khuri, SF ;
Bell, RH .
JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY, 2003, 7 (04) :484-491
[4]   Effect of hospital volume on in-hospital mortality with pancreaticoduodenectomy [J].
Birkmeyer, JD ;
Finlayson, SRG ;
Tosteson, ANA ;
Sharp, SM ;
Warshaw, AL ;
Fisher, ES .
SURGERY, 1999, 125 (03) :250-256
[5]  
Böttger TC, 1999, WORLD J SURG, V23, P164
[6]   100 AND 45 CONSECUTIVE PANCREATICODUODENECTOMIES WITHOUT MORTALITY [J].
CAMERON, JL ;
PITT, HA ;
YEO, CJ ;
LILLEMOE, KD ;
KAUFMAN, HS ;
COLEMAN, J ;
HERRINGTON, JL ;
MASON, GR ;
BRADLEY, EL ;
JORDAN, GL ;
GADACZ, TR ;
VANHEERDEN, JA ;
WATKINS, GH ;
COPELAND, EH .
ANNALS OF SURGERY, 1993, 217 (05) :430-438
[7]   UNDERREPORTING RESEARCH IS SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT [J].
CHALMERS, I .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1990, 263 (10) :1405-1408
[8]   MINIMIZING THE 3 STAGES OF PUBLICATION BIAS [J].
CHALMERS, TC ;
FRANK, CS ;
REITMAN, D .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1990, 263 (10) :1392-1395
[9]   Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research [J].
Chan, AW ;
Krieza-Jeric, K ;
Schmid, I ;
Altman, DG .
CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, 2004, 171 (07) :735-740
[10]   Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials -: Comparison of Protocols to published articles [J].
Chan, AW ;
Hróbjartsson, A ;
Haahr, MT ;
Gotzsche, PC ;
Altman, DG .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2004, 291 (20) :2457-2465