The hypertensive response to intubation. Do researchers acknowledge previous work?

Purpose: To see whether investigators of a circumscribed research topic, the haemodynamic response to orotracheal intubation, review and cite previous work. A 1989 editorial about the response was critical of investigators for measuring physiology but not outcome; for nonetheless making recommendations; for studying only patients not at risk, and for implying patients are at risk when this is not certain. Methods: A systematic Medline search was made for English language reports published during or after 1990, and their citation lists read for missed reports. All retrieved papers were read for citation of the editorial and for acknowledgement of its criticisms. Citations were tabulated and cross-referenced between papers, to see whether blocks of citations had been obtained from other investigators reports. Results: Eighty-one full reports, from 48 groups of investigators, were obtained. The 1989 editorial was cited twice. All studies included physiological measurements, but none reported long-term outcome. There was no comment on the need to know outcome in 39 reports. Pre-existing risk factors were exclusions in 65 studies. In 56 papers, complications of the response were given as the reason for the study; in 41 of these papers only healthy subjects were studied. In total, 249 references about the response were identified from the 81 papers. There was no obvious evidence that citations were obtained from others' papers. Conclusion: Recognised deficiencies in research method were not acknowledged. When submitting work for publication, investigators should provide evidence of how they searched for previous work.