CJA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a scholarly reply
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Duncan, P. G.
Right arrow Articles by Cohen, M. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Duncan, P. G.
Right arrow Articles by Cohen, M. M.

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, Vol 35, 494-499, Copyright © 1988 by Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society

ARTICLES

The literature of anaesthesia: what are we learning?

PG Duncan and MM Cohen
Department of Anaesthesia, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

In an effort to identify the types of articles published in anaesthesia literature, a stratified random sample of articles published in North America between 1977 and 1986 was analyzed (N = 571). Human studies constituted 63 per cent of the total, with case reports and case series constituting over half. Study designs classes as descriptive in nature were remarkably rare in the anaesthesia literature, with prevalence and case-control studies constituting 0.8 and 3.3 per cent of the total respectively. Cohort studies (7.8 per cent), non-randomized intervention studies (12.8 per cent), and randomized controlled trials (17.8 per cent) were more numerous, but many suffered major contamination of experimental design. Frequently identified concerns in assessing the applicability of a given study to general anaesthetic practice were a bias induced by selection of the study subjects, application of the results from tertiary care hospitals to community hospitals, and contamination of the study protocol. These factors were identified as present in the majority of articles. The results suggest that growth of the specialty of anaesthesia is constrained by the narrow spectrum of study designs, as well as major problems affecting generalizability of the published results.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Canadian J. AnesthesiaHome page
D. A.E. Shephard
The changing pattern of anesthesia, 1954-2004: a review based on the content of the Canadian Journal of Anesthesia in its first half-century: [La transformation du modele de l'anesthesie, 1954-2004 : une revue fondee sur le contenu du premier demi-siecle du Journal canadien d'anesthesie]
Can J Anesth, March 1, 2005; 52(3): 238 - 248.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
P. T-L. Choi, S. H. Halpern, N. Malik, A. R. Jadad, M. R. Tramer, and B. Walder
Examining the Evidence in Anesthesia Literature: A Critical Appraisal of Systematic Reviews
Anesth. Analg., March 1, 2001; 92(3): 700 - 709.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1988 by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.