 |
 |

Management of Delayed Postoperative Hemorrhage After Pancreaticoduodenectomy—Invited Critique
Thomas J. Howard, MD
Arch Surg. 2008;143(10):1007.
 |
 |
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
 |
 |
Lies, damn lies, and statistics": This famous phrase could be used to describe recent forays into evidence-based medicine, where the filtering of disparate data from small, underpowered studies using the mechanics of a meta-analysis conveys to the reader a higher degree of precision than is warranted. Take the meta-analysis of DPH after pancreaticoduodenectomy by Limongelli and colleagues published in this issue of the Archives. The authors have followed rigorous steps for identifying the relevant published literature, combining them, and applying appropriate statistical analysis using a random-effects model to examine the overall results. They performed an appropriate, well-done textbook study, even including oversight on their data collection and transfer. What this method fails to convey is that, despite this structure, it remains a composite of small numbers of patients (largest series, 22 patients), treated by a large number of heterogeneous surgeons on several continents who possessed . . . [Full Text of this Article] AUTHOR INFORMATION
CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLE
Management of Delayed Postoperative Hemorrhage After Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Meta-analysis
Paolo Limongelli, Shirin E. Khorsandi, Madhava Pai, James E. Jackson, Paul Tait, John Tierris, Nagy A. Habib, Robin C. N. Williamson, and Long R. Jiao
Arch Surg. 2008;143(10):1001-1007.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|