This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on Web of Science (1)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

William Silen, MD

Arch Surg. 1996;131(8):798.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

A 1-PAGE commentary titled "Surgical Research or Comic Opera: Questions, but Few Answers," recently published in Lancet,¹ concluded as follows:

Only when the quality of publications in the surgical literature has improved will surgeons reasonably be able to rebut the charge that as much as half of the research they undertake is misconceived.

This serious indictment followed a review of the first 1996 issues of 9 of the most widely read general surgical journals. The immediate reaction of many, if not most, surgeons will be to reject completely the veracity of these accusations. The charge, however, is of such great import to the academic surgical community that heed should be paid to a reasoned examination of the genesis of such a position.

First, there are far too many surgical journals for the number of studies of excellence currently emanating from surgical departments around the world. New journals dealing with . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Beth Israel Hospital Brookline, Mass

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?