Surgical specialties and their particularities in the face of scientific evidence
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48193/qkw9ak95References
Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Cook DJ. Users’ guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1993;270(21): 2598–2601. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.270.21.2598.
González-Padilla DA, Dahm P. Evaluating the Certainty of Evidence in Evidence-based Medicine. European Urology Focus. 2023;9(5): 708–710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2023.10.014.
Rosenberg J. Surgical research remains comic opera and maybe for good reasons. Danish Medical Journal. 2021;68(12): A10210792.
Viñas Salas J, Gómez Arbonés X, Piñol Felis C. Investigación en especialidades quirúrgicas. Educación Médica. 2004;7: 61–65.
McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M, Lovett B, Griffin D. Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions. BMJ : British Medical Journal. 2002;324(7351): 1448–1451. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7351.1448.
Koh HJW, Whitelock-Wainwright E, Gasevic D, Rankin D, Romero L, Frydenberg M, et al. Quality Indicators in the Clinical Specialty of Urology: A Systematic Review. European Urology Focus. 2023;9(3): 435–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2022.12.004.
Pantiora E, Jazrawi A, Hersi AF, Abdsaleh S, Ahlstedt H, Molnar E, et al. Magnetic Seed vs Guidewire Breast Cancer Localization With Magnetic Lymph Node Detection. JAMA Surgery. 2024;159(3): 239–246. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2023.6520.
Augustinus S, van Goor IWJM, Berkhof J, Daamen LA, Groot Koerkamp B, Mackay TM, et al. Alternative Randomized Trial Designs in Surgery: A Systematic Review. Annals of Surgery. 2022;276(5): 753–760. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000005620.
Schünemann HJ, Cuello C, Akl EA, Mustafa RA, Meerpohl JJ, Thayer K, et al. GRADE Guidelines: 18. How ROBINS-I and other tools to assess risk of bias in non-randomized studies should be used to rate the certainty of a body of evidence. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2019;111: 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.01.012.
Barker TH, Habibi N, Aromataris E, Stone JC, Leonardi-Bee J, Sears K, et al. The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for quasi-experimental studies. JBI evidence synthesis. 2024;22(3): 378–388. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-23-00268.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Revista Mexicana de Urología
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
