Critical Appraisal of Published Research

Every year thousands of articles appear in the surgical literature. While many present the results of careful investigations based on good methodology, many others report studies whose results are either invalid because of defects in their conduct or analysis, or ungeneralizable to other settings because of biases in the way they were executed. This chapter describes a framework within which the validity and generalizability of published research can be appraised and judged. We will examine two frequently published types of research, controlled trials of therapeutic interventions and review articles, according to six easily remembered appraisal criteria: WHY, HOW, WHO, WHAT, HOW MANY, and SO WHAT.