Related Experiment Videos
Clinical relevance in anesthesia journals.
Jakob Lauritsen1, Ann M Møller
1Department of Anaesthesiology, Herlev University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark. jakobl@dadlnet.dk
Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology
|March 23, 2006
Summary
This review defines clinically relevant anesthesia articles, emphasizing methodological rigor and meaningful patient outcomes. It highlights the growing importance of evidence-based anesthesia and critiques journal impact factors as relevance measures.
Area of Science:
- Anesthesiology
- Medical Informatics
- Evidence-Based Medicine
Background:
- Growing emphasis on evidence-based medicine in anesthesia.
- Need for clinical decisions based on sound research with rigorous methodology and relevant outcomes.
Purpose of the Study:
- Define clinically relevant articles in anesthesia journals.
- Discuss the distribution and importance of methodology and outcomes.
- Analyze the role of journal impact factors.
Main Methods:
- Review of current literature on clinical relevance in anesthesia.
- Analysis of definitions and criteria for relevant research.
- Discussion of methodological rigor and outcome measures.
Main Results:
- Clinically relevant anesthesia articles require both methodological rigor and clinically relevant outcomes.
- Increasing number of systematic reviews in anesthesia literature.
- Journal impact factor is not a valid measure of clinical relevance.
Conclusions:
- A clear definition of clinically relevant anesthesia research is established.
- Methodological rigor and clinical outcomes are key determinants of relevance.
- Critique of journal impact factors and promotion of robust research evaluation.