Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T15:16:10.080Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Medical Technology Assessment

The Evaluation of Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Using Data Synthesis Techniques

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

William H. Yeaton  and
Paul M. Wortman
William H. Yeaton
Affiliation:
Institute for Social ResearchUniversity of Michigan
Paul M. Wortman
Affiliation:
Institute for Social Research and School of Public HealthUniversity of Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABGS) has become an important procedure for the treatment of coronary heart disease. Over 100,000 of these surgical procedures are performed each year (1) at an aggregate cost of about $2 billion (2). Despite its current widespread acceptance, this major surgical innovation has generated considerable controversy concerning its effectiveness (3), and there still remains substantial confusion in assessing its overall impact (4).

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , January 1985 , pp. 125 - 146
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Kolata, G. B.Consensus on bypass surgery. Science, 1981, 211, 42–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Weinstein, M. C. & Stason, W. B.Cost-effectiveness of coronary artery bypass surgery. Circulation, 66, 56–66, (Suppl. III).Google Scholar
3.Special correspondence. A debate on coronary bypass. New England Journal of Medicine, 1977, 297, 1464–1470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Special Report. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement. New England Journal of Medicine, 1981, 304, 680–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Report from NCHCT. Coronary artery bypass surgery. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1981,246, 1645–1649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Wagner, J. L. Toward a research agenda on medical technology. Medical Technology, NCHSR Research Proceedings Series, DHEW Publication No. (PHS) 79–3254. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979.Google Scholar
7.Harrison, D. C.Coronary bypass: The first 10 years. Hospital Practice, 1981, 16, 49–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Adam, M., Mitchel, B. F., Lambert, C. J., & Geisler, G. F.Long-term results with aorta-to-coronary artery bypass vein grafts. Annals of Thoracic Surgery 1972, 14, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.The Norwegian Multicenter Study Group. Timolol-induced reductions in mortality and reinfarction in patients surviving acute myocardial infarction. New England Journal of Medicine, 1981, 304, 801–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Zelis, R.Calcium-blocker therapy for unstable angina pectoris. New England Journal of Medicine, 1982, 306, 926–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Gerstenblith, G., Ovyang, P., Achuff, et al. , Nifedipine in unstable angina. A double-blind, randomized trial. New England Journal of Medicine, 1982, 306, 885–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Bonchek, L. I.Are randomized trials appropriate for evaluating new operations? New England Journal of Medicine, 1979, 301, 44–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Wortman, P. M. Randomized clinical trials. In Wortman, P. M., ed. Methods for evaluating health services. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1981, pp. 41–60.Google Scholar
14.Elashoff, J. D.Combining results of clinical trials. Gastroenterology, 1978, 75, 1170–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Gilbert, J. P., McPeek, B., & Mosteller, F. Progress in surgery and anesthesia: Benefits and risks of innovative surgery. In Bunker, J. P., Barnes, B. A., & Mosteller, F., eds. Costs, risks, and benefits of surgery. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977, 124–69.Google Scholar
16.Mumford, E., Schlesinger, H. J., & Glass, G. V.The effects of psychological intervention on recovery from surgery and heart attacks: An analysis of the literature. American Journal of Public Health, 1982, 72, 141–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Baum, M. L., Anish, D. S., Chalmers, T. C., Sachs, H. S., Smith, H., & Fagerstrom, R. M.A survey of clinical trials of antibiotic prophalaxis in colon surgery: Evidence against further use of no-treatment controls. New England Journal of Medicine, 1981, 305, 795–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Rahimtoola, S. H., Grunkemeier, G. L., Tepley, J. F., Lambert, L. E., Thomas, D. R., Suen, Y-F, & Starr, A.Changes in coronary bypass surgery leading to improved survival. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1981, 246, 1912–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Wortman, P. M., & Saxe, L. The assessment of medical technology: Methodological considerations. In Luce, B. (Ed.) Strategies for medical technology assessment. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982, pp. 127–49.Google Scholar
20.DeSilva, R. A., Lown, B., Hennekens, C. H., & Cassels, W.Lignocaine prophylaxis in acute myocardial infarction: An evaluation of randomized trials. Lancet, 1981, 2, 855–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L.Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1981.Google Scholar
22.Sacks, H., Chalmers, T. C., & Smith, H.Randomized versus historical controls for clinical trials. American Journal of Medicine, 1982, 72, 233–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Wortman, P. M. & Yeaton, W. H. Synthesis of results in controlled trials of coronary artery bypass graft surgery. In Light, R. J., (Ed.) Evaluation studies review annual, Vol. 8. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982.Google Scholar
24.Staines, G. L. The strategic combination argument. In Leinfellner, W. & Kohler, E. (Eds.) Developments in the methodology of social sciences. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Co., 1974, pp. 417–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Yeaton, W. H., & Wortman, P. M.Synthesizing a quality-of-life measure in controlled trials of coronary artery bypass surgery. Technical Report. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, 1983.Google Scholar
26.Mclntosh, J. R., & Garcia, J. A.The first decade of aortocoronary bypass grafting, 1967–1977: A review. Circulation, 1978, 57, 405–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Buccino, R. A., & Mclntosh, H. D.Aortocoronary bypass grafting in the management of patients with coronary artery disease. American Journal of Medicine, 1979, 66, 651–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Fineberg, H. V. Gastric freezing: A study of diffusion of a medical innovation. Appendix D in Medical Technology and the Health Care System. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1979, pp. 173–200.Google Scholar
29.Gilbert, J. P., Light, R. J., & Mosteller, F. Assessing social innovations: An empirical base for policy. In Lumsdaine, A. A. & Bennett, C. A. (Eds.) Evaluation and experiment. New York: Academic Press, 1975, 39–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30.Gilbert, J. P., McPeek, B., & Mosteller, F.Statistics and ethics in surgery and anesthesia. Science, 1979, 198, 684–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31.Grace, N. D., Muench, H., & Chalmers, T. C.The present status of shunts for portalhypertension in cirrhosis. Gastroenterology, 1966, 50, 684–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32.Gruntzig, A. R., Senning, A., & Siegenthaler, W. E.Non-operative dilation of coronary-artery stenosis: Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty. New England Journal of Medicine, 1979, 301, 61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33.Office of Technology Assessment. Assessing the efficacy and safety of medical technologies. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, (Stock No. 052–003–00593–0), 1978.Google Scholar
34.Wortman, P. M., Vinokur, A., & Sechrest, L.Evaluation of the NIH consensus development process. Final Report, NIH Contract No. NO1-OD-0–2131, Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, 1982.Google Scholar
35.Levy, R. I. & Sondik, E. J.Decision-making in planning large-scale comparative studies. Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, 1978, 304, 441–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36.Yeaton, W. H., Wortman, P. M., & Langberg, N.Differential attrition: Estimating the effect of crossovers on the evaluation of a medical technology. Evaluation Review, 1983, 7, 831–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37.Yeaton, W. H., & Sechrest, L.Critical dimensions in the choice and maintenance of successful treatments: Strength, integrity, and effectiveness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1981,49, 156–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38.Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial Research Group. Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial: Risk factor changes and mortality results. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1982, 248, 1465–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39.Yeaton, W. H., Wortman, P. M. Evaluation issues in medical research synthesis. In Yeaton, W. H. and Wortman, P. M. (Eds.) Issues in data synthesis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1984, pp. 43–56.Google Scholar
40.Veterans Administration Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Cooperative Study Group. Eleven-year survival in the Veterans Administration randomized trial of coronary artery bypass surgery for stable angina. New England Journal of Medicine, 1984, 311, 1333–1339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41.CASS Principal Investigators and their associates. Myocardial infarction and mortality in the coronary artery surgery study (CASS) randomized trial. New England Journal of Medicine, 1984, 310, 750–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42.European Coronary Surgery Study Group. Long-term results of prospective randomized study of coronary artery bypass surgery in stable angina pectoris. Lancet, 1982, 2, 1173–80.Google Scholar