Abstract
Measuring the importance of scientific results in neurosurgery is a confusing topic. Members of the Nobel Prize Committee must feel like I do. How do we recognise important innovations in due time and make use of it? This is indeed an intriguing question from the organisers of this meeting. Scientific results here can be a new method, clinical evidence or a laboratory finding. It is possible to take two perspectives: That of a practising neurosurgeon who must use scientific information in order to provide optimum care for his patients. Or that of an authority (dean of faculty, ministry etc.) with the purpose to quantify “scientific output” and distribute resources accordingly. I will therefore try to discuss along the two lines:
-
1.
The production and handling of scientific data, e.g. factors which influence this process from inside our speciality.
-
2.
Factors from outside neurosurgery such as the biology revolution and scientific literacy, impact of science rules-of-the-game, the intersection with the market.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Chalmers AF (1976) What is this thing called science? An assessment of the nature and status of science and its methods. The Open University Press, Milton Keynes, pp 1–5
Ciric I (1995) Comment on radiosurgery of brain metastases. Neurosurgery 37: 455
Clarke RH (1920) Investigation of the central nervous system. Johns Hopkins Hosp. Rep. The Lord Baltimore Press, Baltimore
Cohadon F (1993) La recherche en neurochirurgie. Neurochirurgie 39: 3–6
Franck G (1999) Scientific communication — a vanity fair? Science 286: 5437
Golden F (2000) The worst and the brightest. TIME Oct. 16
Greene MT (1997) What can be said in science? Nature 388: 619
Horsley V, Clarke RH (1908) The structure and function of the cerebellum examined by a new method. Brain 31: 45–124
Hounsfield GF (1973) Computerized transverse axial scanning (tomography). Brit J Radio] 46: 1016–1022
Leksell L (1982) Hjärnfragment Norstedts, Stockholm — Transl. M. Steiner
McDowell FH (1988) Neurology, neurosurgery, controlled trials and academic accountability. Stroke 19: 1463–1465
Spiegel E, Marks M, Lee AJ (1947) Stereotactic apparatus for operations on the human brain. Science 106: 349–350
The EC/IC Bypass Study Group (1985) Failure of extracranial/ intracranial arterial bypass to reduce the risk of ischaemic stroke: results of the international randomized trial. N Engl J Med 313: 1191–1200
Walters BC (1998) Clinical practice parameter development in neurosurgery. In: Bean JR (ed) Neurosurgery in transition. Concepts in neurosurgery, vol. 9. William and Wilkins, Baltimore
Warnke PC (1999) Neuronavigation and surgical neurology: the beginning of a new age or the end of an old age? Surg Neurol 52: 7–12
Winkler JT (1987) The academic celebrity syndrome. Lancet 21 Febuary, p 450
Yasargil G (1999) A legacy of microneurosurgery: memoirs, lessons, axioms. Neurosurgery 45: 1025–1091
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2001 Springer-Verlag Wien
About this paper
Cite this paper
Ostertag, C.B. (2001). Measuring the Importance of Scientific Results — in Neurosurgery. In: Steiger, HJ., Uhl, E. (eds) Risk Control and Quality Management in Neurosurgery. Acta Neurochirurgica Supplements, vol 78. Springer, Vienna. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-6237-8_34
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-6237-8_34
Publisher Name: Springer, Vienna
Print ISBN: 978-3-7091-7275-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-7091-6237-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive