Objective: Describe methods for discerning between the good, bad and the ugly of the peer-reviewed literature.

Cardiac surgery is undoubtedly an effective operation for relieving symptoms and extending life. Over the last 50+ years, a wealth of new information regarding the practice of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) has been developed and shared through the peer-reviewed literature. Improvements in outcomes from these procedures in part requires clinicians and other health care personnel to appraise critically and synthesize within their practice this new knowledge.

Unfortunately, this skill set, while invaluable, has not historically been the focus of perfusion, let alone medical schools. Without this expertise, readers of the literature are at risk of drawing inferences which are not grounded in evidence. Accordingly, one is left to assume some of the following:
   • Research designs are appropriate for addressing the stated hypotheses,
   • Statistical methods are aptly conducted
   • Conclusions drawn are grounded in the findings of the study

Using examples from the literature, this interactive talk will provide audience members with a set of fundamental principles for reading and drawing inferences from the peer-reviewed literature.