Creative destruction in science

Drawing on the concept of a gale of creative destruction in a capitalistic economy, we argue that initiatives to assess the robustness of findings in the organizational literature should aim to simultaneously test competing ideas operating in the same theoretical space. In other words, replication efforts should seek not just to support or question the original findings, but also to replace them with revised, stronger theories with greater explanatory power. Achieving this will typically require adding new measures, conditions, and subject populations to research designs, in order to carry out conceptual tests of multiple theories in addition to directly replicating the original findings. To illustrate the value of the creative destruction approach for theory pruning in organizational scholarship, we describe recent replication initiatives re-examining culture and work morality, working parents\u2019 reasoning about day care options, and gender discrimination in hiring decisions. Significance statement It is becoming increasingly clear that many, if not most, published research findings across scientific fields are not readily replicable when the same method is repeated. Although extremely valuable, failed replications risk leaving a theoretical void\u2014 reducing confidence the original theoretical prediction is true, but not replacing it with positive evidence in favor of an alternative theory. We introduce the creative destruction approach to replication, which combines theory pruning methods from the field of management with emerging best practices from the open science movement, with the aim of making replications as generative as possible. In effect, we advocate for a Replication 2.0 movement in which the goal shifts from checking on the reliability of past findings to actively engaging in competitive theory testing and theory building. Scientific transparency statement The materials, code, and data for this article are posted publicly on the Open Science Framework, with links provided in the article

Evaluating Blunt Abdominal Trauma with Sonography: a Cost Analysis.

Ultrasonography (US) is becoming increasingly utilized in the United States for the evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma (BAT). The objective of this study was to assess the cost impact of utilizing US in the evaluation of patients with BAT in a major trauma center. All patients sustaining BAT during a 6-month period before US was used at our institution (Jan-Jun 1993) were compared to BAT patients from a recent period in which US has been utilized (Jan-Jun 1995). The numbers of US, computed tomography (CT), and diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) were tabulated for each group. Financial cost for each of these procedures as determined by our finance department were as follows: US $96, CT$494, DPL $137. These numbers are representative of actual hospital expenditures exclusive of physician fees as calculated in 1994 U.S. dollars. Cost analysis was performed with t test and chi squared test, and significance was defined as P \u3c 0.05. There were 890 BAT admissions in the 1993 study period and 1033 admissions in the 1995 study period. During the 1993 period, 642 procedures were performed on the 890 patients to evaluate the abdomen: 0 US, 466 CT, and 176 DPL (see table) [table: see text]. This compares to 801 procedures on the 1,033 patients in 1995: 552 US, 228 CT, and 21 DPL. Total cost was$254,316 for the 1993 group and $168,501 for the 1995 group. Extrapolated to a 1-year period, a significant (P \u3c 0.05) cost savings of$171,630 would be realized. Cost per patient evaluated was significantly reduced from $285.75 in 1993 to$163.12 in 1995 (P \u3c 0.05). This represents a 43 per cent reduction in per patient expenditure for evaluating the abdomen. By effectively utilizing ultrasonography in the evaluation of patients with blunt abdominal trauma, a significant cost savings can be realized. This effect results chiefly from an eight-fold reduction in the use of DPL, and a two-fold reduction in the use of CT

Contribution of age and gender to outcome of blunt splenic injury in adults: multicenter study of the eastern association for the surgery of trauma.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine the contribution of age and gender to outcome after treatment of blunt splenic injury in adults. METHODS: Through the Multi-Institutional Trials Committee of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST), 1488 adult patients from 27 trauma centers who suffered blunt splenic injury in 1997 were examined retrospectively. RESULTS: Fifteen percent of patients were 55 years of age or older. A similar proportion of patients \u3e or = 55 went directly to the operating room compared with patients \u3c 55 (41% vs. 38%) but the mortality for patients \u3e or = 55 was significantly greater than patients \u3c 55 (43% vs. 23%). Patients \u3e or = 55 failed nonoperative management (NOM) more frequently than patients \u3c 55 (19% vs. 10%) and had increased mortality for both successful NOM (8% vs. 4%, p \u3c 0.05) and failed NOM (29% vs. 12%, p = 0.054). There were no differences in immediate operative treatment, successful NOM, and failed NOM between men and women. However, women \u3e or = 55 failed NOM more frequently than women \u3c 55 (20% vs. 7%) and this was associated with increased mortality (36% vs. 5%) (both p \u3c 0.05). CONCLUSION: Patients \u3e or = 55 had a greater mortality for all forms of treatment of their blunt splenic injury and failed NOM more frequently than patients \u3c 55. Women \u3e or = 55 had significantly greater mortality and failure of NOM than women \u3c 55