ReviewClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2011
Limits to clinical trials in surgical areas.
Review in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Hybrid repair versus conventional open repair for thoracic aortic arch aneurysms.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Propensity score matching in otolaryngologic literature: A systematic review and critical appraisal.PloS one · 2020Pooled it
- Lichtenstein versus TIPP versus TAPP versus TEP for primary inguinal hernia, a matched propensity score study on the French Club Hernie Registry.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2023Article
- An Intraindividual Comparison of Open versus Paine Retinaculotome Release for Bilateral Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.Revista brasileira de ortopedia · 2023Article
- Recent clinical trials with stem cells to slow or reverse normal aging processes.Frontiers in aging · 2023Review
- Symptomatic adult spinal deformity: implications for treatment and research.Annals of translational medicine · 2020Article
- Selection criteria and colpotomic approach for safe minimally invasive radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2020Article
- Laparoscopic gastrectomy with and without prophylactic drains in gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2019Article
- Comparison of hernia registries: the CORE project.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2018Review
- Biostatistical resources in an academic medical center.Journal of thoracic disease · 2018Article
- Intralesional Osteophyte Regrowth Following Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation after Previous Treatment with Marrow Stimulation Technique.Cartilage · 2017Article
- Misuse of statistics in surgical literature.Journal of thoracic disease · 2016Article
- "Fatigue meniscal tears": a description of the lesion and the results of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy.International orthopaedics · 2016Article
- Evidence on prognosis.Plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Randomized clinical trials are considered to be the gold standard of evidence-based medicine nowadays. However, it is important that we point out some limitations of randomized clinical trials relating to surgical interventions. There are limitations that affect the external and internal validity of many surgical study designs. Some limitations can be bypassed, but can make it more difficult for the study to be carried out. Other limitations cannot be bypassed. When it is intended to extrapolate the result of a randomized clinical trial, the premise is that the performed or to be performed intervention will be similar wherever applied and/or for every doctor using it. However, no matter how standardized the technique may be, the results are not similar for all surgeons, which implies a significant limitation to surgical randomized clinical trials concerning external validity. When considering the various limitations presented for performing surgical trials capable of generating scientific evidence within the patterns currently proposed in the evidence level classifications of medical publications, it is necessary to rethink whether those scientific evidence levels are similarly applicable to surgical works and to nonsurgical trials. We currently live in a time of supposed ''inferiority'' of surgical scientific works under the optics of the current quality criteria for a ''suitable'' clinical trial.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.