ReviewLangenbeck's archives of surgery2014
Selecting and measuring optimal outcomes for randomised controlled trials in surgery.
Review in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 7 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Reliability of the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB): a systematic review with meta-analysis.European geriatric medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of botulinum toxin type A in distraction osteogenesis of the lower extremities: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Pooled it
- Incorporating patients' perspectives into the initial stages of core outcome set development: a rapid review of qualitative studies of type 2 diabetes.BMJ open diabetes research & care · 2019Pooled it
- Innovation in neurosurgery: less than IDEAL? A systematic review.Acta neurochirurgica · 2017Pooled it
- A systematic literature review of time to return to work and narcotic use after lumbar spinal fusion using minimal invasive and open surgery techniques.BMC health services research · 2017Pooled it
- A systematic examination of preoperative surgery warm-up routines.Surgical endoscopy · 2017Pooled it
- Introducing the participant-generated experience and satisfaction (PaGES) index: a novel, longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation tool.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Trial
- Outcome selection of randomized controlled trials in acute stroke: a comparative analysis between traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- The usefulness of orthopedic shoulder surgery randomized controlled trials: are they meeting the key criteria?JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2025Article
- Trials Methodology Research: what is it and why should India invest in it?The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia · 2024Review
- Days alive and out of hospital after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.ANZ journal of surgery · 2022Article
- An international Delphi consensus process to determine a common data element and core outcome set for frailty: FOCUS (The Frailty Outcomes Consensus Project).BMC geriatrics · 2022Article
- Article
- Variation in neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury: a survey in 68 centers participating in the CENTER-TBI study.Acta neurochirurgica · 2019Article
- Statistical Basic Steps to Be Considered on Planning a Research.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2018Article
- The use of qualitative methods to inform Delphi surveys in core outcome set development.Trials · 2016Article
- Comparison of Comorbidity Scores in Predicting Surgical Outcomes.Medical care · 2016Article
- Investigating the collection and assessment of patient-reported outcome data amongst unplanned surgical hospital admissions: a feasibility study.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2015Article
- Investigating the rigour of research findings in experimental studies assessing the effects of breaking up prolonged sitting - extended scoping review.Brazilian journal of physical therapyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) in surgery are complex to design and conduct and face unique challenges compared to trials in other specialties. The appropriate selection, measurement and reporting of outcomes are one aspect that requires attention. Outcomes in surgical RCTs are often ill-defined, inconsistent and at high risk of bias in their assessment and historically, there has been an undue focus on short-term outcomes and adverse events meaning the value of trial results for clinical practice and decision-making is limited. PURPOSE: This review addresses three key problems with surgical trial outcomes—choosing the right outcomes for the trial design and purpose, selecting relevant outcomes to measure from the range of possible outcomes, and measuring outcomes with minimal risk of bias. Each obstacle is discussed in turn, highlighting some suggested solutions and current initiatives working towards improvements in these areas. Some examples of good practice in this field are also discussed.
conclusionsMany of the historical problems with surgical trial outcomes may be overcome with an increased understanding of the trial design and purpose and recognition that pragmatic trials require assessments of outcomes that are patient-centred in addition to measurement of short-term outcomes. The use of core outcome sets developed for specific surgical interventions and the application of novel methods to blind outcome assessors will also improve outcome measurement and reporting. It is recommended that surgeons work together with trial methodologists to integrate these approaches into RCTs in surgery. This will facilitate the appropriate evaluation of surgical interventions with informative outcomes so that results from trials can be useful for clinical practice.
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.