ReviewLangenbeck's archives of surgery2014
Insights into surgical trials: methodological challenges and solutions.
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 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gastrointestinal Complications After Pancreatoduodenectomy With Epidural vs Patient-Controlled Intravenous Analgesia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA surgery · 2020Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- [Transvaginal cholecystectomy: results of a randomized study].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2014Trial
- Mapping the Evidence for Surgical Care of Gastro-Entero-Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors (GEP-NETs): A Scoping Review.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Review
- Randomized Clinical Trials and Observational Tribulations: Providing Clinical Evidence for Personalized Surgical Pain Management Care Models.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Pylorus preservation pancreatectomy or not.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2017Review
- Future perspectives for surgical research in Germany.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNovel surgical methods and procedures used to be introduced by experts and were established depending on the corresponding success that was noted. Surgical trials representing evidence level 1b were and still are called into question for different reasons. Prospective randomized controlled trials comparing various surgical strategies that were conducted over the past 11 years in the clinical trial unit in the department of general, visceral, and transplantation surgery of the University of Heidelberg pointed out problems as well as possible solutions for surgical trials' characteristics. PURPOSE: When planning a study within a department of surgery, several aspects have to be considered. The article aims at outlining pitfalls that have to be dealt with as well as possible solutions by outlining experiences within several conducted trials.
conclusionsThe compilation of solutions announcing the challenges of surgical studies shows that valid high-quality trials are feasible.
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.