Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40778215›Full record

ReviewInnovative surgical sciences2025

Registry or randomization - must it be evidence or could it be coincidence?

Olga Radulova, Florian Oehme, Sandra Korn, Christian Praetorius, Marius Distler, Jürgen Weitz

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Innovative surgical sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Olga RadulovaDepartment of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Florian OehmeDepartment of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Sandra KornDepartment of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Christian PraetoriusDepartment of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Marius DistlerDepartment of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Jürgen WeitzDepartment of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the years, clinical registries and randomized controlled trials gained acceptance. With increasing experience, it was possible to obtain knowledge of benefits and limitations in both designs. During the last years, the research focus was placed on new study concepts such as register-based randomized controlled trials intending to merge the benefits of evidence obtained by RCTs and clinical registers. In this review, we aim to provide an overview of the evolution and the present stage of clinical trials. While doing so, we outline past experience and look ahead toward improving models for high-quality clinical trials.

Indexed as

randomized controlled trialregister-based randomized controlled trialregister trialsurgical research

Identifiers

PMID40778215
PMCPMC12327714

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.