Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 12, 2026

A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition
Published on: September 20, 2019
Ten Reasons Why Prospective Randomized Studies in Surgery Are Flawed and Fundamentally Different From Drug Trials
Alexander Y Shin1, Francisco de Pinal2
1Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Abstract:
Prospective randomized controlled trials are widely regarded as the gold standard for evaluating therapeutic interventions. Although this model is appropriate for drug development, its application in surgical research has proven challenging and, in many cases, misleading. Surgery involves complex interactions between technical skill, patient variability, and intraoperative decision-making that cannot be easily standardized or controlled. This article outlines 10 reasons why prospective randomized studies in surgery are fundamentally different from drug trials, highlighting methodological, ethical, and practical concerns. Recognizing these distinctions is critical to developing more appropriate and context-sensitive research frameworks for surgical evaluation.
Related Concept Videos
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Blind Procedures
Psychosurgery
Historical Development of Psychosurgery
In the 1930s, Portuguese neurologist Antonio Egas Moniz introduced a surgical procedure designed...
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Completely Randomized and Randomized Block Designs
Blinding

