Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Pitfalls in randomized surgical trials

W van der Linden

    Surgery
    |March 1, 1980
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    Randomized trials comparing surgical methods face bias if surgeons aren't equally skilled in both techniques. An alternative trial design and reporting standards are proposed to ensure fair comparisons in surgical research.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    [How calcification in the atherosclerotic aorta can be associated with both a lower risk of recurrent stroke in clinical studies and an increased number of strokes in an autopsy study: interpretation based on selection bias].

    Nederlands tijdschrift voor geneeskunde·2008
    Same author

    Diseases and lesions associated with third molars. Review of 1001 cases.

    Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics·1995
    Same author

    Cholescintigraphy and biochemical tests in cholecystitis--an evaluation with discriminant analysis.

    Nuklearmedizin. Nuclear medicine·1993
    Same author

    Randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of preoperative biliary decompression.

    World journal of surgery·1988
    Same author

    The randomized clinical trial in orthopaedics: obligation or option?

    The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume·1986
    Same author

    Bile flow before and after cholecystectomy: a study with 99mTc-HIDA.

    Acta chirurgica Scandinavica·1985
    Same journal

    One-year health care expenditures and patient out-of-pocket spending after open versus minimally invasive hepatopancreatobiliary surgery.

    Surgery·2026
    Same journal

    Shock index, hypotension, and blood product transfusion as predictors of post-traumatic stress disorder in firearm-related trauma.

    Surgery·2026
    Same journal

    Outcomes following endovascular aortic aneurysm repair in nonagenarian patients.

    Surgery·2026
    Same journal

    Fistulotomy with primary sphincteroplasty for complex anal fistulas: Should we be concerned about incontinence?

    Surgery·2026
    Same journal

    No need for mesh in the repair of hiatal hernias: Autologous tissue hiatoplasty techniques for the repair of the complex diaphragmatic defect.

    Surgery·2026
    Same journal

    Incretin-based therapies and altered myocardial metabolism in a swine model of ischemic heart disease in the setting of metabolic syndrome.

    Surgery·2026
    See all related articles

    Area of Science:

    • Surgical research methodology
    • Clinical trial design

    Background:

    • Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are standard for comparing treatments.
    • Comparing operative methods using traditional RCTs presents unique methodological challenges.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To identify potential biases in current RCT designs for comparing surgical procedures.
    • To propose an alternative trial design and reporting guidelines for surgical trials.

    Main Methods:

    • Critique of the standard RCT design where surgeons perform multiple procedures randomly.
    • Introduction of an alternative trial design addressing surgeon expertise.
    • Recommendations for reporting participant training and pretrial experience.

    Main Results:

    Related Experiment Videos

    • Current RCT designs may introduce systematic bias favoring established or simpler surgical techniques.
    • Surgeon's proficiency in both compared operative methods is crucial for unbiased results.
    • Lack of standardized reporting on surgeon training can obscure trial validity.

    Conclusions:

    • The design of randomized trials comparing operative methods requires careful consideration of surgeon expertise.
    • Alternative trial designs and transparent reporting of surgeon training are necessary for valid surgical comparisons.
    • Ensuring equal surgeon proficiency is paramount for reliable evidence in comparative operative studies.