Ten Reasons Why Prospective Randomized Studies in Surgery Are Flawed and Fundamentally Different From Drug Trials

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 in...

Celý popis

Uložené v:
Podrobná bibliografia
Vydané v:The Journal of hand surgery (American ed.)
Hlavní autori: Shin, Alexander Y, de Pinal, Francisco
Médium: Journal Article
Jazyk:English
Vydavateľské údaje: United States 31.10.2025
Predmet:
ISSN:1531-6564, 1531-6564
On-line prístup:Zistit podrobnosti o prístupe
Tagy: Pridať tag
Žiadne tagy, Buďte prvý, kto otaguje tento záznam!
Popis
Shrnutí: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.
Bibliografia:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
ObjectType-Review-3
content type line 23
ISSN:1531-6564
1531-6564
DOI:10.1016/j.jhsa.2025.09.009