The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Randomized Controlled Trials of Surgical Interventions
Abstract
In Brief Background and Objectives: Surgical trials pose many methodological challenges often not present in trials of medical interventions. If not properly accounted for, these challenges may introduce significant biases and threaten the validity of the results. Methods: We systematically reviewed the significance of randomized controlled trials in the evaluation of surgical interventions, discussed the methodological challenges encountered in designing and conducting randomized controlled trials of surgical treatments, and proposed possible solutions to overcome these challenges. Conclusions: Many barriers and issues of surgical trials affecting internal validity can be overcome with proper methodology, and in most cases these issues do not restrict their conduct. Researchers should consider their research question carefully and design a surgical trial that contains features appropriate for the question. In doing so, they must ensure that the trial is valid, feasible, and affordable—a difficult feat, but one well worth the challenge. This article reviews the significance of randomized controlled trials in the evaluation of surgical interventions, discusses some of the methodological challenges encountered in designing and conducting randomized controlled trials of surgical trials, and proposes possible solutions to overcome these challenges.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Transplantation of Embryonic Dopamine Neurons for Severe Parkinson's Disease
Freed, C. R., Greene, P. E., Breeze, R. E., Tsai, W.-Y., DuMouchel, W., Kao, R., Dillon, S., Winfield, H., Culver, S., Trojanowski, J. Q., et al. (2001) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200103083441002 · Cited by 2,366
Post-randomisation exclusions: the intention to treat principle and excluding patients from analysis
Fergusson, D., Aaron, S. D., Guyatt, G., & Hébert, P. (2002) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7365.652 · Cited by 708
Self-citationNeed for expertise based randomised controlled trials
Devereaux, P. J., Bhandari, M., Clarke, M., Montori, V. M., Cook, D. J., Yusuf, S., Sackett, D. L., Cinà, C. S., Walter, S. D., Haynes, B., et al. (2005) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7482.88 · Cited by 427
Self-citation
Cited by
Diener, M. K., Seiler, C. M., Rossion, I., Kleeff, J., Glanemann, M., Butturini, G., Tomazic, A., Bruns, C. J., Busch, O. R., Farkas, S., et al. (2011) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60237-7 · Cited by 554
Compliance of randomized controlled trials in trauma surgery with the CONSORT statement
Lee, S.-Y., Teoh, P. J., Camm, C. F., & Agha, R. A. (2013) · Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery · doi:10.1097/ta.0b013e3182a5399e · Cited by 44
Metadata
- Authors
- Farrokhyar, F., Karanicolas, P. J., Thoma, A., Simunovic, M., Bhandari, M., Devereaux, P. J., Anvari, M., Adili, A., & Guyatt, G.
- Venue
- Annals of Surgery
- Published
- 2010-03
- Volume
- 251
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 409-416
- ISSN
- 0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2016698763
- Cited by
- 243
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 13.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Randomized Controlled Trials of Surgical Interventions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/sla.0b013e3181cf863d
- The paper
- Farrokhyar, F., Karanicolas, P. J., Thoma, A., Simunovic, M., Bhandari, M., Devereaux, P. J., Anvari, M., Adili, A., & Guyatt, G. (2010). Randomized Controlled Trials of Surgical Interventions. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e3181cf863d
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.