HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): Robert M. Sade Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sade, R. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Sade, R. M. Related Collections Education

Ann Thorac Surg 2006;82:1173-1174
© 2006 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

---

Editorial

"Surgical Research or Comic Opera" Redux

Institute of Human Values in Health Care, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina

^_* Address correspondence to Dr Sade, Department of Surgery, 96 Jonathan Lucas St, Suite 409, PO Box 250612, Charleston, SC 29425 (Email: sader@musc.edu).

The first 300 words of the full text of this article appear below.

	Introduction

 
The gold standard of clinical research is the randomized controlled trial (RCT). Yet, only 6–10% of studies published in the cardiothoracic surgery literature are RCTs, less than half the rate of RCTs published in medical journals [1, 2]. More than half of surgical research studies are retrospective chart reviews, mostly clinical series of operations, which have been decried by some of our medical colleagues as little better than a collection of anecdotal experiences, the weakest scientific evidence, or as hopelessly invalid because of uncontrolled bias and other confounding, potentially lethal flaws [3]. Some comments have gone beyond mere criticism to outright ridicule: "I should like to shame [surgeons] out of the comic opera performances which they suppose are statistics of operations" [3].

It is not often recognized, however, that RCTs can reach valid and useful conclusions only if they address procedures or treatments in which the study interventions can be easily standardized, the skill of the treating physician is of minimal importance, subjects are available in sufficient numbers to allow reliable statistical analysis, and blinding of relevant participants can be easily accomplished. Given those requirements, we can appreciate why RCTs are more common in medical research than in surgical, particularly surgical operations: placebo controls or no treatment controls are often either undesirable or unethical; blinding of all relevant participants is not practical or not possible because surgeons must know what they are doing (blinding of patients, assessors, and analysts often can be done); and patients needing specific procedures are often too few in number for reliable statistical analysis. Standardization of treatment is particularly difficult to accomplish because, unlike 20-milligram tablets, no two operations are the same. Surgical techniques vary among surgeons, and also vary in the same surgeon from one operation to the next; . . . [Full Text of this Article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. M. Augestad, G. Berntsen, K. Lassen, J. G. Bellika, R. Wootton, R. O. Lindsetmo, and Study Group of Research Quality in Medical Informa Standards for reporting randomized controlled trials in medical informatics: a systematic review of CONSORT adherence in RCTs on clinical decision support JAMIA, January 1, 2012; 19(1): 13 - 21. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]