Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2008 Jul;24(3):281-8.
doi: 10.4103/0970-1591.42606.

What every urologist should know about surgical trials Part I: Are the results valid?

Sohail Bajammal, Mohit Bhandari, Philipp Dahm

What every urologist should know about surgical trials Part I: Are the results valid?

Sohail Bajammal et al. Indian J Urol. 2008 Jul.

Abstract

Surgical interventions have inherent benefits and associated risks. Before implementing a new therapy, we should ascertain the benefits and risks of the therapy, and assure ourselves that the resources consumed in the intervention will not be exorbitant.

Materials and methods: We suggest a three-step approach to the critical appraisal of a clinical research study that addresses a question of therapy. Readers should ask themselves the following three questions: Are the study results valid? What are the results? And can I apply them to the care of an individual patient? This first review article on surgical trials will address the question as to whether we consider a study valid or not.

Results: Once the reader has found an article of interest on a urological intervention, it is necessary to assess the quality of the evidence. According to the hierarchy of evidence, a randomized controlled trial is the study design which is the most likely to provide an unbiased estimate of the truth. Important methodological criteria which characterize a high-quality randomized trial include description of allocation concealment, blinding, intention-to-treat analysis, and completeness of follow-up. Failure of investigators to apply these principles may raise concerns about the validity of the study results, thereby making its finding irrelevant.

Conclusion: Assessing the validity of a given study is a critical first step when evaluating a clinical research study. Making this process explicit with guidelines to assess the strength of the available evidence serves to improve patient care. It will also allow urologists to defend therapeutic interventions, based on available evidence and not anecdotes.

Keywords: Bibliographic; databases; evidence-based medicine; information storage and retrieval.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

References

    1. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 1996;312:71–2. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. 2001. [Last updated on 2007 Oct 20]. Available from: http://www.cebm.net.
    1. Brubaker L, Cundiff G, Fine P, Nygaard I, Richter H, Visco A, et al. A randomized trial of colpopexy and urinary reduction efforts (CARE): Design and methods. Control Clin Trials. 2003;24:629–42. - PubMed
    1. Brubaker L, Cundiff G, Fine P, Nygaard I, Richter HE, Visco A, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy with Burch colposuspension to reduce urinary stress incontinence. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:1557–66. - PubMed
    1. Guyatt GH, Rennie D. User's Guide to the Medical Literature. 4th ed. Chicago, IL: AMA Press; 2002. p. 706.