[Is surgical scientific research substandard?]

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for establishing the efficacy of surgical interventions. As the trial results are frequently incorporated in clinical guidelines, proper methodology and reporting of RCTs are essential. Trial protocol registration has been introduced, with the aim of improving the latter. A recent study by Hannink and colleagues showed that the quality of registration of surgical RCTs published in surgical journals was inferior to those published in medical journals. In addition, there was a discrepancy between registered and published outcome in approximately 50% of surgical trials. In this comment we critically assess the quality of surgical journals and surgical scientific research. Although there is still room for improvement, we conclude that major quality improvements have been made in these fields, such as the adoption of trial protocol registration by the editorial boards of high-impact surgical journals and the establishment of multidisciplinary study groups, which assure the future of evidence-based surgery.