Abstract
We have significant concerns with a recently published article by Paraskevas et al1 entitled “Why randomized controlled trials do not always reflect reality.” The authors present a commentary on the shortcomings of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs Stenting (CREST) trial and studies on the repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms as case examples. The authors' interpretation of the literature suggests a lack of understanding of epidemiology that may dangerously misinform practice.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
