Randomized controlled studies (RCTs) play a crucial role in evidence-based medicine. I follow with pleasure the special attention Surgical Endocopy pays to publication of RCTs. Usually, RCTs have two study arms, methods and results, and both should be clearly documented. Before making critical interpretations, articles should include descriptive statistics such as mean/median, standard deviation, and confidence intervals of the outcomes. From this point of view, I request corrections for some misprints and elimination of some deficiencies of two studies published in Surgical Endoscopy [1, 2]. Both studies were randomized, controlled, and related, with comparison of single-port and conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomies. The authors of the both studies are similar, and I congragulate their efforts. The first study, published in 2010 [1], included 20 patients in each arm of the investigation (single port vs multiport). In general, biliary complications are not very frequent after laparoscopic cholecystectomies, and it is well known that documentation of biliary complications by comparing groups is vital. In the text of the study (Results section, p. 1844), the authors reported two biliary complications in the single-port group and one biliary complication in the multiport group. Table 1 of the same study (p. 1845) showed an exact opposite situation: one biliary complication in the single-port group and two biliary complications in the multiport group. This study was cited by two evidence-based papers, with two different acceptances of the aforementioned data [3, 4]. Some researchers accepted the data in the text as correct and cited them as such [3], whereas others accepted the data in Table 1 as correct [4]. As you would appreciate, the passing of an infrequent morbidity from one study arm to another can result in different statistical outcomes in the pooled analysis. In 2012, the same group published a study comparing the inflammatory responses of single-port and multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomies [2]. Their report involved a similar situation. They reported in the article abstract (p. 627) that ‘‘group A included the patients who would undergo four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and group B included the patients who would undergo LESS [laparoendoscopic single-site] cholecystectomy.’’ In the Materials and Methods section of the article (p. 628), they reported that ‘‘group A included 20 patients who would undergo LESS cholecystectomy, and group B included 20 patients who would undergo the standard four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.’’ As a result, groups A and B are confusing. Additionally, the the abstract of the second article stated the following: ‘‘Pain was statistically significantly less for the LESS group at the 24-h interval (p = 0.0001). Less medication was needed for the LESS patients after the 6th postoperative hour (p = 0.007).’’ However, the main article text had no data about the pain or medications including desciptive numbers such as mean/median, standard deviation, and confident intervals. Would the authors mind clearing these confusions in their valuable studies? It is particularly important for the future analysis of these studies. Surgical Endoscopy is a high-level journal in its speciality. It continues to be a good source of evidence-based studies such as RCTs, metaanalyses, and systematic reviews. I believe the technical staff of the journal, the reviewers, and the editors also should be aware of such misprints and correct them. This is C. Kayaalp (&) Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Liver Transplantation Institute, Inonu University, Malatya, Turkey e-mail: cuneytkayaalp@hotmail.com