Observational studies are notoriously susceptible to bias, and parallel-group randomized trials are important to identify the best overall treatment for eligible patients. Yet, such trials can be expected to be a misleading indicator of the best treatment for some subgroups or individual patients. In selected circumstances, patients can be treated in n-of-1 trials to address the inherent heterogeneity of treatment response in clinical populations. Such trials help to accomplish the ultimate goal of all biomedical research, to optimize the care of individual patients.

Most endovascular innovations have been introduced into clinical care by showing good outcomes in small enthusiastic case series of selected patients. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have rarely been performed, except for acute ischemic stroke, but even then most trial designs were too explanatory to inform clinical decisions. In this article, we review 2 × 2 tables and forest plots that summarize RCT results to examine methodological issues in the design and interpretation of clinical studies. Research results can apply in practice when RCTs are all-inclusive, pragmatic trials. Common problems include the following: (i) using restrictive eligibility criteria in explanatory trials, instead of including the diversity of patients in need of care, which hampers future generalizability of results; (ii) ignoring an entire line of the 2 × 2 table and excluding patients who do not meet the proposed criteria of a diagnostic test in its evaluation (perfusion studies) which renders clinical inferences misleading; (iii) ignoring an entire column of the 2 × 2 table and comparing different patients treated using the same treatment instead of different treatments in the same patients (the “wrong axis” comparisons of prognostic studies and clinical experience) which leads to unjustified treatment decisions and actions; or (iv) combining all aforementioned problems (case series and epidemiological studies). The most efficient and reliable way to improve patient outcomes, after as well as long before research results are available, is to change the way we practice: to use care trials to guide care in the presence of uncertainty.

The authors performed a meta-analysis to determine whether open or laparoscopic appendectomy would reduce wound infection incidence in adult patients with acute appendicitis. The meta-analysis included nine of seven patients from eight randomized controlled trials. Data were analyzed using the fixed effect-model method of Mantel-Haenszel. Wound infection incidence was lower in the laparoscopic group.