The contemporary practice of orthopaedic surgery requires an evidence-based approach to support all medical and surgical interventions. In this essay, the author expresses a forthright, personal and somewhat prejudiced appeal to retain the legitimacy of clinical decision making in conditions that are rare, contain multiple variables, have a solution that generally works or has an unpredictable course.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1002–4.

The August 2014 Research Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Antibiotic loaded ceramic of use in osteomyelitis; fibronectin implicated in cartilage degeneration; Zinc Chloride accelerates fracture healing in rats; advertisements and false claims; Net Promoter Score: substance or rhetoric?; aspirin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and dissection, stress and the soul.

Randomised controlled trials represent the gold standard in the evaluation of outcome of treatment. They are needed because differences between treatment effects have been minimised and observational studies may give a biased estimation of the outcome. However, conducting this kind of trial is challenging. Several methodological issues, including patient or surgeon preference, blinding, surgical standardisation, as well as external validity, have to be addressed in order to lower the risk of bias. Specific tools have been developed in order to take into account the specificity of evaluation of the literature on non-pharmacological intervention. A better knowledge of methodological issues will allow the orthopaedic surgeon to conduct more appropriate studies and to better appraise the limits of his intervention.