Hypothesis
A multicentre randomized trial could establish which of two corneal transplantation techniques serves keratoconus patients better.
What failed
The trial cleared every regulatory and ethical requirement and formed the centrepiece of the author’s doctoral work from 2015, but recruitment left it gravely underpowered, so it answered nothing and was never published.
Broken assumption
A trial that is well designed and approved can in fact be recruited to the size its design needs.
Why
The author reflects that warning signs of infeasibility were visible early, and that training such as Good Clinical Practice certification teaches design principles without teaching how to balance scientific value and innovation against recruitment and overall trial feasibility.
From the published paper: Wisse et al. Journal of Trial and Error, 2025. ↗CC BY