The large number of scientific contributions published in hundreds of basic clinical research journals is a hurdle at times when it comes to our ability to carry out a thorough review. However, this has meant that topics related to our practice are taken into consideration in our reading. Critical reviews from other researchers are an important input to our analysis. In some cases, just reading an article precludes a broad analysis and the understanding of its scope from a different perspective. Recently, the change in the way of assessing the risk of cardiac events in non-cardiac surgery1 has resulted in a change in the rules for assessment. Although the new preoperative assessment guidelines for cardiac patients taken to non-cardiac surgery provide clear and prompt input for decision-making, many of us had to shift from previous premises and keep only two steps in the risk assessment ladder: low or high. On the other hand, the use of beta-blockers in the perioperative period has been the source of great debates, though not of many changes in clinical practice. Studies such as POISE or DECREASED are not taken into consideration, although their inclusion or exclusion does not change the findings of other studies.2 Every day, pharmaceutical industry investigations propose new molecules that need to be tested in the clinical scenario, serelaxin being a case in point3 as a new inotrope with a different mechanism of action. Like this molecule, many others that may be made available to us must be tested thoroughly, and the same needs to be said about the studies supporting their safety, efficacy and effectiveness.