Clinicians' views on the feasibility of surgical randomized trials in urogynecology: Results of a questionnaire survey

Neurourology and Urodynamics

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 69-74

  Bakali, Evangelia ^a   Pitchforth, Emma ^b   Tincello, Douglas G ^c   Kenyon, Sara ^d   Slack, Mark ^e   Toozs Hobson, Philip ^f   Mayne, Christopher ^a   Jones, David R ^c   Taylor, David ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS OF LEICESTER NHS TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^b LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^f BIRMINGHAM WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

colposuspension; incontinence; methodology; pilot; prolapse; trial

Indexed keywords

ANTERIOR REPAIR SURGERY; ARTICLE; COLPOSUSPENSION; E-MAIL; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MEDICAL SOCIETY; PELVIC ORGAN PROLAPSE; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TENSION FREE VAGINAL TAPE; URINE INCONTINENCE;

ADULT; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; FEMALE; GYNECOLOGY; HEALTH CARE SURVEYS; HUMANS; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PHYSICIANS; QUESTIONNAIRES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL; TREATMENT OUTCOME; URINARY INCONTINENCE; UROLOGY; UTERINE PROLAPSE;

EID: 78651084835     PISSN: 07332467     EISSN: 15206777     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/nau.20943     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Ross S, Grant A, Counsell C, et al. Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: A systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52: 1143-56.
2. Cook JA,. The challenges faced in the design, conduct and analysis of surgical randomised controlled trials. Trials 2009; 10: 9.
3. Brubaker L, Moalli P, Richter HE, et al. Challenges in designing a pragmatic clinical trial: The mixed incontinence-Medical or surgical approach (MIMOSA) trial experience. Clin Trials 2009; 6: 355-64.
4. Harrison JD, Solomon MJ, Young JM, et al. Surgical and oncology trials for rectal cancer: Who will participate? Surgery 2007; 142: 94-101.
5. Tincello DG, Kenyon S, Slack M, et al. Colposuspension or TVT with anterior repair for urinary incontinence and prolapse: Results of and lessons from a pilot randomised patient-preference study (CARPET 1). Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2009; 116: 1809-14.
6. Lavender T, Kingdon C, Hart A, et al. Could a randomised trial answer the controversy relating to elective caesarean section? National Survey of Consultant Obstetricians and Heads of Midwifery. Br Med J 2005; 331: 490-1.
7. Freedman B,. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med 1987; 317: 141-5.
8. Weijer C, Shapiro SH, Cranley GK,. For and against: Clinical equipoise and not the uncertainty principle is the moral underpinning of the randomised controlled trial. Br Med J 2000; 321: 756-8.
9. Johnson N, Lilford RJ, Brazier W,. At what level of collective equipoise does a clinical trial become ethical? J Med Ethics 1991; 17: 30-4.
10. Mills N, Donovan JL, Smith M, et al. Perceptions of equipoise are crucial to trial participation: A qualitative study of men in the ProtecT study. Control Clin Trials 2003; 24: 272-82.
11. Young JM, Solomon MJ, Harrison JD, et al. Measuring patient preference and surgeon choice. Surgery 2008; 143: 582-8.
12. Byrne CM, Solomon MJ, Young JM, et al. Patient preferences between surgical and medical treatment in Crohn's disease. Dis Colon Rectum 2007; 50: 586-97.
13. Harrison JD, Solomon MJ, Young JM, et al. Patient and physician preferences for surgical and adjuvant treatment options for rectal cancer. Arch Surg 2008; 143: 389-94.
14. Taylor KM, Margolese RG, Soskolne CL,. Physicians' reasons for not entering eligible patients in a randomized clinical trial of surgery for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1984; 310: 1363-7.
15. Jenkins VA, Fallowfield LJ, Souhami A, et al. How do doctors explain randomised clinical trials to their patients? Eur J Cancer 1999; 35: 1187-93.
16. Turner CE, Young JM, Solomon MJ, et al. Willingness of pregnant women and clinicians to participate in a hypothetical randomised controlled trial comparing vaginal delivery and elective caesarean section. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2008; 48: 542-6.
17. Barkun JS, Aronson JK, Feldman LS, et al. Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations. Lancet 2009; 374: 1089-96.
18. Ergina PL, Cook JA, Blazeby JM, et al. Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. Lancet 2009; 374: 1097-104.
19. McCulloch P, Kaul A, Wagstaff GF, et al. Tolerance of uncertainty, extroversion, neuroticism and attitudes to randomized controlled trials among surgeons and physicians. Br J Surg 2005; 92: 1293-7.
20. Devereaux PJ, Bhandari M, Clarke M, et al. Need for expertise based randomised controlled trials. Br Med J 2005; 330: 88.
21. Burgio KL, Nygaard IE, Richter HE, et al. Bladder symptoms 1 year after abdominal sacrocolpopexy with and without Burch colposuspension in women without preoperative stress incontinence symptoms. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 197: 647.e1-6.
22. Kitchener HC, Dunn G, Lawton V, et al. Laparoscopic versus open colposuspension-Results of a prospective randomised controlled trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2006; 113: 1007-13.
23. Paraiso MF, Walters MD, Karram MM, et al. Laparoscopic Burch colposuspension versus tension-free vaginal tape: A randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 104: 1249-58.
24. Kiviluoto T, Sirén J, Luukkonen P, et al. Randomised trial of laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for acute and gangrenous cholecystitis. Lancet 1998; 351: 321-5.
25. The MRC Laparoscopic Hernia Trial Group. Laparoscopic versus open repair of groin hernia: A randomised comparison. Lancet 1999; 354: 185-90.
26. Young JM, O'brien C, Harrison JD, et al. Clinical trials in head and neck oncology: An evaluation of clinicians' willingness to participate. Head Neck 2006; 28: 235-43.
27. Harrison JD, Carter J, Young JM, et al. Difficult clinical decisions in gynecological oncology: Identifying priorities for future clinical research. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2006; 16: 1-7.
28. Turner CE, Young JM, Solomon MJ, et al. Vaginal delivery compared with elective caesarean section: The views of pregnant women and clinicians. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2008; 115: 1494-502.
29. Donovan J, Mills N, Smith M, et al. Quality improvement report: Improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. Commentary: Presenting unbiased information to patients can be difficult. Br Med J 2002; 325: 766-70.
30. Donovan JL, Lane JA, Peters TJ, et al. Development of a complex intervention improved randomization and informed consent in a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: 29-36.
31. Ziebland S, Featherstone K, Snowdon C, et al. Does it matter if clinicians recruiting for a trial don't understand what the trial is really about? Qualitative study of surgeons' experiences of participation in a pragmatic multi-centre RCT. Trials 2007; 8: 4.
32. de Salis I, Tomlin Z, Toerien M, et al. Qualitative research to improve RCT recruitment: Issues arising in establishing research collaborations. Contemp Clin Trials 2008; 29: 663-70.
33. de Salis I, Tomlin Z, Toerien M, et al. Using qualitative research methods to improve recruitment to randomized controlled trials: The Quartet study. J Health Serv Res Policy 2008; 13: 92-6.