How can we improve surgical research and innovation?: The IDEAL framework for action

International Journal of Surgery

Volumn 11, Issue 10, 2013, Pages 1038-1042

  Hirst, Allison ^a   Agha, Riaz A ^b   Rosin, David ^c   McCulloch, Peter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b STOKE MANDEVILLE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES   (Jamaica)

Author keywords

Ethics; IDEAL collaboration; Methodology; Reporting quality; Research quality; Surgical research

Indexed keywords

DEVELOPMENTAL STAGE; EDITORIAL; FUNDING; LEARNING CURVE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL SOCIETY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); STUDY DESIGN; SURGEON; SURGERY; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE;

ETHICS; IDEAL COLLABORATION; METHODOLOGY; REPORTING QUALITY; RESEARCH QUALITY; SURGICAL RESEARCH;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; HUMANS; INVENTIONS; SOCIETIES, SCIENTIFIC; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, OPERATIVE; THERAPIES, INVESTIGATIONAL;

EID: 84889099474     PISSN: 17439191     EISSN: 17439159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2013.09.016     Document Type: Editorial

References (34)

1. Trying to do more good than harm in policy and practice: the role of rigorous, transparent, up-to-date evaluations author(s): Iain Chalmers source: annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Misleading evidence and evidence-led policy: making social science more experimental Sep., 2003, vol. 589:22-40. Published by:, Sage Publications, Inc. in association with the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Stable available at:. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3658559.
2. McCulloch P., Taylor I., Sasako M., Lovett B., Griffin D. Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions. BMJ 2002 Jun 15, 324(7351):1448-1451.
3. Ellis J., Mulligan I., Rowe J., Sackett D.L. Inpatient general medicine is evidence based. Lancet 1995, 364:407-410.
4. Howes N., Chagla L., Thorpe M., McCulloch P. Surgical practice is evidence based. Br J Surg 1997, 84:1220-1223.
5. Wente M.N., Seiler C.M., Uhl W., Büchler M.W. Perspectives of evidence-based surgery. Dig Surg 2003, 20(4):263-269.
6. Hanzlik S., Mahabir R.C., Baynosa R.C., Khiabani K.T. Levels of evidence in research published in the journal of bone and joint surgery (American Volume) over the last thirty years. J Bone Jt Surg Am 2009 Feb, 91(2):425-428.
7. Agha R.A., Camm C.F., Edison E., Orgill D.P. The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery needs improvement: a systematic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2013, 66(4):447-452.
8. Edison E., Agha R., Camm C. Poor quality reporting and surgical RCTs: a wake up call for the international surgical community. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012, 37(7):628-629.
9. Agha R., Cooper D., Muir G. The reporting quality of randomised controlled trials in surgery: a systematic review. Int J Surg 2007, 5(6):413-422.
10. Cairo F., Sanz I., Matesanz P., Nieri M., Pagliaro U. Quality of reporting of randomized clinical trials in implant dentistry. A systematic review on critical aspects in design, outcome assessment and clinical relevance. J Clin Periodontol 2012 Feb, 39(Suppl. 12):81-107.
11. Sinha S., Sinha S., Ashby E., Jayaram R., Grocott M.P. Quality of reporting in randomized trials published in high-quality surgical journals. J Am Coll Surg 2009 Nov, 209(5). 565-571.e1.
12. Boutron I., Moher D., Altman D.G., Schulz K.F., Ravaud P. Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of non-pharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2008, 148:295-309.
13. Chalmers I., Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 2009, 374:86-89.
14. Barkun J.S., Aronson J.K., Feldman L.S., Maddern G.J., Strasberg S.M. Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations. Lancet 2009, 374:1089-1096. for the Balliol Collaboration.
15. Ergina P.L., Cook J.A., Blazeby J.M., et al. Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. Lancet 2009, 374:1097-1104. for the Balliol Collaboration.
16. McCulloch P., Altman D.G., Campbell W.B., et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet 2009, 374:1105-1112. for the Balliol Collaboration.
17. McCulloch P., Cook J.A., Altman D.G., Heneghan C., Diener M.K. IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 1: the idea and development stages. BMJ 2013 Jun 18, 346:f3012. IDEAL group.
18. Ergina P.L., Barkun J.S., McCulloch P., Cook J.A., Altman D.G. IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 2: observational studies in the exploration and assessment stages. BMJ 2013 Jun 18, 346:f3011. IDEAL group.
19. Cook J.A., McCulloch P., Blazeby J.M., Beard D.J., Marinac-Dabic D., Sedrakyan A. IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 3: randomised controlled trials in the assessment stage and evaluations in the long term study stage. BMJ 2013 Jun 18, 346:f2820. IDEAL group.
20. Macchiarini P., Jungebluth P., Go T., et al. Clinical transplantation of a tissue-engineered airway. Lancet 2008 Dec 13, 372(9655):2023-2030.
21. Institute of Medicine Medical devices and the public's health: the FDA's 510(k) clearance process at 35 years 2011, National Academies Press. http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Medical-Devices-and-the-Publics-Health-the-FDA-510k-Clearance-Process-at-35-Years.aspx.
22. Blazeby J.M., Blencowe N.S., Titcomb D.R., Metcalfe C., Hollowood A.D., Barham C.P. Demonstration of the IDEAL recommendations for evaluating and reporting surgical innovation in minimally invasive oesophagectomy. Br J Surg 2011, 98:544-551.
23. Ahmed H.U., Hindley R.G., Dickinson L., et al. Focal therapy for localised unifocal and multifocal prostate cancer: a prospective development study. Lancet Oncol 2012, 13:622-632.
24. Degiuli M., Sasako M., Ponti A., Calvo F. Survival results of a multicentre phase II study to evaluate D2 gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Br J Cancer 2004, 90:1727-1732.
25. Tsai T.T., Trimarchi S., Nienaber C.A. Acute aortic dissection: perspectives from the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2009 Feb, 37(2):149-159.
26. Hall B.L., Richards K., Ingraham A., Ko C.Y. New approaches to the National surgical quality improvement program: the American College of surgeons experience. Am J Surg 2009 Nov, 198(5 Suppl.):S56-S62.
27. van de Velde C.J., van den Broek C.B. Quality assurance in rectal cancer treatment. Dig Dis 2012, 30(Suppl. 2):126-131.
28. Sedrakyan A., Marinac-Dabic D., Normand S.L., Mushlin A., Gross T. A framework for evidence evaluation and methodological issues in implantable device studies. Med Care 2010 Jun, 48(6 Suppl.):S121-S128.
29. Smith A.J., Dieppe P., Vernon K., Porter M., Blom A.W. Failure rates of stemmed metal-on-metal hip replacements: analysis of data from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales. Lancet 2012 Mar 31, 379(9822):1199-1204. National Joint Registry of England and Wales.
30. Paul S., McCulloch P., Sedrakyan A. Robotic surgery: revisiting "no innovation without evaluation". BMJ 2013, 346:f1573.
31. Dickinson L., Ahmed H.U., Kirkham A.P., et al. A multi-centre prospective development study evaluating focal therapy using high intensity focused ultrasound for localised prostate cancer: the INDEX study. Contemp Clin Trial 2013 Jun 14, 36(1):68-80. on behalf of the INDEX Study Group.
32. Ahmed H.U., Freeman A., Kirkham A., et al. Focal therapy for localized prostate cancer: a phase I/II trial. J Urol 2011 Apr, 185(4):1246-1254.
33. Draft Guidance for Industry, Clinical Investigators, and Food and Drug Administration Staff. Design considerations for pivotal clinical investigations for medical devices. available at:. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm265553.htm.
34. Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff. Investigational Device Exemptions (IDE) for early feasibility medical device clinical studies, including certain first in human (FIH) studies. available at:. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm277670.htm.