Progress in clinical research in surgery and IDEAL

The Lancet

Volumn 392, Issue 10141, 2018, Pages 88-94

  McCulloch, Peter ^a   Feinberg, Joshua ^b   Philippou, Yiannis ^a   Kolias, Angelos ^c   Kehoe, Sean ^d   Lancaster, Gillian ^e   Donovan, Jenny ^f   Petrinic, Tatjana ^g   Agha, Riaz ^h   Pennell, Christopher ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b Maimonides Hospital   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^e KEELE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^f UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^g OXFORD UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^h GUY'S AND ST THOMAS' NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; IDEA DEVELOPMENT EXPLORATION ASSESSMENT AND LONG TERM FOLLOW UP; LEARNING CURVE; METHODOLOGY; NOTE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SOCIAL CHANGE; STANDARD; STUDY DESIGN; SURGERY; SURGICAL TRAINING; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); FORECASTING; GENERAL SURGERY; HEALTH CARE POLICY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; TRENDS; UNITED KINGDOM;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; FORECASTING; GENERAL SURGERY; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 85040613887     PISSN: 01406736     EISSN: 1474547X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30102-8     Document Type: Note

References (20)

1. Horton, R, Surgical research or comic opera: questions, but few answers. Lancet 347 (1996), 984–985.
2. Bell, PR, Surgical research. Lancet, 347, 1996, 1479.
3. Ruckley, CV, Surgical research. Lancet 347 (1996), 1479–1480.
4. Solomon, MJ, Laxamana, A, Devore, L, McLeod, RS, Randomized controlled trials in surgery. Surgery 115 (1994), 707–712.
5. McCulloch, P, Taylor, I, Sasako, M, Lovett, B, Griffin, D, Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions. BMJ 324 (2002), 1448–1451.
6. Barkun, JS, Aronson, JK, Feldman, LS, et al. Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations. Lancet 374 (2009), 1089–1096.
7. Ergina, PL, Barkun, JS, McCulloch, P, Cook, JA, Altman, DG, IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 2: observational studies in the exploration and assessment stages. BMJ, 346, 2013, f3011.
8. McCulloch, P, Altman, DG, Campbell, WB, et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet 374 (2009), 1105–1112.
9. Pennell, CP, Hirst, AD, Campbell, WB, et al. Practical guide to the idea, development and exploration stages of the IDEAL Framework and Recommendations. Br J Surg 103 (2016), 607–615.
10. Rogers, EM, Diffusion of innovations. 4th edn., 1995, The Free Press, New York, NY.
11. Mirheydar, HS, Parsons, JK, Diffusion of robotics into clinical practice in the United States: process, patient safety, learning curves, and the public health. World J Urol 31 (2013), 455–461.
12. Marshall, DA, Pykerman, K, Werle, J, et al. Hip resurfacing versus total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review comparing standardized outcomes. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472 (2014), 2217–2230.
13. Sampietro-Colom, L, Martin, J, Hospital-based health technology assessment: the next frontier. Sampietro-Colom, L, Martin, J, (eds.) Hospital-based health technology assessment, 2016, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 3–11.
14. Heikens, JT, Gooszen, HG, Rovers, MM, van Laarhoven, CJ, Stages and evaluation of surgical innovation: a clinical example of the ileo neorectal anastomosis after ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis. Surg Inno 20 (2013), 459–465.
15. Levin, L, Krahn, M, Goeree, R, et al. Excite—a new collaborative model of pre-market evaluation of health technologies. Value Health, 16, 2013, A264.
16. Bhangu, A, Kolias, AG, Pinkney, T, Hall, NJ, Fitzgerald, JE, Surgical research collaboratives in the UK. Lancet 382 (2013), 1091–1092.
17. Levay, C, Policies to foster quality improvement registries: lessons from the Swedish case. J Intern Med 279 (2016), 160–172.
18. Sedrakyan, A, Campbell, B, Merino, JG, Kuntz, R, Hirst, A, McCulloch, P, IDEAL-D: a rational framework for evaluating and regulating the use of medical devices. BMJ, 353, 2016, i2372.
19. Verkooijen, HM, Kerkmeijer, LGW, Fuller, CD, et al. R-IDEAL: a framework for systematic clinical evaluation of technical innovations in radiation oncology. Front Oncol, 7, 2017, 59.
20. Beard, D, Hamilton, D, Davies, L, et al. Evidence-based evaluation of practice and innovation in physical therapy using the IDEAL-Physio framework. Phys Ther, 2017 published online Oct 23. DOI:10.1093/ptj/pzx103.