Should we be performing more randomized controlled trials evaluating surgical operations?

Principles of designing an orthopaedic case-control study

Many surgical questions are not amenable to investigation with a randomized controlled trial; thus, investigators must select an appropriate observational study design. Case-control studies are relatively inexpensive and can be conducted in comparatively little time. Although there are important methodological limitations associated with this trial design, case-control studies can provide important insight into the association between one or more exposures and a specific outcome. They are particularly useful when the outcome of interest is rare or when the time to development of the outcome is long. We present an overview of the case-control study, with a focus on trial design and interpretation of results.

The challenges faced in the design, conduct and analysis of surgical randomised controlled trials

Randomised evaluations of surgical interventions are rare; some interventions have been widely adopted without rigorous evaluation. Unlike other medical areas, the randomised controlled trial (RCT) design has not become the default study design for the evaluation of surgical interventions. Surgical trials are difficult to successfully undertake and pose particular practical and methodological challenges. However, RCTs have played a role in the assessment of surgical innovations and there is scope and need for greater use. This article will consider the design, conduct and analysis of an RCT of a surgical intervention. The issues will be reviewed under three headings: the timing of the evaluation, defining the research question and trial design issues. Recommendations on the conduct of future surgical RCTs are made. Collaboration between research and surgical communities is needed to address the distinct issues raised by the assessment of surgical interventions and enable the conduct of appropriate and well-designed trials.

Levels of evidence in research published in The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume) over the last thirty years

BACKGROUND

The recent emphasis on evidence-based medicine has led to increasing levels of evidence being published in surgical journals. The purpose of the present study was to review the levels of evidence in reports published in The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume) over the last thirty years.

METHODS

We reviewed all of the articles published in The Journal in the years 1975, 1985, 1995, and 2005. Cadaver studies, animal studies, basic-science studies, review articles, Instructional Course Lectures, and correspondence were excluded. Articles were scored according to The Journal's levels of evidence for a primary research question.

RESULTS

A total of 1058 articles were reviewed. Of these, 134, 123, 120, and 174 articles met the inclusion criteria for the years 1975, 1985, 1995, and 2005, respectively, and were ranked according to level of evidence. The number of articles for each level of evidence rating was then expressed as a percentage of the total number of articles meeting the inclusion criteria for that year. There was a significant trend toward higher levels of evidence, with the combined percentage of Level-I, II, and III studies increasing from 17% to 52% (p < 0.01). The percentage of Level-I studies increased from 4% in 1975 to 21% in 2005. The average level of evidence rating improved from 3.72 to 2.90 during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

The level of evidence in The Journal has improved significantly over the last thirty years.

How to critically appraise an article

Critical appraisal is a systematic process used to identify the strengths and weaknesses of a research article in order to assess the usefulness and validity of research findings. The most important components of a critical appraisal are an evaluation of the appropriateness of the study design for the research question and a careful assessment of the key methodological features of this design. Other factors that also should be considered include the suitability of the statistical methods used and their subsequent interpretation, potential conflicts of interest and the relevance of the research to one's own practice. This Review presents a 10-step guide to critical appraisal that aims to assist clinicians to identify the most relevant high-quality studies available to guide their clinical practice.

Evidence-based medicine: the fourth revolution in American medicine?

SUMMARY

The use of evidence has become a force in American medicine to improve the quality of health care. Funding decisions from payers will demand studies with high-level evidence to support many of the costly interventions in medicine. Plastic surgery is certainly not immune to this national tidal wave to revamp the health care system by embracing evidence-based medicine in our practices. In scientific contributions of plastic surgery research, application of evidence-based principles should enhance the care of all patients by relying on science rather than opinions. In this article, the genesis of evidence-based medicine is discussed to guide plastic surgery in this new revolution in American medicine.

[Ethical and empirical limitations of randomized controlled trials]

In assessing the benefits of health services it is presumed that the relationship of cause and effect can be determined by scientific methods. In general, the randomized controlled trial (RCT) is considered the gold standard for the generation of scientific evidence. Yet there is an increasing amount of data indicating that not in all situations RCTs seem to be the adequate tool for generating evidence. In many instances, RCTs are, in fact, barely useful to reflect the real-world situation of health-care services. Some of the well-known yet mostly ignored limitations of RCTs are summarized.The absence of definite a priori preferences for a specific kind of intervention (equipoise) is an essential prerequisite for both physicians' and patients' consent to participate in an RCT. Numerous examples of quantitative studies confirm that the willingness to accept randomization is limited in operative disciplines. If it is true that the invasiveness of a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention correlates with the preferences of doctors and patients, the small number of RCTs in operative fields should be expected. Further development of the important concept of RCTs should specify the conditions under which RCTs can generate significant results. Paying attention to this will open up new perspectives for the assessment of health-care services.

Surgeon equipoise as an inclusion criterion for the evaluation of nonoperative versus operative treatment of thoracolumbar spinal injuries

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Prospective studies have failed to demonstrate the superiority of either operative or nonoperative treatment of thoracolumbar fractures. Similar to other surgical fields, research has been limited by the variability in surgical interventions, difficult recruitment, infrequent pathology, and the urgency of interventions.

PURPOSE

To outline factors precluding randomized controlled trials in spinal fractures research, and describe a novel methodology that seeks to improve on the design of observational studies.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

A preliminary report describing an observational study design with clinical equipoise as an inclusion criterion. The proposed methodology is a cohort study with head-to-head comparison of operative and nonoperative treatment regimens in an expertise-based trial fashion. Patients are selected retrospectively by an expert panel and clinical outcomes are assessed to compare competing treatment regimens. Surgeon equipoise served as an inclusion criterion.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients with closed or open thoracolumbar spinal fracture with or without neurological impairment, presenting to one of two different trauma centers between 1991 and 2005 (N = 760).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Homogeneity of baseline clinical and demographic data and distribution of prognostic risk factors between the operative and the nonoperative cohort.

METHODS

Patients treated for spine fractures at two University hospitals practicing opposing methods of fracture intervention were identified by medical diagnosis code searches (n = 760). A panel of spine treatment experts, blinded to the treatment received clinically has assessed each case retrospectively. Patients were included in the study when there was disagreement on the preferred treatment, that is, operative or nonoperative treatment of the injury. Baseline and initial data of a study evaluating nonoperative versus operative spinal fracture treatment are presented.

RESULTS

One hundred and ninety patients were included in the study accounting for a panel discordance rate of 29%. The distribution of baseline characteristics and demographics of the study populations were equal across the parallel cohorts enrolled in the study, that is, no differences in prognostic factors were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of clinical equipoise as an inclusion criterion in comparative studies may be used to avoid selection bias. Using multivariate analysis of retrospectively assembled parallel cohorts, a valid comparison of operative and nonoperative spine fracture treatment strategies and their outcomes is possible.

Randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery: a 20-year review of reporting standards, methodologic quality, and impact

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery have not been analyzed comprehensively. We analyzed plastic surgical randomized controlled trials with respect to reporting standards, methodologic quality, and impact on the specialty.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials published from 1986 to 2006 in three major plastic surgery journals were scored for quality and impact using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials checklist, the Jadad criteria, citation numbers, and other parameters. The associations between the quality scores and multiple independent parameters, including trial impact, were explored. The relative impact of randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery was compared with that in other specialties.

RESULTS

A total of 163 randomized controlled trials were evaluated. The average Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Jadad scores were 49 percent and 2.3, respectively. There were deficiencies in the reporting of parameters that influence bias and statistical significance. Randomized controlled trials with high impact or high methodologic quality had higher reporting scores. However, the quality and impact scores did not correlate with the number of participants, subject category, country of origin, or year or journal of publication. Nonsurgical trials had significantly higher quality and impact than surgical trials. Randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery had relatively lower impact as compared with randomized controlled trials in other specialties.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting and methodologic standards of randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery need improvement. Standards could be improved if well-accepted reporting and methodologic criteria are considered when designing and evaluating randomized controlled trials. Instituting higher standards may improve the impact of randomized controlled trials and make them more influential in plastic surgery.

Evidence-based medicine in rapidly changing technologies

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is not a randomised controlled trial (RCT), but EBM seeks to apply evidence gained from scientific methods - which could be RCT - to daily medical practice. Any surgical treatment reflects a certain development technically as well as skills based. The procedure may be modified and refined and the device may be developed and inherent technical weaknesses may need to be corrected. Therefore the best time to conduct a trial may be discussed. The appropriate time to initiate a RCT is when all the participating surgeons or therapists have gone through their learning curve. Special considerations should be given in rapidly developing fields. If started too early the resulting comparison will likely turn out to be irrelevant because the new technology is not fully developed, not mastered or the device may have undergone major modifications rendering the results obsolete. On the other hand, if started too late there is a chance that data may be lost because the technology has already been introduced into the daily clinics and physicians may be unwilling to recruit patients. Or the opposite, that the technique may have been rejected without a proper trial. In this situation it has been suggested to perform a so called tracker trial. In such trials protocols are more flexible without prefixed sample size and will require repeated interim analyses. Often, it will be relevant to supplement the clinical trials with data from large clinical databases - in particular when long term results are needed.

Measuring patient preference and surgeon choice

One of the major barriers to randomized trials in the field of surgery is the presence of strong preferences for one of the treatment options. Patients and surgeons who favor strongly a particular treatment approach are usually reluctant to participate in trials where operative intervention is determined on the basis of randomization. This then affects both the feasibility of the trial in terms of achieving the required sample size as well as the generalizability of the study's findings. Therefore, measurement of patient and surgeon preference is a crucial component of the feasibility assessment for surgery trials. In this article, we introduce the Prospective Measure of Preference, which is a novel method to measure preferences that has been designed to accommodate the complexity of surgical decision-making. We also present a simple method to measure individual and community equipoise among expert clinicians to assess the feasibility of future randomized trials in surgery.

Levels of evidence in plastic surgery research over 20 years

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based medicine, particularly randomized controlled trials, influences many daily decisions within the medical specialties. The structure of questions asked during the history and selection of physical examination maneuvers, diagnostic tests, and treatment regimens are all guided by evidence-based medicine. Implementation of evidence-based medicine has been slower in surgical practice. The purpose of this study was to survey published plastic surgery literature to evaluate changes in the level of evidence from pre-evidence-based medicine popularization to the present time.

METHODS

Articles from Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery for the years 1983, 1993, and 2003 were ranked by a five-point level of evidence scale. The highest level of evidence value (1) was given to randomized clinical trials and the lowest value (5) was given to individual case reports; 989 articles were ranked.

RESULTS

The average level of evidence of an article published in 1983 was lower than that of one published in 2003 (4.42 versus 4.16, respectively), and the majority of research (86.9 percent in 2003) remained largely uncontrolled and descriptive in nature. However, there was a trend toward higher-quality research. The percentage of studies with control or placebo groups nearly doubled from 1983 to 2003 (from 7.21 percent to 13.7 percent), and the number of randomized clinical trials increased (zero versus seven).

CONCLUSION

The plastic surgery literature has responded to the demand for more evidence-based medicine, but the rate of change has been slow and the field will likely never enjoy the high level of evidence of medical fields.

Controlled trials in aesthetic plastic surgery: a 16-year analysis

Aesthetic surgery is one pillar of plastic surgery. Thus, not surprisingly, journals exist that focus predominantly on advances within this subspecialty. However, rarely has the process of systematic reviewing that identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) been conducted within this subspecialty. All original articles published in Aesthetic Plastic Surgery were analyzed to identify all RCTs and CCTs. The proportion of RCTs and CCTs in all original articles was determined, and the quality of reporting was assessed on the basis of established quality items. Additional parameters were investigated including reporting of statistically significant differences, type of institution, and country affiliation of the first author. Of the 1,048 original articles analyzed, 11 (1%) and 24 (2.3%) articles met the inclusion criteria for RCTs and CCTs, respectively. Only two studies were single blinded, whereas only one study reported on successful double blinding and appropriate allocation concealment. Notably, these trials were RCTs. Participant dropout was reported in one study. Statistically significant differences were reported in 18 trials, 6 of which were RCTs. The annual publication of RCTs has increased over the past 5 years. North America and Europe contributed a total of 28 controlled trials (80%). Controlled trials are being conducted in aesthetic surgery at a strikingly low rate. However, a recent increase in published RCTs reflects the recognition that performing outcome studies is pivotal in moving practice toward a foundation based on assessment by outcome. The quality of reporting, however, needs improvement.

A guide to planning and executing a surgical randomized controlled trial

Evidence-based medicine requires that treatments given to patients demonstrate effectiveness. The randomized controlled trial (RCT) has become the preeminent study design to assess the efficacy of treatments. Randomized controlled trials are frequently used to evaluate pharmaceutical treatments but are less often used in surgery. The lack of surgical RCTs is partly due to ethical and methodological concerns associated with surgical interventions. We provide a guide to planning and conducting a surgical RCT.

Clinical trial design in fracture-healing research: meeting the challenge

The rapidly growing global burden of road-traffic accidents and fragility fractures makes research on fracture repair a vital component of the efforts needed to face this rising public health challenge. The focus on developing new and innovative strategies to treat fractures is easily justifiable given the potential human benefit from such discoveries. Randomized trials remain the standard to which the evaluation of novel fracture-healing therapies must continue to evolve. This article reviews randomized controlled trials in the context of the hierarchy of evidence, special challenges to their conduct in the setting of surgical research, and lessons learned from fracture-healing trials published to date. Suggestions are made regarding the optimal characteristics of fracture models and logistical consideration for ensuring the success of future trials. The realization that surgical trials have unique methodological and interpretative challenges has fueled a renewed vision of the design and execution of large, definitive clinical trials with a meaningful impact on the lives of patients.

Evidence Based Clinical Practice: A Primer for Urologists

PURPOSE

Evidence based clinical practice has been defined as the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of the current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. It refers to a broad set of principles and methods intended to ensure that medical decisions, guidelines and health policy are based on well designed studies of therapeutic effectiveness and benefit.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We review the principles and practice of evidence based clinical practice using examples from the urology literature. We further provide a guide to currently available web based evidence based clinical practice resources and guidelines for urologists.

RESULTS

Evidence based clinical practice integrates a hierarchy of evidence and patient values with practitioner judgment to guide decision making for the individual patient. Important steps in the evidence based clinical practice process include the formulation of an answerable question and a systematic search of the literature. In the absence of pre-appraised evidence or disease specific guidelines, the practice of evidence based clinical practice relies heavily on the evaluation of the primary literature by the individual urologist. Depending on the question domain (therapy/prevention, etiology/cause/harm, diagnosis or prognosis) and study design, a given study is critically appraised for validity, impact and applicability. Evidence is then integrated with clinical judgment, and patient circumstances and preferences. Finally, the practice of evidence based clinical practice includes a self-assessment of provider performance.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge, practice and documentation of evidence based clinical practice are of increasing importance to every urologist. Urologists should embrace evidence based clinical practice principles by acquiring the necessary skills to critically appraise the literature for the best evidence applicable to patient care.

Prospective Multicenter Study of Surgical Correction of Pectus Excavatum: Design, Perioperative Complications, Pain, and Baseline Pulmonary Function Facilitated by Internet-Based Data Collection

BACKGROUND

Given widespread adoption of the Nuss procedure, prospective multicenter study of management of pectus excavatum by both the open and Nuss procedures was thought desirable. Although surgical repair has been performed for more than 50 years, there are no prospective multicenter studies of its management.

STUDY DESIGN

This observational study followed pectus excavatum patients treated surgically at 11 centers in North America, according to the method of choice of the patient and surgeon. Before operation, all underwent evaluation with CT scan, pulmonary function tests, and body image survey. Data were collected about associated conditions, hospital complications, and perioperative pain. One year after completion of treatment, patients will repeat the preoperative evaluations. This article addresses early results only.

RESULTS

Of 416 patients screened, 327 were enrolled; 284 underwent the Nuss procedure and 43 had the open procedure. Median preoperative CT index was 4.4. Pulmonary function testing before operation showed mean forced vital capacity of 90% of predicted values; forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)), 89% of predicted; and forced expiratory flow during the middle half of the forced vital capacity (FEF(25% to 75%)), 85% of predicted. Early postcorrection results showed that operations were performed without mortality and with minimal morbidity at 30 days postoperatively. Median hospital stay was 4 days. Postoperative pain was a median of 3 on a scale of 10 at time of discharge; the worst pain experienced was the same as was expected by the patients (median 8), and by 30 days after correction or operation, the median pain score was 1. Because of disproportionate enrollment and similar early complication rates, statistical comparison between operation types was limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Anatomically severe pectus excavatum is associated with abnormal pulmonary function. Initial operative correction performed at a variety of centers can be completed safely. Perioperative pain is successfully managed by current techniques.

Surgical and oncology trials for rectal cancer: Who will participate?

BACKGROUND

The assessment of patients' and clinicians' willingness to participate in clinical trials is advisable as part of a feasibility exercise prior to the commencement of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to ensure adequate support in terms of likely accrual to achieve the required sample size in a timely fashion. Furthermore, understanding why patients are unwilling to enter RCTs is imperative before the current trend of low participation can be reversed.

METHODS

Patients, colorectal surgeons, and medical and radiation oncologists, were presented with 5 different, detailed treatments for locally advanced rectal cancer. They were asked whether they would be willing to enter an RCT comparing each treatment choice. Patients who would not participate were asked to indicate their reason for refusal.

RESULTS

Patients' willingness to participate in each trial was consistently low (19% to 32%). Similar low levels of participation were indicated by each clinical subspecialty (15% to 38%). Of the scenarios, patients and clinicians were most willing to enter a trial investigating surgery plus preoperative radiotherapy. A dislike of randomization, a desire to be involved in decision-making, and quality of life considerations were the most commonly stated reasons for refusal.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the difficulties in performing RCTs in surgery and oncology. However, results suggest that improvements in communication regarding randomization and clinical trial processes and the actual, rather than perceived, side effects of treatments are strategies that may enhance patient participation.

Levels of evidence available for techniques in antireflux surgery

The objective of this study was to determine the levels of evidence and grades of recommendations available for techniques in antireflux surgery. Areas of technical controversy in antireflux surgery were identified and developed into eight answerable questions. The external evidence was surveyed using the databases Medline and EMBASE. Abstracts and appropriate articles were identified from January 1966 to December 2005. A set of search strategies was systematically employed to determine the levels of evidence available for each clinical question. Primary outcome measures included the determination of levels of evidence and grade of recommendation based on The Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine. Secondary outcome measures included for randomized controlled trials were Jadad scores, noting the presence of a sample size calculation, and the determination of an effect estimate and the reporting of a confidence interval. Higher quality randomized controlled trials (mostly level 2b, occasional level 1b) existed to answer three questions: whether to complete a 360 degrees or partial wrap; whether or not to divide the short gastric vessels; and whether to perform laparoscopic or open surgery. Lower quality randomized controlled trials were available to determine whether the use of mesh was helpful, whether or not to use a bougie catheter for calibration of the wrap, and whether an anterior or posterior wrap results in a superior outcome. This was deemed to be of inferior grade of recommendation due to the lack (< 2) of trials available and the sole presence of level 2b evidence. The final two questions: whether to complete fundoplication using a thoracic or abdominal approach and whether to use intraoperative manometry relied exclusively upon level 4 evidence and thus received a lower grade of recommendation. A higher Jadad score seemed to be associated with studies having a higher level of evidence available to answer the question. Sample size calculations were given to answer three questions. Effect estimate was difficult to interpret given inconsistent findings, composite outcomes and lack of reported confidence intervals. In conclusion, antireflux surgery has many randomized controlled trials available upon which to base clinical practice. Unfortunately, these are generally of poor quality. We recommend that esophageal surgeons determine consistent outcome measures and endeavor to improve the quality of randomized controlled trials they perform.

Monitoring the introduction of a surgical intervention with long-term consequences

Surgical innovations are often introduced for their expected long-term benefits, but the decision to abandon the existing treatment must be based on the available short-term data and rational judgment. We present a framework for monitoring the introduction of a surgical intervention with long-term consequences and failure-time endpoints. The framework is based on Bayesian methods, and formally combines study data, clinical opinion, and external evidence to construct a posterior survival function from which intuitive summary statistics can be extracted to aid decision making. It incorporates learning effects and is adaptable to a wide variety of settings. The methods are illustrated on survival data from a cohort of 325 consecutive neonates treated for simple transposition of the great arteries with either the Senning or the Switch operation during the period 1978-1998.

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

Background

Qualitative methods are increasingly used to study the process of clinical trials and patients understanding of the rationale for trials, randomisation and reasons for taking part or refusing. Patients' understandings are inevitably influenced by the recruiting clinician's understanding of the trial, yet relatively little qualitative work has explored clinicians' perceptions and understandings of trials. This study interviewed surgeons shortly after the multi-centre, pragmatic RCT in which they had participated had been completed.

Methods

We used in-depth interviews with surgeons who participated in the Spine Stabilisation Trial (a pragmatic RCT) to explore their understanding of the trial purpose and how this understanding had influenced their recruitment procedures and interpretation of the results. A purposive sample of eleven participating surgeons was chosen from 8 of the 15 UK trial centres.

Results

Although the surgeons thought that the trial was addressing an important question there was little agreement about what this question was: although it was a trial of 'equivalent' treatments, some thought that it was a trial of surgery, others a trial of rehabilitation and others that it was exploring what to do with patients in whom all other treatment options had been unsuccessful. The surgeons we interviewed were not aware of the rationale for the pragmatic inclusion criteria and nearly all were completely baffled about the meaning of 'equipoise'. Misunderstandings about the entry criteria were an important source of confusion about the results and led to reluctance to apply the results to their own practice.

Conclusion

The study suggests several lessons for the conduct of future multi-centre trials. Recruiting surgeons (and other clinicians) may not be familiar with the rationale for pragmatic designs and may need to be regularly reminded about the purpose during the study. Reassurance may be necessary that a pragmatic design is not considered a design fault. We conclude that it does matter if clinicians do not understand the rationale for the trial if, as we have shown here, their perception of the trial aims and methods adversely affects who they recruit; if their views affect what the patients are told; and if they mistakenly view the results as unscientific, unreliable and ultimately irrelevant to their practice.

Defining the research agenda for surgical infection: a consensus of experts using the Delphi approach

BACKGROUND

A substantial proportion of operative procedures are complicated by infections, either remote from or related to the surgical site. These infections account for substantive morbidity and health care costs. With limited research funds available to study interventions designed to either prevent or reduce the morbidity associated with infections in surgical patients, we developed a research agenda to develop priorities to aid in study design and to focus both human and capital resources more effectively.

METHODS

A Delphi survey approach was used. Consensus was developed among experts in the field of surgical infection and the membership of the Surgical Infection Society.

RESULTS

Thirty-six experts generated a total of 62 questions that were submitted for two rounds of consensus ranking. A total of 31 questions were ranked in the final round and are available at www.sisna.org. The most highly ranked question was "Does strict glycemic control compared with standard care reduce the risk of surgical site infection in patients undergoing abdominal surgery?" Most of the questions had little available data, suggesting these are both important and necessary areas for further research.

CONCLUSIONS

This research agenda, developed by a consensus of experts, provides direction and focus to the development of interventional trials geared toward reducing the morbidity associated with infections in surgical patients.

Difficult clinical decisions in gynecological oncology: identifying priorities for future clinical research

This study investigates the acceptability and feasibility of conducting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in gynecological oncology by ascertaining the views of the Australian Society of Gynaecologic Oncologists (ASGO) about important clinical questions in this field, current treatment preferences, and willingness to participate in trials to address these questions. Members of ASGO received a mailed survey. Thirty-one gyneoncologists participated in this study (79% response fraction). There was considerable support for an RCT (81%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 63-93%) to compare sentinel node biopsy with total groin dissection for women with vulval cancer. This clinical question was also rated as "extremely" or "very" important by 91% (95% CI, 74-98%) of respondents, who also indicated high levels of individual equipoise. Another priority for research involved the use of second-line chemotherapy for women who have rising CA125 titers. This clinical question was rated as extremely or very important by 71% (95% CI, 52-86%), exhibited high levels of individual equipoise, with 74% (95% CI, 55-88%) of respondents willing to participate in an RCT to address this issue. The conduct of surveys of representative groups of clinicians provides useful empirical data to focus clinical research efforts where they are most likely to be successful based on equipoise, feasibility, and clinical interest.

Issues in the planning and conduct of non-randomised studies

This paper discusses topics related to the planning and implementation of non-randomised clinical studies in orthopaedics. A well-conducted case-series is appropriate to demonstrate the safety of a surgical intervention. The case-series design involves the provision of a defined intervention to a group of patients with the ultimate objective of describing the final outcome, including such occurrences as complications. There is no alternative procedure serving as a control. The key aspects are to ensure enrolment of all eligible patients and to obtain a sufficiently large sample size to allow precise and valid estimation of complication risks. Targeted complications should be clearly defined and fully documented during a pre-defined follow-up period. Loss to follow-up should be minimised. Comparative studies are required to demonstrate treatment effectiveness. If a randomised controlled trial (RCT) is not feasible, an observational design such as a cohort or a case-control study should be considered. In observational designs, the treatment decision is made by the surgeons. In a case-control study, patients are selected based on their outcomes and their treatment or exposure status is recorded retrospectively. In a cohort study, groups of patients are selected based on their treatment and are followed for outcomes. There are numerous variations. Data can be collected prospectively or retrospectively; comparison groups may be concurrent or non-concurrent, or studied at different locations. The optimal design is tailored to clinical questions and research settings, while keeping in mind the respective methodological strengths and weaknesses of available options. The strength of the observational study is its proximity to daily clinical practice. The limitations are the possibility of numerous biases and confounding factors. Despite many challenges to the internal validity of non-randomised studies in orthopaedics surgery, it is possible to use such designs in order to provide reasonably valid answers to clinically important questions.

Critical appraisal of the orthopaedic literature: therapeutic and economic analysis

When reading an article of interest in the orthopaedic literature it is necessary to appraise the quality of the evidence therein. First, the reader should determine the design of the study. If the level of the study design in the hierarchy of evidence is lower, the inferences that are drawn from the study are weaker. Second, the article should be assessed for the quality indicators relevant to the design. To the extent that the quality is high, the inferences that are drawn from the study will be strengthened. Making this process explicit, with guidelines to assess the strength of the available evidence, will serve to improve patient care.

Clinical trials in head and neck oncology: An evaluation of clinicians' willingness to participate

BACKGROUND

This study investigated the individual and collective ("community") equipoise of surgeons and oncologists and their willingness to take part in each of six hypothetical randomized controlled trials in head and neck oncology.

METHODS

A survey was mailed to Australasian head and neck specialists.

RESULTS

Among 109 respondents (74% response), the scenario with the highest level of individual equipoise pertained to the use of adjuvant interferon for patients with high-risk malignant melanoma, with 45% indicating complete uncertainty between treatment approaches. Significant differences in levels of community equipoise were demonstrated between surgeons and oncologists for three of the scenarios. Willingness to participate in randomized controlled trials ranged from 39% to 72%. Increasing strength of treatment preference was associated with unwillingness to participate in randomized controlled trials for two of six scenarios.

CONCLUSION

High levels of equipoise and willingness to participate in clinical research augur well for future randomized controlled trials in head and neck oncology.

Patients' expectations of colorectal surgery for cancer

OBJECTIVE

The primary objectives of surgery for colorectal cancer are to achieve radical resection of the tumour and to ensure a satisfactory quality of life for the patient. But what is satisfactory quality of life for the patients? What do patients desire? The goal of our exploratory investigation was to evaluate prospectively the patient pre-operative expectations as objectively as possible and to analyse results in relation to age, gender and socio-economic status.

METHODS

In the period from 1998 to 2001, 167 patients were given a questionnaire consisting of 15 questions prior to surgery. The questionnaire included various aspects that were thought to influence the patient's quality of life. Moreover the patients were given the opportunity to rate the questions they considered most important.

RESULTS

The following five points were considered most important by the total group of patients: Complete cure of the disease was rated most important (95%); it was the prime expectation of the patients. This was followed by the avoidance of a stoma (81%), a reliable control of defaecation (52%), normal digestion (44%) and little pain (26%).

CONCLUSION

Age, gender and education influence the pre-operative expectations of patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer. In addition to the surgical standard, the care of the individual patient must be given due consideration in the treatment strategy.

La chirurgie factuelle et ses difficultés

Evidence based medicine can be defined as the application of the best evidence in the care of a given patient. When applied to surgical practice, it appears that this concept has some limitations. To discuss these limitations, the authors made the choice to discuss the terms the original definition. Some factors are related to the paucity and the poor quality of randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses in surgery, to the difficulties to appraise the surgical publications and apply the results of randomized trials to a given patient, and to bring the surgeons more willing to endorse the principles of evidence-based medicine. But all these limitations could be overcome making evidence-based surgery not to be a simple passing fad but a formal paradigm.

Strategies for nonrandomized clinical research in hand surgery

Most clinical research questions in hand surgery may be effectively explored using a variety of nonrandomized study designs. The main advantage of any of these methods is that they are almost always more feasible than a prospective randomized, controlled trial. Although the level of evidence associated with nonrandomized designs is always lower than that of a randomized trial there are many instances in which the inferences based on these designs are sufficiently strong that important and meaningful conclusions can be made. The key considerations in using nonrandomized designs are to frame the research question appropriately and to recognize and anticipate the limitations and biases that are inherent to each one of these approaches.

Patient’s Preference and Randomization: New Paradigm of Evidence-based Clinical Research

The limitations associated with the traditional randomized controlled design as applied to clinical surgical research must be recognized. The aim of randomization is to ensure initial comparability between groups of eligible patients for whom treatments are compared, thus eliminating their individual influence on outcome. Randomized controlled trials in the surgical literature are sparse; patient preferences might be a major obstacle to their performance. External validity of results of clinical trials depends on the representativity of patients who participate in trials: Compliance to participate through informed consent may act as a selection bias. In surgical randomized trials where it is not often possible for patients to remain blinded to the treatment to which they have been allocated, patient preferences can influence the effectiveness of treatments. In this setting, we need to look at alternatives and the potential advantages of adopting more flexible and clinically relevant approaches to the design of surgical trials. We have to accept the weight of the patient's individual decision in everyday practice. Hence, to negate the importance of these individual choices when evaluating surgical outcomes is unrealistic. An original design reported herein might become a new paradigm for surgical evaluation.

Limits of Evidence-based Surgery

Evidence-based medicine can be summarized as the use of current best evidence in the care of individual patients. When applied to surgical practice, it appears clearly that the concept of evidence-based medicine involves some limitations. To discuss these limits, the author went back over the terms of the evidence-based medicine definition. Limits are related to the low quantity and quality of randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses in surgery, the difficulties when critically appraising the literature and applying the results of evidence to individual patients, and bringing surgeons more willing to endorse the principles of evidence-based medicine. However all these limits can be overcome in the future, with the aim that evidence-based surgery will not be a passing fad.

Developing measures of surgeons' equipoise to assess the feasibility of randomized controlled trials in vascular surgery

BACKGROUND

Equipoise is defined medically as a state of genuine uncertainty about the relative benefits of alternative treatment options. This study investigated individual and collective equipoise among vascular surgeons for controversial clinical questions to assess the feasibility of conducting randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

Vascular surgeons throughout Australia and New Zealand received a survey by mail.

RESULTS

Vascular surgeons (n=146, 77% response fraction) were able to quantify the strength of their treatment preferences and did so differentially between clinical scenarios using a simple scale. Almost one quarter (24%; 95% CI, 18%-32%) were completely undecided about whether carotid endarterectomy or carotid stenting was preferable to treat carotid stenosis in high-risk patients, indicating individual equipoise. In contrast, the vast majority of respondents (89%; 95% CI, 82%-93%) favored carotid endarterectomy over carotid stenting for average-risk patients, suggesting lack of community equipoise for this patient group. Similarly, there was lack of community equipoise for treatments for abdominal aortic aneurysm in high-risk patients with 88% (95% CI, 81%-92%) favoring a minimally invasive approach. Older respondents were consistently less willing to take part in randomized trials, with strength of treatment preference also independently predicting willingness to participate in 4 of 6 trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Individual and community equipoise can be measured in a representative sample of surgeons as part of the feasibility assessment for future randomized controlled trials.

Interventions for foot disease in rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review medical and surgical foot intervention studies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), focusing on clinical efficacy, study quality, and risk of harm.

METHODS

We searched appropriate databases using a combination of the terms "rheumatoid arthritis" and "foot" against terms indicating treatment; we also hand-searched references. We selected articles in English (1968-2003) comprising randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), prospective observational studies, and large retrospective observational surgical studies (> 50 cases). RCT quality was examined using Jadad scoring; other designs were assessed qualitatively.

RESULTS

Inclusion criteria were met by 33 of 894 identified studies, comprising 5 RCTs and 1 CCT (all nonsurgical), 15 prospective observational studies (8 nonsurgical, 7 surgical), and 12 large retrospective studies (all surgical). Functional, custom-designed and semirigid orthoses and extra-depth shoes were effective in single RCTs of variable quality; no comparative studies have been conducted. This finding was supported by a CCT and prospective observational studies. There was no evidence of harm. There were no controlled trials of surgery. Prospective observational studies suggest that forefoot arthroplasty and first metatarsophalangeal joint implants, but not plantar callous debridement, are effective. Comparative retrospective analyses suggest that some procedure variants may be better, and surgery may relieve pain better than orthoses. Infection was the main risk.

CONCLUSION

RCT evidence shows that orthoses and special shoes are likely to be beneficial in patients with RA. The only evidence of benefit from surgery comes from observational studies, because no RCTs have been conducted. Further RCT evidence is needed, although well-designed observational studies may be helpful.

Prospective clinical trials of brain tumor therapy: the critical role of neurosurgeons

Prospective clinical trials are critical to the scientific evaluation of new treatments for brain tumors. This paper reviews basic concepts of early and late phase prospective clinical trials that are most relevant to neurosurgical oncologists, with an emphasis on the challenges associated with conducting clinical trials of brain tumor therapies. Novel clinical trial designs that meet these challenges by incorporating pretreatment 'molecular profiling' and post-treatment 'molecular endpoints' are described. Because of their ability to obtain brain tumor specimens from patients before and after treatment, neurosurgeons have been required to play an increasingly important role in the execution of these molecular-based clinical trials. Potential avenues for enhancing the participation of neurosurgeons in the design and development of clinical trials are discussed.

Systematic reviews of nonrandomized clinical studies in the orthopaedic literature

We systematically reviewed systematic reviews of surgical orthopaedic interventions published between 1996 and 2001 to document when and how nonrandomized studies were included. From more than 10,000 citations examined in various electronic databases, 58 orthopaedic systematic reviews were eligible for inclusion based on specific criteria. Thirty of these (52%) included nonrandomized studies, 15 of which found no randomized controlled trials. Systematic reviews were more likely to include randomized controlled trials if nondistinguishable operations were compared (if participants could be blinded). Only six of the systematic reviews that included nonrandomized studies (20%) assessed the quality of primary studies. Heterogeneity of studies was a major concern. In 21 of the systematic reviews that included nonrandomized studies (70%), data for groups treated similarly were pooled across studies, and outcomes for pooled groups were compared. The conclusions of systematic reviews that included nonrandomized studies are weakened by the limitations of nonrandomized study designs. The absence of established methods for including nonrandomized studies in systematic reviews, and consequently variability in the methods adopted, also limits the comparability of such reviews. Therefore the findings of systematic reviews that include nonrandomized studies should be interpreted with caution.