1
|
Fairhurst K, McIntosh SA, Cutress RI, Potter S. Current axillary management of patients with early breast cancer and low-volume nodal disease undergoing primary surgery: results of a United Kingdom national practice survey. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2024; 206:465-471. [PMID: 38724821 PMCID: PMC11208217 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-024-07328-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/21/2023] [Accepted: 03/28/2024] [Indexed: 06/27/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE UK NICE guidelines recommend axillary node clearance (ANC) should be performed in all patients with biopsy-proven node-positive breast cancer having primary surgery. There is, however, increasing evidence such extensive surgery may not always be necessary. Targeted axillary dissection (TAD) may be an effective alternative in patients with low-volume nodal disease who are clinically node negative (cN0) but have abnormal nodes detected radiologically. This survey aimed to explore current management of this group to inform feasibility of a future trial. METHODS An online survey was developed to explore current UK management of patients with low-volume axillary disease and attitudes to a future trial. The survey was distributed via breast surgery professional associations and social media from September to November 2022. One survey was completed per unit and simple descriptive statistics used to summarise the results. RESULTS 51 UK breast units completed the survey of whom 78.5% (n = 40) reported performing ANC for all patients with biopsy-proven axillary nodal disease having primary surgery. Only 15.7% of units currently performed TAD either routinely (n = 6, 11.8%) or selectively (n = 2, 3.9%). There was significant uncertainty (83.7%, n = 36/43) about the optimal surgical management of these patients. Two-thirds (n = 27/42) of units felt an RCT comparing TAD and ANC would be feasible. CONCLUSIONS ANC remains standard of care for patients with low-volume node-positive breast cancer having primary surgery in the UK, but considerable uncertainty exists regarding optimal management of this group. This survey suggests an RCT comparing the outcomes of TAD and ANC may be feasible.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K Fairhurst
- Centre for Surgical Research, Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
| | - S A McIntosh
- Patrick G Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queens University Belfast, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast, BT9 7AE, Northern Ireland
| | - R I Cutress
- Somers Cancer Research Building, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton, Tremona Road, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK
| | - S Potter
- Centre for Surgical Research, Department of Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Walker RJB, Choi WJ, Ribeiro T, Habib RA, Zhu A, Tan C, Bui EC, da Costa BR, Karanicolas PJ. Factors Associated With Loss to Follow-Up in Surgical Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Surg Res 2024; 300:33-42. [PMID: 38795671 DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2024.04.054] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/12/2023] [Revised: 01/19/2024] [Accepted: 04/21/2024] [Indexed: 05/28/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Loss to follow-up (LTFU) distorts results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Understanding trial characteristics that contribute to LTFU may enable investigators to anticipate the extent of LTFU and plan retention strategies. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the extent of LTFU in surgical RCTs and evaluate associations between trial characteristics and LTFU. METHODS MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed Central were searched for surgical RCTs published between January 2002 and December 2021 in the 30 highest impact factor surgical journals. Two-hundred eligible RCTs were randomly selected. The pooled LTFU rate was estimated using random intercept Poisson regression. Associations between trial characteristics and LTFU were assessed using metaregression. RESULTS The 200 RCTs included 37,914 participants and 1307 LTFU events. The pooled LTFU rate was 3.10 participants per 100 patient-years (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.85-5.17). Trial characteristics associated with reduced LTFU were standard-of-care outcome assessments (rate ratio [RR] 0.17; 95% CI 0.06-0.48), surgery for transplantation (RR 0.08; 95% CI 0.01-0.43), and surgery for cancer (RR 0.10; 95% CI 0.02-0.53). Increased LTFU was associated with patient-reported outcomes (RR 14.21; 95% CI 4.82-41.91) and follow-up duration ≥ three months (odds ratio 10.09; 95% CI 4.79-21.28). CONCLUSIONS LTFU in surgical RCTs is uncommon. Participants may be at increased risk of LTFU in trials with outcomes assessed beyond the standard of care, surgical indications other than cancer or transplant, patient-reported outcomes, and longer follow-up. Investigators should consider the impact of design on LTFU and plan retention strategies accordingly.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard J B Walker
- Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Woo Jin Choi
- Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Tiago Ribeiro
- Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Razan A Habib
- Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Alice Zhu
- Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Chunyi Tan
- Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Evan Chung Bui
- Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Bruno R da Costa
- Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Applied Health Research Center, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada; Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Paul J Karanicolas
- Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Division of General Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson SA, Craig P, Baird J, Blazeby JM, Boyd KA, Craig N, French DP, McIntosh E, Petticrew M, Rycroft-Malone J, White M, Moore L. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance. Int J Nurs Stud 2024; 154:104705. [PMID: 38564982 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2024.104705] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/04/2024]
Abstract
The UK Medical Research Council's widely used guidance for developing and evaluating complex interventions has been replaced by a new framework, commissioned jointly by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health Research, which takes account of recent developments in theory and methods and the need to maximise the efficiency, use, and impact of research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kathryn Skivington
- MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
| | - Lynsay Matthews
- MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Sharon Anne Simpson
- MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Peter Craig
- MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Janis Baird
- Medical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Jane M Blazeby
- Medical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research and Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol, UK
| | - Kathleen Anne Boyd
- Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment Unit, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | | | - David P French
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Emma McIntosh
- Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment Unit, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Mark Petticrew
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | | | - Martin White
- Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Laurence Moore
- MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Cousins S, Huttman M, Blencowe N, Tsang C, Elliott D, Blazeby J, Beard DJ, Campbell MK, Gillies K. Patient information leaflets for placebo-controlled surgical trials: a review of current practice and recommendations for developers. Trials 2024; 25:339. [PMID: 38778336 PMCID: PMC11110406 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-024-08166-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2023] [Accepted: 05/10/2024] [Indexed: 05/25/2024] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Informed consent for participation in an RCT is an important ethical and legal requirement. In placebo surgical trials, further issues are raised, and to date, this has not been explored. Patient information leaflets (PILs) are a core component of the informed consent process. This study aimed to investigate the key content of PILs for recently completed placebo-controlled trials of invasive procedures, including surgery, to highlight areas of good practice, identify gaps in information provision for trials of this type and provide recommendations for practice. METHODS PILs were sought from trials included in a recent systematic review of placebo-controlled trials of invasive procedures, including surgery. Trial characteristics and data on surgical and placebo interventions under evaluation were extracted. Directed content analysis was applied, informed by published regulatory and good practice guidance on PIL content and existing research on placebo-controlled surgical trials. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics and presented as a narrative summary. RESULTS Of the 62 eligible RCTs, authors of 59 trials were contactable and 14 PILs were received for analysis. At least 50% of all PILs included content on general trial design. Explanations of how the placebo differs or is similar to the surgical intervention (i.e. fidelity) were reported in 6 (43%) of the included PILs. Over half (57%) of the PILs included information on the potential therapeutic benefits of the surgical intervention. One (7%) included information on potential indirect therapeutic benefits from invasive components of the placebo. Five (36%) presented the known risks of the placebo intervention, whilst 8 (57%) presented information on the known risks of the surgical intervention. A range of terms was used across the PILs to describe the placebo component, including 'control', 'mock' and 'sham'. CONCLUSION Developers of PILs for placebo-controlled surgical trials should carefully consider the use of language (e.g. sham, mock), be explicit about how the placebo differs (or is similar) to the surgical intervention and provide balanced presentations of potential benefits and risks of the surgical intervention separately from the placebo. Further research is required to determine optimal approaches to design and deliver this information for these trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Cousins
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre Surgical Innovation Theme, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - M Huttman
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre Surgical Innovation Theme, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - N Blencowe
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre Surgical Innovation Theme, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - C Tsang
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre Surgical Innovation Theme, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - D Elliott
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre Surgical Innovation Theme, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - J Blazeby
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre Surgical Innovation Theme, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- Royal College of Surgeons Surgical Trials Centre Bristol, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - D J Beard
- Royal College of Surgeons Surgical Trials Centre Oxford, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - M K Campbell
- Royal College of Surgeons Surgical Trials Centre Aberdeen, Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
- Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - K Gillies
- Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Rashid A, Kumar M, Lee MJ. A systematic review of participant descriptors reported in studies of adhesive small bowel obstruction. Colorectal Dis 2024; 26:851-870. [PMID: 38609340 DOI: 10.1111/codi.16986] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/30/2022] [Revised: 04/05/2023] [Accepted: 11/05/2023] [Indexed: 04/14/2024]
Abstract
AIM Reporting of participant descriptors in studies of adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO) can help identify characteristics associated with favourable outcomes and allow comparison with other studies and real-world clinical populations. The aim was to identify the pattern of participant descriptors reported in studies assessing interventions for ASBO. METHOD This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021281031) and reported in line with the PRISMA checklist. Systematic searches of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were undertaken to identify studies assessing operative and non-operative interventions for adults with ASBO. Studies were dual screened for inclusion. Descriptors were categorised into conceptual domains by the research team. RESULTS Searches identified 2648 studies, of which 73 were included. A total of 156 unique descriptors were identified. On average, studies reported 12 descriptors. The most frequently reported descriptors were sex, age, SBO aetiology, history of abdominal surgery, BMI and ASA classification. The highest number of descriptors in a single study was 34, compared to the lowest number of descriptors which was one. Pathway factors were the least frequently described domain. Overall, 37 descriptors were reported in just one study. CONCLUSION There is a lack of consistency in participant descriptors reported in studies of SBO. Furthermore, a significant proportion of the descriptors were used infrequently. This makes it challenging to assess whether study participants are representative of the wider population. Further work is required to develop a Core Descriptor Set to standardise the reporting of patient characteristics and reduce heterogeneity between studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adil Rashid
- Department of Oncology and Metabolism, The Medical School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
- Academic Directorate of General Surgery, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS FT, Sheffield, UK
| | - Mithun Kumar
- Department of General Surgery, University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, UK
| | - Matthew J Lee
- Department of Oncology and Metabolism, The Medical School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
- Academic Directorate of General Surgery, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS FT, Sheffield, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Chalmers KA, Cousins SE, Blazeby JM. Randomized controlled trials comparing gastric bypass, gastric band, and sleeve gastrectomy: A systematic review examining validity and applicability to wider clinical practice. Obes Rev 2024; 25:e13718. [PMID: 38346786 DOI: 10.1111/obr.13718] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/15/2023] [Revised: 01/17/2024] [Accepted: 01/17/2024] [Indexed: 04/18/2024]
Abstract
Consideration of how applicable the results of surgical trials are to clinical practice is important to inform decision-making. Randomized controlled trials comparing at least two surgical interventions (of gastric bypass, gastric band, and sleeve gastrectomy) for severe and complex obesity were examined using the PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 tool, to consider how applicable the trial results are to clinical practice, and the Risk of Bias 2 tool, to examine validity. MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched for studies published between November 2013 and June 2021, and 15 were identified. Using the PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 tool, three were classified as pragmatic, with good applicability to clinical practice. Ten had more explanatory domains but did include some pragmatic characteristics, and two were predominantly explanatory. This was due to some trial design features that would not be considered applicable to the wider clinical setting, including being single-centered, having prescribed intervention delivery methods, and intensive follow-up regimens. Only two trials had low risk of bias, of which one was considered pragmatic. Three had high risk of bias. Overall, few trials in bariatric surgery are pragmatic with low risk of bias. Well-designed pragmatic trials are needed to inform practice and reduce research waste.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katy A Chalmers
- National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol, Surgical Innovation Theme and the Medical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK
| | - Sian E Cousins
- National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol, Surgical Innovation Theme and the Medical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK
| | - Jane M Blazeby
- National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol, Surgical Innovation Theme and the Medical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Larkins K, Quirke N, Ong HI, Mohamed JE, Heriot A, Warrier S, Mohan H. The deconstructed procedural description in robotic colorectal surgery. J Robot Surg 2024; 18:147. [PMID: 38554192 PMCID: PMC10981632 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-024-01907-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/08/2024] [Accepted: 03/05/2024] [Indexed: 04/01/2024]
Abstract
Increasing robotic surgical utilisation in colorectal surgery internationally has strengthened the need for standardised training. Deconstructed procedural descriptions identify components of an operation that can be integrated into proficiency-based progression training. This approach allows both access to skill level appropriate training opportunities and objective and comparable assessment. Robotic colorectal surgery has graded difficulty of operative procedures lending itself ideally to component training. Developing deconstructed procedural descriptions may assist in the structure and progression components in robotic colorectal surgical training. There is no currently published guide to procedural descriptions in robotic colorectal surgical or assessment of their training utility. This scoping review was conducted in June 2022 following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines to identify which robotic colorectal surgical procedures have available component-based procedural descriptions. Secondary aims were identifying the method of development of these descriptions and how they have been adapted in a training context. 20 published procedural descriptions were identified covering 8 robotic colorectal surgical procedures with anterior resection the most frequently described procedure. Five publications included descriptions of how the procedural description has been utilised for education and training. From these publications terminology relating to using deconstructed procedural descriptions in robotic colorectal surgical training is proposed. Development of deconstructed robotic colorectal procedural descriptions (DPDs) in an international context may assist in the development of a global curriculum of component operating competencies supported by objective metrics. This will allow for standardisation of robotic colorectal surgical training and supports a proficiency-based training approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kirsten Larkins
- Department of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- International Medical Robotics Academy, North Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Ned Quirke
- University College Dublin School of Medicine, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Hwa Ian Ong
- Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Australia.
| | - Jade El Mohamed
- International Medical Robotics Academy, North Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Alexander Heriot
- Department of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- International Medical Robotics Academy, North Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Satish Warrier
- Department of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- International Medical Robotics Academy, North Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Helen Mohan
- Department of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- International Medical Robotics Academy, North Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Harji D, Fernandez B, Boissieras L, Celerier B, Rullier E, Denost Q. IDEAL Stage 2a/b prospective cohort study of transanal transection and single-stapled anastomosis for rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 2023; 25:2346-2353. [PMID: 37919463 DOI: 10.1111/codi.16789] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/10/2022] [Revised: 09/06/2023] [Accepted: 09/08/2023] [Indexed: 11/04/2023]
Abstract
AIM There are several anastomotic techniques available to facilitate restorative rectal cancer surgery after total mesorectal excision (TME), including double-stapled anastomosis (DST) and handsewn coloanal anastomosis (CAA). However, to date no one technique is superior with regard to anastomotic leakage (AL) or functional outcomes. Transanal transection single-stapled anastomosis (TTSS) aims to overcome some of the technical challenges and offer comparable clinical and functional outcomes to traditional anastomotic techniques. The aim of this study was to explore the role of TTSS in modern rectal cancer surgery and to provide comparative clinical and functional outcome data with DST and CAA. METHOD A prospective cohort study was undertaken to assess the safety and clinical and patient-reported outcomes associated with the TTSS procedure. All patients undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer with an anastomosis performed within 6 cm of the anal verge between January 2016 and April 2021 were prospectively enrolled into this study. Clinical and patient-reported outcome data, including low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) assessment, were collected. The primary endpoint was anastomotic leakage within 30 days. RESULTS A total of 275 patients participated in this study, with 70 (25%) patients undergoing a TTSS, 110 (40%) undergoing a DST and 95 (35%) undergoing a CAA. Patients undergoing a CAA had more distal tumours than those having a TTSS or DST, with a median tumour height of 5, 7 and 9 cm (p < 0.001), respectively. We observed a statistically significant reduction in AL in the TTSS group compared with the DST group, with rates of 8.6% versus 20.9% (p = 0.028). There was no difference in LARS scores between patients undergoing TTSS and DST (p = 0.228), while patients with a CAA had worse LARS scores than TTSS patients (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION TTSS is a technically safe and feasible anastomotic technique in rectal cancer surgery as an alternative to DST and CAA. Its advantages over DST are a reduced AL rate and, over CAA, improved function. It should therefore be considered as an alternative technique to improve clinical and patient-reported outcomes in restorative rectal cancer surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Deena Harji
- Bordeaux Colorectal Institute, Clinique Tivoli, Bordeaux, France
| | - Benjamin Fernandez
- Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux Centre Medico-Chirurgical Magellan Service d Hepato-Gastroenterologie et d Oncologie Digestive Ringgold standard institution, Pessac, France
| | - Lara Boissieras
- Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux Centre Medico-Chirurgical Magellan Service d Hepato-Gastroenterologie et d Oncologie Digestive Ringgold standard institution, Pessac, France
| | - Bertrand Celerier
- Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux Centre Medico-Chirurgical Magellan Service d Hepato-Gastroenterologie et d Oncologie Digestive Ringgold standard institution, Pessac, France
| | - Eric Rullier
- Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux Centre Medico-Chirurgical Magellan Service d Hepato-Gastroenterologie et d Oncologie Digestive Ringgold standard institution, Pessac, France
| | - Quentin Denost
- Bordeaux Colorectal Institute, Clinique Tivoli, Bordeaux, France
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Wong K, Kinsella N, Seth J, Nicol D, Cahill D, Kasivisvanathan R, Withington J, Moghul M, Moss CL, Van Hemelrijck M, Giorgakoudi K, Cottrell C, Yates E, Khoo V, James ND. COmparing Urolift and Standard Transurethral resection of prostate Ahead of Radiotherapy in men with urinary symptoms secondary to prostate enlargement in Southwest London and North Cumbria (CO-STAR): a study protocol for a randomised feasibility study. BMJ Open 2023; 13:e076621. [PMID: 37802612 PMCID: PMC10565132 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-076621] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/12/2023] [Accepted: 08/09/2023] [Indexed: 10/10/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Patients undergoing prostate radiotherapy with an enlarged prostate can have short-term and long-term urinary complications. Currently, transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is the mainstay surgical intervention for men with urinary symptoms due to an enlarged prostate prior to radiotherapy. UroLift (NeoTract, Pleasanton, CA, USA) is a recent minimally invasive alternative, widely used in benign disease but is untested in men with prostate cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS A multicentre, two-arm study designed in collaboration with a Patient Reference Group to assess the feasibility of randomising men with prostate cancer and coexisting urinary symptoms due to prostate enlargement to TURP or UroLift ahead of radiotherapy. 45 patients will be enrolled and randomised (1:1) using a computer-generated programme to TURP or UroLift. Recruitment and retention will be assessed over a 12 month period. Information on clinical outcomes, adverse events and costs will be collected. Clinical outcomes and patient reported outcome measures will be measured at baseline, 6 weeks postintervention and 3 months following radiotherapy. A further 12 in-depth interviews will be conducted with a subset of patients to assess acceptability using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Descriptive analysis on all outcomes will be performed using Stata (StataCorp V.2021). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION The trial has been approved by the Research Ethics Committee (REC) NHS Health Research Authority (HRA) and Health and Care Research Wales (HCRW). The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals, presented at national meetings and disseminated to patients via social media, charity and hospital websites. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT05840549.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kathie Wong
- Urology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Urology, North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust, Carlisle, UK
| | - Netty Kinsella
- Urology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Jai Seth
- Urology, St George's Hospital, London, UK
| | - David Nicol
- Urology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Declan Cahill
- Urology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | | | | | - Masood Moghul
- Urology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | | | | | - Kyriaki Giorgakoudi
- City, University of London, London, UK
- NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and The Institute of Cancer Research UK, London, UK
| | - Chris Cottrell
- Urology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Emma Yates
- Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Vincent Khoo
- Department of Oncology, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Institute of Cancer Research Division of Cancer Therapeutics, London, UK
| | - Nicholas D James
- Department of Oncology, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Papagoras D, Tzikos G, Douridas G, Arseniou P, Panagiotou D, Kanara M, Papavramidis T. Visualization of the recurrent laryngeal nerve alone versus intraoperative nerve monitoring in primary thyroidectomy: a framework approach to a missing typology. Front Surg 2023; 10:1176511. [PMID: 37560316 PMCID: PMC10406577 DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2023.1176511] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2023] [Accepted: 07/13/2023] [Indexed: 08/11/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Surgical studies evaluating a device or technology in comparison to an established surgical technique should accurately report all the important components of the surgical technique in order to reduce the risk of intervention bias. In the debate of visualization of the recurrent laryngeal nerve alone (VONA) versus intraoperative nerve monitoring (IONM) during thyroidectomy, surgical technique plays a key role in both strategies. Our aim was to investigate whether the surgical technique was considered as a risk of intervention bias by relevant meta-analyses and reviews and if steps of surgical intervention were described in their included studies. METHODS We searched PUBMED, CENTRAL-Cochrane library, PROSPERO and GOOGLE for reviews and meta-analyses focusing on the comparison of IONM to VONA in primary open thyroidectomy. Τhen, primary studies were extracted from their reference lists. We developed a typology for surgical technique applied in primary studies and a framework approach for the evaluation of this typology by the meta-analyses and reviews. RESULTS Twelve meta-analyses, one review (388,252 nerves at risk), and 84 primary studies (128,720 patients) were included. Five meta-analyses considered the absence of typology regarding the surgical technique as a source of intervention bias; 48 primary studies (57.14%) provided information about at least one item of the typology components and only 1 for all of them. DISCUSSION Surgical technique of thyroidectomy in terms of a typology is underreported in studies and undervalued by meta-analyses comparing VONA to IONM. This missing typology should be reconsidered in the comparative evaluation of these two strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Georgios Tzikos
- 1st Propedeutic Department of Surgery, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, AHEPA University Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece
| | - Gerasimos Douridas
- Department of Surgery, Thriassio General Hospital of Elefsina, Elefsina, Greece
| | | | | | - Maria Kanara
- Department of Surgery, General Hospital of Trikala, Trikala, Greece
| | - Theodosios Papavramidis
- 1st Propedeutic Department of Surgery, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, AHEPA University Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Campbell MK, Beard DJ, Blazeby JM, Cousins S. Further considerations for placebo controls in surgical trials. Trials 2023; 24:391. [PMID: 37301819 PMCID: PMC10257825 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-023-07417-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/12/2022] [Accepted: 05/25/2023] [Indexed: 06/12/2023] Open
Abstract
The use of invasive placebo controls in surgical trials can be challenging. The ASPIRE guidance, published in the Lancet in 2020, provided advice for the design and conduct of surgical trials with an invasive placebo control. Based on a more recent international expert workshop in June 2022, we now provide further insights into this topic. These include the purpose and design of invasive placebo controls, patient information provision and how findings from these trials may be used to inform decision-making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marion K Campbell
- Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCSEng) Aberdeen Surgical Trials Centre; Health Services Research Unit, Health Sciences Building, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, UK
| | - David J Beard
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences; RCSEng Surgical Intervention Trials Unit; National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Headington, Oxford, UK
| | - Jane M Blazeby
- NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre; RCSEng Bristol Surgical Trials Centre, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, BS8 2PS, Bristol, UK
| | - Sian Cousins
- NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre; RCSEng Bristol Surgical Trials Centre, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, BS8 2PS, Bristol, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Milone M, Gallo G, Grossi U, Pelizzo P, D'Amore A, Manigrasso M, Perinotti R, La Torre M, De Palma GD, Basso L. Endoscopic sinusectomy: 'a rose by any other name'. A systematic review of different endoscopic procedures to treat pilonidal disease. Colorectal Dis 2023; 25:177-190. [PMID: 36217688 DOI: 10.1111/codi.16361] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2022] [Revised: 09/27/2022] [Accepted: 09/29/2022] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
AIM Pilonidal sinus or Pilonidal Disease (PD) is a relatively common, benign but challenging condition. Although commonly encountered in practice, its ideal treatment is controversial. One of the most validated treatments is video-assisted surgery. In this context, very similar endoscopic techniques have been published under different names. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the differences among these proposed techniques and their outcomes. METHODS The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed during all stages of this systematic review. A systematic search of the English literature was performed on multiple databases from 1 January 2014 to 3 April 2022. The primary outcome measure was the IDEAL framework stage of innovation. The key secondary outcome measures were the adherence to the IDEAL reporting guidelines, the Blencowe framework and the core outcome set (COS) for studies evaluating the introduction and evaluation of novel surgical techniques, the qualitative assessment using appropriate tools, the procedural variations and outcomes of each technique. RESULTS A total of 38 articles were included reporting a very similar technique under eight different acronyms. The number of patients varied from 9 to 250. Mean follow-up ranged from 1 to 60 months. There was only one published study of IDEAL 3. The majority (58%) were IDEAL 2a studies. Reporting of domains in the IDEAL reporting guidelines and Blencowe framework was poor, with most studies not reporting the component steps of procedures or efforts to standardize them. Half of COS domains were markedly underreported. The quality of the evidence was categorized as having a risk of bias from moderate to critical level in all nine comparative non-randomized series. Postoperative complications occurred in 0%-6% of cases, including surgical site infection, poor or failed wound healing bleeding, granuloma, haematoma, and pain requiring intervention. The recurrence rate varied from 0% to 22%. CONCLUSION The study demonstrates that reporting on technical aspects of interventions for PD is poor, thus warranting a better-quality control of surgical techniques. It is advisable to group all endoscopic procedures under the umbrella term of 'endoscopic sinusectomy', thus embracing the two main principles of this technique, that is, video assistance and PD ablation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marco Milone
- Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, 'Federico II' University of Naples, Naples, Italy
| | - Gaetano Gallo
- Department of Surgical Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Ugo Grossi
- Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology-DISCOG, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
| | - Patrizia Pelizzo
- Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology-DISCOG, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
| | - Anna D'Amore
- Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, 'Federico II' University of Naples, Naples, Italy
| | - Michele Manigrasso
- Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, 'Federico II' University of Naples, Naples, Italy
| | - Roberto Perinotti
- Colorectal Surgical Unit, Department of Surgery, Infermi Hospital, Rimini, Italy
| | - Marco La Torre
- Coloproctology Unit, Salvator Mundi International Hospital, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
| | | | - Luigi Basso
- 'Pietro Valdoni' Department of Surgery, Policlinico Umberto I, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Phillips RS, Vaarwerk B, Morgan JE. Using Evidence-Based Medicine to Support Clinical Decision-Making in RMS. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 15:cancers15010066. [PMID: 36612064 PMCID: PMC9817945 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15010066] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/30/2022] [Revised: 12/16/2022] [Accepted: 12/19/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
The foundations of evidence-based practice are the triad of patient values and preferences, healthcare professional experience, and best available evidence, used together to inform clinical decision-making. Within the field of rhabdomyosarcoma, collaborative groups such as the European Paediatric Soft Tissue Sarcoma Group (EpSSG) have worked to develop evidence to support this process. We have explored many of the key research developments within this review, including patient and public involvement, decision-making research, research into areas other than drug development, core outcome sets, reporting and dissemination of research, evidence synthesis, guideline development and clinical decision rules, research of research methodologies, and supporting research in RMS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert S. Phillips
- Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK
- Department of Paediatric Haematology and Oncology, Leeds Children’s Hospital, Leeds LS1 3EX, UK
| | - Bas Vaarwerk
- Department of Paediatrics, Amsterdam UMC—Emma Children’s Hospital, University of Amsterdam, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jessica E. Morgan
- Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK
- Department of Paediatric Haematology and Oncology, Leeds Children’s Hospital, Leeds LS1 3EX, UK
- Correspondence:
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Conroy EJ, Blazeby JM, Burnside G, Cook JA, Gamble C. Managing clustering effects and learning effects in the design and analysis of randomised surgical trials: a review of existing guidance. Trials 2022; 23:869. [PMID: 36221107 PMCID: PMC9552436 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-022-06743-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2022] [Accepted: 09/13/2022] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The complexities associated with delivering randomised surgical trials, such as clustering effects, by centre or surgeon, and surgical learning, are well known. Despite this, approaches used to manage these complexities, and opinions on these, vary. Guidance documents have been developed to support clinical trial design and reporting. This work aimed to identify and examine existing guidance and consider its relevance to clustering effects and learning curves within surgical trials. METHODS A review of existing guidelines, developed to inform the design and analysis of randomised controlled trials, is undertaken. Guidelines were identified using an electronic search, within the Equator Network, and by a targeted search of those endorsed by leading UK funding bodies, regulators, and medical journals. Eligible documents were compared against pre-specified key criteria to identify gaps or inconsistencies in recommendations. RESULTS Twenty-eight documents were eligible (12 Equator Network; 16 targeted search). Twice the number of guidance documents targeted design (n/N=20/28, 71%) than analysis (n/N=10/28, 36%). Managing clustering by centre through design was well documented. Clustering by surgeon had less coverage and contained some inconsistencies. Managing the surgical learning curve, or changes in delivery over time, through design was contained within several documents (n/N=8/28, 29%), of which one provided guidance on reporting this and restricted to early phase studies only. Methods to analyse clustering effects and learning were provided in five and four documents respectively (N=28). CONCLUSIONS To our knowledge, this is the first review as to the extent to which existing guidance for designing and analysing randomised surgical trials covers the management of clustering, by centre or surgeon, and the surgical learning curve. Twice the number of identified documents targeted design aspects than analysis. Most notably, no single document exists for use when designing these studies, which may lead to inconsistencies in practice. The development of a single document, with agreed principles to guide trial design and analysis across a range of realistic clinical scenarios, is needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elizabeth J. Conroy
- Liverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
- Oxford Clinical Trials Research Unit, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Windmill Road, Oxford, OX3 7LD UK
| | - Jane M. Blazeby
- Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Girvan Burnside
- Liverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Jonathan A. Cook
- Oxford Clinical Trials Research Unit, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Windmill Road, Oxford, OX3 7LD UK
| | - Carrol Gamble
- Liverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Murkin C, Rooshenas L, Smart N, Daniels IR, Pinkney T, Shabbir J, Rockall T, Bennett J, Torkington J, Randall J, Brandsma HT, Reeves B, Blazeby J, Blencowe NS. What should be included in case report forms? Development and application of novel methods to inform surgical study design: a mixed methods case study in parastomal hernia prevention. BMJ Open 2022; 12:e061300. [PMID: 36198447 PMCID: PMC9535162 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061300] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To describe the development and application of methods to optimise the design of case report forms (CRFs) for clinical studies evaluating surgical procedures, illustrated with an example of abdominal stoma formation. DESIGN (1) Literature reviews, to identify reported variations in surgical components of stoma formation, were supplemented by (2) intraoperative qualitative research (observations, videos and interviews), to identify unreported variations used in practice to generate (3) a 'long list' of items, which were rationalised using (4) consensus methods, providing a pragmatic list of CRF items to be captured in the Cohort study to Investigate the Prevention of parastomal HERnias (CIPHER) study. SETTING Two secondary care surgical centres in England. PARTICIPANTS Patients undergoing stoma formation, surgeons undertaking stoma formation and stoma nurses. OUTCOME MEASURES Successful identification of key CRF items to be captured in the CIPHER study. RESULTS 59 data items relating to stoma formation were identified and categorised within six themes: (1) surgical approach to stoma formation; (2) trephine formation; (3) reinforcing the stoma trephine with mesh; (4) use of the stoma as a specimen extraction site; (5) closure of other wounds during the procedure; and (6) spouting the stoma. CONCLUSIONS This study used multimodal data collection to understand and capture the technical variations in stoma formation and design bespoke CRFs for a multicentre cohort study. The CIPHER study will use the CRFs to examine associations between the technical variations in stoma formation and risks of developing a parastomal hernia. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ISRCTN17573805.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charlotte Murkin
- Bristol NIHR Biomedical Research Centre and Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol University, Bristol, UK
| | - Leila Rooshenas
- Bristol NIHR Biomedical Research Centre and Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol University, Bristol, UK
| | - Neil Smart
- Exeter Surgical Health Services Research Unit (HeSRU), Royal Devon & Exeter Hospital, Exeter, Devon, UK
| | - I R Daniels
- Exeter Surgical Health Services Research Unit (HeSRU), Royal Devon & Exeter Hospital, Exeter, Devon, UK
| | - Tom Pinkney
- Academic Department of Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Jamshed Shabbir
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Timothy Rockall
- Department of Oesophago-gastric Surgery, The Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK
| | - Joanne Bennett
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cheltenham, UK
| | - Jared Torkington
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK
| | - Jonathan Randall
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - H T Brandsma
- Department of Surgery, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, Netherlands
| | - Barnaby Reeves
- Clinical Trials and Evaluation Unit, Bristol Trials Centre, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Jane Blazeby
- Bristol NIHR Biomedical Research Centre and Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol University, Bristol, UK
| | - Natalie S Blencowe
- Bristol NIHR Biomedical Research Centre and Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol University, Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Savage WM, Harel NY. Reaching a Tipping Point for Neurorehabilitation Research: Obstacles and Opportunities in Trial Design, Description, and Pooled Analysis. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2022; 36:659-665. [DOI: 10.1177/15459683221124112] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
The record-breaking pace of COVID-19 vaccine development and implementation depended heavily on collaboration among academic, government, and commercial stakeholders, especially through data-sharing and robust multicenter trials. Collaborative efforts have not been as fruitful in fields such as neurorehabilitation, where non-pharmacological interventions play a much larger role. Barriers to translating scientific advancements into clinical practice in neurorehabilitation include pervasively small study sizes, exacerbated by limited funding for non-pharmacological multicenter clinical trials; difficulty standardizing—and adequately describing—non-pharmacological interventions; and a lack of incentives for individual patient-level data-sharing. These barriers prevent reliable meta-analysis of non-pharmacological clinical studies in neurorehabilitation. This point-of-view will highlight these challenges as well as suggest practical steps that may be taken to improve the neurorehabilitation pipeline between evidence and implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- William M. Savage
- Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Noam Y. Harel
- Department of Neurology and Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, James J. Peters Veterans Affairs Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Bruckner T, Wieschowski S, Heider M, Deutsch S, Drude N, Tölch U, Bleich A, Tolba R, Strech D. Measurement challenges and causes of incomplete results reporting of biomedical animal studies: Results from an interview study. PLoS One 2022; 17:e0271976. [PMID: 35960759 PMCID: PMC9374215 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271976] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/01/2022] [Accepted: 07/11/2022] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Existing evidence indicates that a significant amount of biomedical research involving animals remains unpublished. At the same time, we lack standards for measuring the extent of results reporting in animal research. Publication rates may vary significantly depending on the level of measurement such as an entire animal study, individual experiments within a study, or the number of animals used. Methods Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 18 experts and qualitative content analysis, we investigated challenges and opportunities for the measurement of incomplete reporting of biomedical animal research with specific reference to the German situation. We further investigate causes of incomplete reporting. Results The in-depth expert interviews revealed several reasons for why incomplete reporting in animal research is difficult to measure at all levels under the current circumstances. While precise quantification based on regulatory approval documentation is feasible at the level of entire studies, measuring incomplete reporting at the more individual experiment and animal levels presents formidable challenges. Expert-interviews further identified six drivers of incomplete reporting of results in animal research. Four of these are well documented in other fields of research: a lack of incentives to report non-positive results, pressures to ‘deliver’ positive results, perceptions that some data do not add value, and commercial pressures. The fifth driver, reputational concerns, appears to be far more salient in animal research than in human clinical trials. The final driver, socio-political pressures, may be unique to the field. Discussion Stakeholders in animal research should collaborate to develop a clear conceptualisation of complete reporting in animal research, facilitate valid measurements of the phenomenon, and develop incentives and rewards to overcome the causes for incomplete reporting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Till Bruckner
- QUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin Institute of Health at Charité –Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany
- Institute for Ethics, History and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
| | - Susanne Wieschowski
- QUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin Institute of Health at Charité –Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany
- Institute for Ethics, History and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
| | - Miriam Heider
- Institute for Laboratory Animal Science, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
| | - Susanne Deutsch
- Institute for Laboratory Animal Science, RWTH Aachen University, Faculty of Medicine, Aachen, Germany
| | - Natascha Drude
- QUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin Institute of Health at Charité –Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Ulf Tölch
- QUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin Institute of Health at Charité –Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany
| | - André Bleich
- Institute for Laboratory Animal Science, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
| | - René Tolba
- Institute for Laboratory Animal Science, RWTH Aachen University, Faculty of Medicine, Aachen, Germany
| | - Daniel Strech
- QUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin Institute of Health at Charité –Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany
- Institute for Ethics, History and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
- * E-mail:
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Roqué M, Urrútia G, von Elm E. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in surgery. Cir Esp 2022; 100:514-516. [PMID: 35597420 DOI: 10.1016/j.cireng.2021.11.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/05/2021] [Accepted: 11/16/2021] [Indexed: 06/15/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Marta Roqué
- Centro Cochrane Iberoamericano-Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau); CIBERESP.
| | - Gerard Urrútia
- Centro Cochrane Iberoamericano-Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau); CIBERESP
| | - Erik von Elm
- Cochrane Switzerland, Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Tassinari CJ, Higham R, Smith IL, Arnold S, Mujica-Mota R, Metcalfe A, Simpson H, Murray D, McGonagle DG, Sharma H, Hamilton TW, Ellard DR, Fernandez C, Reynolds C, Harwood P, Croft J, Stocken DD, Pandit H. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of Knee Arthroplasty versus Joint Distraction for Osteoarthritis (KARDS): protocol for a multicentre, phase III, randomised control trial. BMJ Open 2022; 12:e062721. [PMID: 35772819 PMCID: PMC9247693 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-062721] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Knee replacement (KR) is a clinically proven procedure typically offered to patients with severe knee osteoarthritis (OA) to relieve pain and improve quality of life. However, artificial joints fail over time, requiring revision associated with higher mortality and inferior outcomes. With more young people presenting with knee OA and increasing life expectancy, there is an unmet need to postpone time to first KR. Knee joint distraction (KJD), the practice of using external fixators to open up knee joint space, is proposed as potentially effective to preserve the joint following initial studies in the Netherlands, however, has not been researched within an NHS setting. The KARDS trial will investigate whether KJD is non-inferior to KR in terms of patient-reported postoperative pain 12 months post-surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS KARDS is a phase III, multicentre, pragmatic, open-label, individually randomised controlled non-inferiority trial comparing KJD with KR in patients with severe knee OA, employing a hybrid-expertise design, with internal pilot phase and process evaluation. 344 participants will be randomised (1:1) to KJD or KR. The primary outcome measure is the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS) pain domain score at 12 months post-operation. Secondary outcome measures include patient-reported overall KOOS, Pain Visual Analogue Scale and Oxford Knee Scores, knee function assessments, joint space width, complications and further interventions over 24 months post-operation. Per patient cost difference between KR and KJD and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained over 24 months will be estimated within trial, and incremental cost per QALY gained over 20 years by KJD relative to KR predicted using decision analytic modelling. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION Ethics approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee (REC) and Health Research Authority (HRA). Trial results will be disseminated at clinical conferences, through relevant patient groups and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ISRCTN14879004; recruitment opened April 2021.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cerys Joyce Tassinari
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Ruchi Higham
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Isabelle Louise Smith
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Susanne Arnold
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Coventry, UK
| | | | - Andrew Metcalfe
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Coventry, UK
- Trauma and Orthopaedics, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, UK
| | - Hamish Simpson
- Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - David Murray
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
| | - Dennis G McGonagle
- Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds, UK
| | - Hemant Sharma
- Department of Orthopaedics, Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Hull, Kingston upon Hull, UK
| | - Thomas William Hamilton
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
| | - David R Ellard
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Coventry, UK
| | - Catherine Fernandez
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Catherine Reynolds
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Paul Harwood
- University of Leeds, Leeds Institute of Medical Research, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK
| | - Julie Croft
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Deborah D Stocken
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Hemant Pandit
- Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds, UK
- Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Andreoletti M, Bina F. A defense of surgical procedures regulation. THEORETICAL MEDICINE AND BIOETHICS 2022; 43:155-168. [PMID: 35551584 PMCID: PMC9388414 DOI: 10.1007/s11017-022-09569-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/22/2021] [Revised: 04/06/2022] [Accepted: 04/11/2022] [Indexed: 06/15/2023]
Abstract
Since the advent of drug regulation in 1962, regulatory agencies have been in the practice of using strict standards to test the safety and efficacy of medical treatments and products. Regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, demand two full-fledged Randomized Clinical Trials demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of drugs to grant its marketing authorization. On the contrary, surgical treatments are left completely unregulated. There are several reasons explaining this difference, and all of them point to the difficulty of conducting well-designed RCTs in surgery. However, we argue that none of these arguments is decisive and that, under certain conditions, surgical RCTs can be morally justified and methodologically sound. Although ethical constraints restrict the number of testable surgical procedures, and surgical trials might not be as dependable as pharmaceutical RCTs, our analysis suggests that, in certain cases, it is possible to obtain high-quality evidence about the safety and efficacy of surgical procedures. Untested surgical treatments may prove to be ineffective and harm patients. Therefore, regulation of surgical procedures seems not only morally acceptable and able to provide reliable scientific evidence, but also desirable and justified from an ethical-political standpoint.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mattia Andreoletti
- Health Ethics and Policy Lab, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Federico Bina
- Faculty of Philosophy, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
- Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts United States
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Harvey KL, Sinai P, Mills N, White P, Holcombe C, Potter S. Short-term safety outcomes of mastectomy and immediate prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: Pre-BRA prospective multicentre cohort study. Br J Surg 2022; 109:530-538. [PMID: 35576373 PMCID: PMC10364707 DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znac077] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/24/2021] [Revised: 01/18/2022] [Accepted: 02/22/2022] [Indexed: 11/14/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) has recently been introduced to reduce postoperative pain and improve cosmetic outcomes in women having implant-based procedures. High-quality evidence to support the practice of PPBR, however, is lacking. Pre-BRA is an IDEAL stage 2a/2b study that aimed to establish the safety, effectiveness, and stability of PPBR before definitive evaluation in an RCT. The short-term safety endpoints at 3 months after surgery are reported here. METHODS Consecutive patients electing to undergo immediate PPBR at participating UK centres between July 2019 and December 2020 were invited to participate. Demographic, operative, oncology, and complication data were collected. The primary outcome was implant loss at 3 months. Other outcomes of interest included readmission, reoperation, and infection. RESULTS Some 347 women underwent 424 immediate implant-based reconstructions at 40 centres. Most were single-stage direct-to-implant (357, 84.2 per cent) biological mesh-assisted (341, 80.4 per cent) procedures. Conversion to subpectoral reconstruction was necessary in four patients (0.9 per cent) owing to poor skin-flap quality. Of the 343 women who underwent PPBR, 144 (42.0 per cent) experienced at least one postoperative complication. Implant loss occurred in 28 women (8.2 per cent), 67 (19.5 per cent) experienced an infection, 60 (17.5 per cent) were readmitted for a complication, and 55 (16.0 per cent) required reoperation within 3 months of reconstruction. CONCLUSION Complication rates following PPBR are high and implant loss is comparable to that associated with subpectoral mesh-assisted implant-based techniques. These findings support the need for a well-designed RCT comparing prepectoral and subpectoral reconstruction to establish best practice for implant-based breast reconstruction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kate L Harvey
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Parisa Sinai
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Nicola Mills
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Paul White
- Applied Statistics Group, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK
| | | | - Shelley Potter
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- Bristol Breast Care Centre, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
22
|
Goedemans T, Verberk JDM, van den Munckhof P, Buis DR, Vandertop WP, de Korte AM. Neurological update: consult the neurosurgical oracle for a standard operating procedure. J Neurol 2022; 269:5179-5186. [PMID: 35381880 PMCID: PMC9363322 DOI: 10.1007/s00415-022-11090-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/20/2021] [Revised: 03/16/2022] [Accepted: 03/17/2022] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
Standard operating procedures (SOPs) contain general instructions and principles to standardize care, to improve effective and safe healthcare. Developing new, or updating current, SOPs is, however, challenging in fields where high-level evidence is limited. Still, SOPs alone have been shown to result in less complications. In this narrative review, we describe the process of creating a consensus-based SOP that is pragmatic for clinical practice since it can be created regardless of the current level of evidence. Through live audience engagement platforms, a group of experts will be able to both anonymously respond to a created questionnaire, and (subsequently) discuss the results within the same meeting. This modified Digital Delphi method as described here can be used as a tool toward consensus-based healthcare.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Taco Goedemans
- Department of Neurosurgery, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Janneke D M Verberk
- Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Pepijn van den Munckhof
- Department of Neurosurgery, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Dennis R Buis
- Department of Neurosurgery, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - W Peter Vandertop
- Department of Neurosurgery, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Antonius M de Korte
- Department of Neurosurgery, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
The use of cognitive task analysis in clinical and health services research — a systematic review. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2022; 8:57. [PMID: 35260195 PMCID: PMC8903544 DOI: 10.1186/s40814-022-01002-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/22/2021] [Accepted: 02/09/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Background At times, clinical case complexity and different types of uncertainty present challenges to less experienced clinicians or the naive application of clinical guidelines where this may not be appropriate. Cognitive task analysis (CTA) methods are used to elicit, document and transfer tacit knowledge about how experts make decisions. Methods We conducted a methodological review to describe the use of CTA methods in understanding expert clinical decision-making. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from inception to 2019 for primary research studies which described the use of CTA methods to understand how qualified clinicians made clinical decisions in real-world clinical settings. Results We included 81 articles (80 unique studies) from 13 countries, published from 1993 to 2019, most commonly from surgical and critical care settings. The most common aims were to understand expert decision-making in particular clinical scenarios, using expert decision-making in the development of training programmes, understanding whether decision support tools were warranted and understanding procedural variability and error identification or reduction. Critical decision method (CDM) and CTA interviews were most frequently used, with hierarchical task analysis, task knowledge structures, think-aloud protocols and other methods less commonly used. Studies used interviews, observation, think-aloud exercises, surveys, focus groups and a range of more CTA-specific methodologies such as the systematic human error reduction and prediction approach. Researchers used CTA methods to investigate routine/typical (n = 64), challenging (n = 13) or more uncommon, rare events and anomalies (n = 3). Conclusions In conclusion, the elicitation of expert tacit knowledge using CTA has seen increasing use in clinical specialties working under challenging time pressures, complexity and uncertainty. CTA methods have great potential in the development, refinement, modification or adaptation of complex interventions, clinical protocols and practice guidelines. Registration PROSPERO ID CRD42019128418. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40814-022-01002-6.
Collapse
|
24
|
Harris A, Butterworth J, Boshier PR, MacKenzie H, Tokunaga M, Sunagawa H, Mavroveli S, Ni M, Mikhail S, Yeh CC, Blencowe NS, Avery KNL, Hardwick R, Hoelscher A, Pera M, Zaninotto G, Law S, Low DE, van Lanschot JJB, Berrisford R, Barham CP, Blazeby JM, Hanna GB. Development of a Reliable Surgical Quality Assurance System for 2-stage Esophagectomy in Randomized Controlled Trials. Ann Surg 2022; 275:121-130. [PMID: 32224728 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0000000000003850] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The aim was to develop a reliable surgical quality assurance system for 2-stage esophagectomy. This development was conducted during the pilot phase of the multicenter ROMIO trial, collaborating with international experts. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA There is evidence that the quality of surgical performance in randomized controlled trials influences clinical outcomes, quality of lymphadenectomy and loco-regional recurrence. METHODS Standardization of 2-stage esophagectomy was based on structured observations, semi-structured interviews, hierarchical task analysis, and a Delphi consensus process. This standardization provided the structure for the operation manual and video and photographic assessment tools. Reliability was examined using generalizability theory. RESULTS Hierarchical task analysis for 2-stage esophagectomy comprised fifty-four steps. Consensus (75%) agreement was reached on thirty-nine steps, whereas fifteen steps had a majority decision. An operation manual and record were created. A thirty five-item video assessment tool was developed that assessed the process (safety and efficiency) and quality of the end product (anatomy exposed and lymphadenectomy performed) of the operation. The quality of the end product section was used as a twenty seven-item photographic assessment tool. Thirty-one videos and fifty-three photographic series were submitted from the ROMIO pilot phase for assessment. The overall G-coefficient for the video assessment tool was 0.744, and for the photographic assessment tool was 0.700. CONCLUSIONS A reliable surgical quality assurance system for 2-stage esophagectomy has been developed for surgical oncology randomized controlled trials. ETHICAL APPROVAL 11/NW/0895 and confirmed locally as appropriate, 12/SW/0161, 16/SW/0098.Trial registration number: ISRCTN59036820, ISRCTN10386621.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander Harris
- Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, United Kingdom
| | - James Butterworth
- Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, United Kingdom
| | - Piers R Boshier
- Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, United Kingdom
| | - Hugh MacKenzie
- Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, United Kingdom
| | - Masanori Tokunaga
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Japan
| | - Hideki Sunagawa
- Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, New Tokyo Hospital, Japan
| | - Stella Mavroveli
- Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, United Kingdom
| | - Melody Ni
- Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, United Kingdom
| | - Sameh Mikhail
- Department of General Surgery, Faculty of Medicine University of Cairo, Egypt
| | - Chi-Chuan Yeh
- Department of Surgery, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taiwan
| | - Natalie S Blencowe
- Division of Surgery, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University of Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Kerry N L Avery
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University of Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Richard Hardwick
- Upper gastrointestinal Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
| | - Arnulf Hoelscher
- Center for Esophageal and Gastric Surgery, Agaplesion Markus Hospital, Germany
| | - Manuel Pera
- Department of Surgery, Hospital del Mar, Spain
| | | | - Simon Law
- Department of Esophageal and Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, The University of Hong Kong Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong
| | - Donald E Low
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA
| | | | - Richard Berrisford
- Department of Surgery, University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, United Kingdom
| | | | - Jane M Blazeby
- Division of Surgery, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University of Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - George B Hanna
- Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Elliott D, Blencowe NS, Cousins S, Zahra J, Skilton A, Mathews J, Paramasivan S, Hoffmann C, McNair AG, Ochieng C, Richards H, Hossaini S, Scroggie DL, Main B, Potter S, Avery K, Donovan J, Blazeby JM. Using qualitative research methods to understand how surgical procedures and devices are introduced into NHS hospitals: the Lotus study protocol. BMJ Open 2021; 11:e049234. [PMID: 34862280 PMCID: PMC8647399 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049234] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2021] [Accepted: 10/05/2021] [Indexed: 01/08/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The development of innovative invasive procedures and devices are essential to improving outcomes in healthcare. However, how these are introduced into practice has not been studied in detail. The Lotus study will follow a wide range of 'case studies' of new procedures and/or devices being introduced into NHS trusts to explore what information is communicated to patients, how procedures are modified over time and how outcomes are selected and reported. METHODS AND ANALYSIS This qualitative study will use ethnographic approaches to investigate how new invasive procedures and/or devices are introduced. Consultations in which the innovation is discussed will be audio-recorded to understand information provision practice. To understand if and how procedures evolve, they will be video recorded and non-participant observations will be conducted. Post-operative interviews will be conducted with the innovating team and patients who are eligible for the intervention. Audio-recordings will be audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using constant comparison techniques. Video-recordings will be reviewed to deconstruct procedures into key components and document how the procedure evolves. Comparisons will be made between the different data sources. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION The study protocol has Health Research Authority (HRA) and Health and Care Research Wales approval (Ref 18/SW/0277). Results will be disseminated at appropriate conferences and will be published in peer-reviewed journals. The findings of this study will provide a better understanding of how innovative invasive procedures and/or devices are introduced into practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daisy Elliott
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Surgical Innovation Theme, Centre for Surgical Research, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Natalie S Blencowe
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Surgical Innovation Theme, Centre for Surgical Research, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Sian Cousins
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Surgical Innovation Theme, Centre for Surgical Research, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Jesmond Zahra
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Surgical Innovation Theme, Centre for Surgical Research, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Anni Skilton
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Surgical Innovation Theme, Centre for Surgical Research, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | | | - Sangeetha Paramasivan
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Surgical Innovation Theme, Centre for Surgical Research, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Christin Hoffmann
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Surgical Innovation Theme, Centre for Surgical Research, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Angus Gk McNair
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Surgical Innovation Theme, Centre for Surgical Research, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Cynthia Ochieng
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Surgical Innovation Theme, Centre for Surgical Research, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Hollie Richards
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Surgical Innovation Theme, Centre for Surgical Research, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Sina Hossaini
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Surgical Innovation Theme, Centre for Surgical Research, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Darren L Scroggie
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Surgical Innovation Theme, Centre for Surgical Research, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Barry Main
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Surgical Innovation Theme, Centre for Surgical Research, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Shelley Potter
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Surgical Innovation Theme, Centre for Surgical Research, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Kerry Avery
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Surgical Innovation Theme, Centre for Surgical Research, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Jenny Donovan
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Jane M Blazeby
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Surgical Innovation Theme, Centre for Surgical Research, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Roqué M, Urrútia G, von Elm E. La revisión sistemática y el metaanálisis en cirugía. Cir Esp 2021. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ciresp.2021.11.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
|
27
|
Roberts K, Mills N, Metcalfe C, Lane A, Clement C, Hollingworth W, Taylor J, Holcombe C, Skillman J, Fairhurst K, Whisker L, Cutress R, Thrush S, Fairbrother P, Potter S. Best-BRA (Is subpectoral or prepectoral implant placement best in immediate breast reconstruction?): a protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial of subpectoral versus prepectoral immediate implant-based breast reconstruction in women following mastectomy. BMJ Open 2021; 11:e050886. [PMID: 34848516 PMCID: PMC8634330 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050886] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most commonly performed reconstructive procedure following mastectomy. IBBR techniques are evolving rapidly, with mesh-assisted subpectoral reconstruction becoming the standard of care and more recently, prepectoral techniques being introduced. These muscle-sparing techniques may reduce postoperative pain, avoid implant animation and improve cosmetic outcomes and have been widely adopted into practice. Although small observational studies have failed to demonstrate any differences in the clinical or patient-reported outcomes of prepectoral or subpectoral reconstruction, high-quality comparative evidence of clinical or cost-effectiveness is lacking. A well-designed, adequately powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) is needed to compare the techniques, but breast reconstruction RCTs are challenging. We, therefore, aim to undertake an external pilot RCT (Best-BRA) with an embedded QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to determine the feasibility of undertaking a trial comparing prepectoral and subpectoral techniques. METHODS AND ANALYSIS Best-BRA is a pragmatic, two-arm, external pilot RCT with an embedded QRI and economic scoping for resource use. Women who require a mastectomy for either breast cancer or risk reduction, elect to have an IBBR and are considered suitable for both prepectoral and subpectoral reconstruction will be recruited and randomised 1:1 between the techniques.The QRI will be implemented in two phases: phase 1, in which sources of recruitment difficulties are rapidly investigated to inform the delivery in phase 2 of tailored interventions to optimise recruitment of patients.Primary outcomes will be (1) recruitment of patients, (2) adherence to trial allocation and (3) outcome completion rates. Outcomes will be reviewed at 12 months to determine the feasibility of a definitive trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION The study has been approved by the National Health Service (NHS) Wales REC 6 (20/WA/0338). Findings will be presented at conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ISRCTN10081873.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kirsty Roberts
- Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK
| | - Nicola Mills
- Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK
| | - Chris Metcalfe
- Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK
| | - Athene Lane
- Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK
| | - Clare Clement
- Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK
| | | | - Jodi Taylor
- Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK
| | - Chris Holcombe
- Linda McCartney Centre, Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | - Joanna Skillman
- Department of Plastic Surgery, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, UK
| | - Katherine Fairhurst
- Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK
| | - Lisa Whisker
- Nottingham Breast Institute, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | - Ramsey Cutress
- Cancer Sciences Academic Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Steven Thrush
- Breast Unit, Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, Worcester, Worcestershire, UK
| | | | - Shelley Potter
- Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK
- Bristol Breast Care Centre, North Bristol NHS Trust, Westbury on Trym, UK
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Renz BW, Adrion C, Klinger C, Ilmer M, D'Haese JG, Buhr HJ, Mansmann U, Werner J. Pylorus resection versus pylorus preservation in pancreatoduodenectomy (PyloResPres): study protocol and statistical analysis plan for a German multicentre, single-blind, surgical, registry-based randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2021; 11:e056191. [PMID: 34845079 PMCID: PMC8733944 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056191] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Partial pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is the treatment of choice for various benign and malignant tumours of the pancreatic head or the periampullary region. For reconstruction of the gastrointestinal passage, two stomach-preserving PD variants exist: pylorus preservation PD (ppPD) or pylorus resection PD (prPD) with preservation of the stomach. In pancreatic surgery, delayed gastric emptying (DGE) remains a serious complication after PD with an incidence varying between 4.5% and 45%, potentially delaying hospital discharge or further treatment, for example, adjuvant chemotherapy. Evidence is lacking to assess, which variant of PD entails fewer postoperative DGE. METHODS AND ANALYSIS The protocol of a large-scale, multicentre, pragmatic, two-arm parallel-group, registry-based randomised controlled trial (rRCT) using a two-stage group-sequential design is presented. This patient-blind rRCT aims to demonstrate the superiority of prPD over ppPD with respect to the overall incidence of DGE within 30 days after index surgery in a German real-world setting. A total of 984 adults undergoing elective PD for any indication will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio. Patients will be recruited at about 30 hospitals being members of the StuDoQ|Pancreas registry established by the German Society of General and Visceral Surgery. The postoperative follow-up for each patient will be 30 days. The primary analysis will follow an intention-to-treat approach and applies a binary logistic random intercepts model. Secondary perioperative outcomes include overall severe morbidity (Clavien-Dindo classification), blood loss, 30-day all-cause mortality, postoperative hospital stay and operation time. Complication rates and adverse events will be closely monitored. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION This protocol was approved by the leading ethics committee of the Medical Faculty of the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich (reference number 19-221). The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at international conferences. Study findings will also be disseminated via the website (http://www.dgav.de/studoq/pylorespres/). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER DRKS-ID: DRKS00018842.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bernhard W Renz
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU), Munich, Germany
| | - Christine Adrion
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology (IBE), Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU), Munich, Germany
| | - Carsten Klinger
- German Society for General and Visceral Surgery (DGAV), Berlin, Germany
| | - Matthias Ilmer
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU), Munich, Germany
| | - Jan G D'Haese
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU), Munich, Germany
| | - Heinz-J Buhr
- German Society for General and Visceral Surgery (DGAV), Berlin, Germany
| | - Ulrich Mansmann
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology (IBE), Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU), Munich, Germany
| | | |
Collapse
|
29
|
Welford P, Blencowe NS, Pardington E, Jones CS, Blazeby JM, Main BG. Systematic review of the introduction, early phase study and evaluation of pyrocarbon proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty. PLoS One 2021; 16:e0257497. [PMID: 34665802 PMCID: PMC8525747 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257497] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/06/2021] [Accepted: 09/02/2021] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In 2002 a pyrocarbon interphalangeal joint implant was granted Food and Drug Administration approval with limited evidence of effectiveness. It is important to understand device use and outcomes since this implant entered clinical practice in order to establish incremental evidence, appropriate study design and reporting. This systematic review summarised and appraised studies reporting pyrocarbon proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty. METHODS Systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, BIOSIS, CINAHL and CENTRAL from inception to November 2020. All study designs reporting pyrocarbon proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty in humans were included. Data extracted included information about study characteristics, patient selection, regulatory (gaining research ethics approval) and governance issues (reporting of conflicting interests), operator and centre experience, technique description and outcome reporting. Descriptive and narrative summaries were reported. RESULTS From 4316 abstracts, 210 full-text articles were screened. A total of 38 studies and 1434 (1-184) patients were included. These consisted of three case reports, 24 case series, 10 retrospective cohort studies and one randomised trial. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were stated in 25 (66%) studies. Most studies (n = 27, 71%) gained research ethics approval to be conducted. Six studies reported conflicting interests. Experience of operating surgeons was reported in nine (24%) and caseload volume in five studies. There was no consensus about the optimal surgical approach. Technical aspects of implant placement were reported frequently (n = 32) but the detail provided varied widely. Studies reported multiple, heterogenous outcomes. The most commonly reported outcome was range of motion (n = 37). CONCLUSIONS This systematic review identified inconsistencies in how studies describing the early use and update of an innovative procedure were reported. Incremental evidence was lacking, risking the implant being adopted without robust evaluation. This review adds to evidence highlighting the need for more rigorous evaluation of how implantable medical devices are used in practice following licencing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul Welford
- North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, United Kingdom
- Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Natalie S. Blencowe
- Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, United Kingdom
- National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, United Kingdom
- University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Emily Pardington
- Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Conor S. Jones
- North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, United Kingdom
- Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Jane M. Blazeby
- Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, United Kingdom
- National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, United Kingdom
- University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Barry G. Main
- Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, United Kingdom
- National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, United Kingdom
- University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson SA, Craig P, Baird J, Blazeby JM, Boyd KA, Craig N, French DP, McIntosh E, Petticrew M, Rycroft-Malone J, White M, Moore L. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2021; 374:n2061. [PMID: 34593508 PMCID: PMC8482308 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n2061] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1568] [Impact Index Per Article: 522.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/09/2021] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Kathryn Skivington
- MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Lynsay Matthews
- MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Sharon Anne Simpson
- MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Peter Craig
- MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Janis Baird
- Medical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Jane M Blazeby
- Medical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research and Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol, UK
| | - Kathleen Anne Boyd
- Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment Unit, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | | | - David P French
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Emma McIntosh
- Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment Unit, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Mark Petticrew
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | | | - Martin White
- Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Laurence Moore
- MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Beard DJ, Campbell MK, Blazeby JM, Carr AJ, Weijer C, Cuthbertson BH, Buchbinder R, Pinkney T, Bishop FL, Pugh J, Cousins S, Harris I, Lohmander LS, Blencowe N, Gillies K, Probst P, Brennan C, Cook A, Farrar-Hockley D, Savulescu J, Huxtable R, Rangan A, Tracey I, Brocklehurst P, Ferreira ML, Nicholl J, Reeves BC, Hamdy F, Rowley SC, Lee N, Cook JA. Placebo comparator group selection and use in surgical trials: the ASPIRE project including expert workshop. Health Technol Assess 2021; 25:1-52. [PMID: 34505829 PMCID: PMC8450778 DOI: 10.3310/hta25530] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/09/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The use of placebo comparisons for randomised trials assessing the efficacy of surgical interventions is increasingly being considered. However, a placebo control is a complex type of comparison group in the surgical setting and, although powerful, presents many challenges. OBJECTIVES To provide a summary of knowledge on placebo controls in surgical trials and to summarise any recommendations for designers, evaluators and funders of placebo-controlled surgical trials. DESIGN To carry out a state-of-the-art workshop and produce a corresponding report involving key stakeholders throughout. SETTING A workshop to discuss and summarise the existing knowledge and to develop the new guidelines. RESULTS To assess what a placebo control entails and to assess the understanding of this tool in the context of surgery is considered, along with when placebo controls in surgery are acceptable (and when they are desirable). We have considered ethics arguments and regulatory requirements, how a placebo control should be designed, how to identify and mitigate risk for participants in these trials, and how such trials should be carried out and interpreted. The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Surgical placebos might be most appropriate when there is poor evidence for the efficacy of the procedure and a justified concern that results of a trial would be associated with a high risk of bias, particularly because of the placebo effect. CONCLUSIONS The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Feasibility work is recommended to optimise the design and implementation of randomised controlled trials. An outline for best practice was produced in the form of the Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations (ASPIRE) guidelines for those considering the use of a placebo control in a surgical randomised controlled trial. LIMITATIONS Although the workshop participants involved international members, the majority of participants were from the UK. Therefore, although every attempt was made to make the recommendations applicable to all health systems, the guidelines may, unconsciously, be particularly applicable to clinical practice in the UK NHS. FUTURE WORK Future work should evaluate the use of the ASPIRE guidelines in making decisions about the use of a placebo-controlled surgical trial. In addition, further work is required on the appropriate nomenclature to adopt in this space. FUNDING Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health Research as part of the Medical Research Council-National Institute for Health Research Methodology Research programme.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David J Beard
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | - Jane M Blazeby
- Centre for Surgical Research, NIHR Bristol and Weston Biomedical Research Centre, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Andrew J Carr
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Charles Weijer
- Departments of Medicine, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Philosophy, Western University, London, ON, Canada
| | - Brian H Cuthbertson
- Department of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Rachelle Buchbinder
- Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Thomas Pinkney
- Academic Department of Surgery, University of Birmingham, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Felicity L Bishop
- Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Jonathan Pugh
- The Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Sian Cousins
- Centre for Surgical Research, NIHR Bristol and Weston Biomedical Research Centre, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Ian Harris
- Faculty of Medicine, South Western Sydney Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - L Stefan Lohmander
- Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Orthopedics, Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - Natalie Blencowe
- Centre for Surgical Research, NIHR Bristol and Weston Biomedical Research Centre, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Katie Gillies
- Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Pascal Probst
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | | | - Andrew Cook
- Wessex Institute, University of Southampton, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | | | - Julian Savulescu
- The Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Richard Huxtable
- Centre for Surgical Research, NIHR Bristol and Weston Biomedical Research Centre, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Amar Rangan
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK
| | - Irene Tracey
- Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | - Peter Brocklehurst
- Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Manuela L Ferreira
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, Institute of Bone and Joint Research, Northern Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Jon Nicholl
- School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Barnaby C Reeves
- Clinical Trials Evaluation Unit Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol, UK
| | - Freddie Hamdy
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | | | - Naomi Lee
- Editorial Department, The Lancet, London, UK
| | - Jonathan A Cook
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Kalkum E, Klotz R, Seide S, Hüttner FJ, Kowalewski KF, Nickel F, Khajeh E, Knebel P, Diener MK, Probst P. Systematic reviews in surgery-recommendations from the Study Center of the German Society of Surgery. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2021; 406:1723-1731. [PMID: 34129108 PMCID: PMC8481197 DOI: 10.1007/s00423-021-02204-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 52] [Impact Index Per Article: 17.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/07/2021] [Accepted: 05/16/2021] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Systematic reviews are an important tool of evidence-based surgery. Surgical systematic reviews and trials, however, require a special methodological approach. PURPOSE This article provides recommendations for conducting state-of-the-art systematic reviews in surgery with or without meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS For systematic reviews in surgery, MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) should be searched. Critical appraisal is at the core of every surgical systematic review, with information on blinding, industry involvement, surgical experience, and standardisation of surgical technique holding special importance. Due to clinical heterogeneity among surgical trials, the random-effects model should be used as a default. In the experience of the Study Center of the German Society of Surgery, adherence to these recommendations yields high-quality surgical systematic reviews.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eva Kalkum
- Study Center of the German Society of Surgery (SDGC), University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Rosa Klotz
- Study Center of the German Society of Surgery (SDGC), University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 420, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Svenja Seide
- Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Felix J. Hüttner
- Department of General and Visceral Surgery, University Hospital Ulm, Albert-Einstein-Allee 23, 89081 Ulm, Germany
| | - Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski
- Department of Urology and Urological Surgery, University Medical Center Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167 Mannheim, Germany
| | - Felix Nickel
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 420, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Elias Khajeh
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 420, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Phillip Knebel
- Study Center of the German Society of Surgery (SDGC), University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 420, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Markus K. Diener
- Study Center of the German Society of Surgery (SDGC), University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Pascal Probst
- Study Center of the German Society of Surgery (SDGC), University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 420, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Currie AC, Penney N, Kamocka A, Singh P, Abbassi-Ghadi N, Preston SR. Systematic review on reporting of components and outcomes in randomized clinical trials of paraoesophageal hernia mesh repair. Br J Surg 2021; 108:256-264. [PMID: 33793727 DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znaa107] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/15/2020] [Revised: 10/20/2020] [Accepted: 11/03/2020] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Surgical interventions, such as paraoesophageal hernia (POH) repair, are complex with multiple components that require consideration in the reporting of clinical trials. Many aspects of POH repair, including mesh hiatal reinforcement and fundoplication type, are contentious. This review summarizes the reporting of components and outcomes in RCTs of POH repair. METHODS Systematic searches identified RCTs of POH repair published from 1995 to 2020. The patient selection criteria for RCT involvement were noted. The components of the surgical interventions in these RCTs were recorded using the CONSORT guidelines for non-pharmacological treatments, Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) and Blencowe frameworks. The outcomes were summarized and definitions sought for critical variables, including recurrence. RESULTS Of 1918 abstracts and 21 screened full-text articles, 12 full papers reporting on six RCTs were included in the review. The patient selection criteria and definitions of POH between trials varied considerably. Although some description of trial interventions was provided in all RCTs, this varied in depth and detail. Four RCTs described efforts to standardize the trial intervention. Outcomes were reported inconsistently, were rarely defined fully, and overall trial conclusions varied during follow-up. CONCLUSION This lack of detail on the surgical intervention in POH repair RCTs prevents full understanding of what exact procedure was evaluated and how it should be delivered in clinical practice to gain the desired treatment effects. Improved focus on the definitions, descriptions and reporting of surgical interventions in POH repair is required for better future RCTs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A C Currie
- Regional Oesophagogastric Unit, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK
| | - N Penney
- Regional Oesophagogastric Unit, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK
| | - A Kamocka
- Regional Oesophagogastric Unit, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK
| | - P Singh
- Regional Oesophagogastric Unit, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK
| | - N Abbassi-Ghadi
- Regional Oesophagogastric Unit, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK
| | - S R Preston
- Regional Oesophagogastric Unit, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Armstrong RA, Mouton R, Hinchliffe RJ. Routinely collected data and patient-centred research in anaesthesia and peri-operative care: a narrative review. Anaesthesia 2021; 76:1122-1128. [PMID: 33201514 PMCID: PMC8359324 DOI: 10.1111/anae.15303] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 10/12/2020] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
Randomised controlled trials are the gold standard in clinical research, but remain rare due to their expense and a perceived lack of 'real-world' applicability. At the same time, there has been an exponential increase in routinely collected data which presents opportunities for audit, quality improvement, adverse event reporting and more efficient clinical research. Registry-based research benefits from reduced cost, large sample size and real-world applicability, with methodological developments, particularly registry-based randomised controlled trials and causal inference techniques, showing promise. Limitations include data quality and validity, the need for data linkage, the restrictions of fixed data fields, regulatory barriers, and privacy and security concerns. However, the principal factor hampering current efforts is a lack of anaesthesia-specific datasets in the UK and the fact that most surgical registries do not collect any anaesthetic data. This presents an opportunity for anaesthetists, through enhanced engagement and collaboration, to influence and improve the design of these datasets and increase the value and volume of data collected. Better datasets, coupled with a growing appreciation of new analysis methodologies, would allow significant progress towards realising the potential of routinely collected data for patient benefit. At the same time, work should begin on the development of a minimum dataset for anaesthesia to underpin new data sharing networks and, ideally, a national registry of anaesthesia.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - R. Mouton
- Department of AnaesthesiaNorth Bristol NHS TrustBristolUK
| | - R. J. Hinchliffe
- Bristol Centre for Surgical ResearchUniversity of BristolBristolUK
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Hotton EJ, Renwick S, Lenguerrand E, Wade J, Draycott TJ, Crofts JF, Blencowe NS. Exploring the reporting standards of RCTs involving invasive procedures for assisted vaginal birth: A systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2021; 262:166-173. [PMID: 34023718 PMCID: PMC8250286 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.05.026] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/30/2020] [Revised: 04/29/2021] [Accepted: 05/11/2021] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Assisted vaginal birth (AVB) is a complex intervention involving medical devices, comprising multiple components. This complexity creates difficulties when designing and conducting randomised controlled trials (RCTs), in terms of describing, standardising and monitoring the intervention, and accounting for differing clinician expertise. This review examines the reporting standards of complex interventions involving a medical device, in the context of AVB RCTs. STUDY DESIGN Searches were undertaken from the start of indexing to March 2021, and limited to RCTs, feasibility and pilot studies including at least one device for AVB. RCTs were selected if they included participants having an AVB with any device, with or without a comparator group. Reporting details were assessed according to the Consolidating Standards of Reporting Trials extension for non-pharmacological treatments (CONSORT-NPT), focusing on intervention descriptions, standardization, adherence and clinician expertise. Screening of abstracts, full-text articles and data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers. RESULTS Of 4098 abstracts and 83 full-text articles, 39 papers were included, investigating 80 interventions. Twenty-seven different named devices were identified. Intervention descriptions were provided in 20 (55%) papers with varying levels of detail and with only one covering the entire procedure. Standardization of interventions was mentioned in 25 papers (64%). Only eight (21%) papers reported any form of adherence to the intended procedure. Some data regarding expertise were reported in 25 (64%) papers. CONCLUSIONS Despite some compliance with reporting standards, there is a lack of detail regarding intervention description, standardization, adherence and expertise in RCTs of AVB. This creates difficulties in understanding how intervention delivery was intended and what actually occurred. Clearer guidelines for the reporting of invasive procedures and devices are required.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emily J Hotton
- Translational Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; Southmead Hospital, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.
| | - Sophie Renwick
- Southmead Hospital, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Erik Lenguerrand
- Translational Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; Southmead Hospital, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Julia Wade
- Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Tim J Draycott
- Southmead Hospital, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
| | | | - Natalie S Blencowe
- Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Elliott L, Coulman K, Blencowe NS, Qureshi MI, Lee KS, Hinchliffe RJ, Mouton R. A systematic review of reporting quality for anaesthetic interventions in randomised controlled trials. Anaesthesia 2021; 76:832-836. [PMID: 33150618 PMCID: PMC8246731 DOI: 10.1111/anae.15294] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 09/21/2020] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
Interventions from randomised controlled trials can only be replicated if they are reported in sufficient detail. The results of trials can only be confidently interpreted if the delivery of the intervention was systematic and the protocol adhered to. We systematically reviewed trials of anaesthetic interventions published in 12 journals from January 2016 to September 2019. We assessed the detail with which interventions were reported, using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement for non-pharmacological treatments. We analysed 162 interventions reported by 78 trials in 18,675 participants. Detail sufficiently precise to replicate the intervention was reported for 111 (69%) interventions. Intervention standardisation was reported for 135 (83%) out of the 162 interventions, and protocol adherence was reported for 20 (12%) interventions. Sixty (77%) out of the 78 trials reported the administrative context in which interventions were delivered and 36 (46%) trials detailed the expertise of the practitioners. We conclude that bespoke reporting tools should be developed for anaesthetic interventions and interventions in other areas such as critical care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L. Elliott
- Department of AnaesthesiaBristol Centre for Surgical ResearchBristolUK
| | - K. Coulman
- Department of Vascular SurgeryBristol Centre for Surgical ResearchBristolUK
| | - N. S. Blencowe
- Department of Vascular SurgeryBristol Centre for Surgical ResearchBristolUK
| | - M. I. Qureshi
- Department of Vascular SurgeryBristol Centre for Surgical ResearchBristolUK
| | - K. S. Lee
- Bristol Centre for Surgical ResearchBristolUK
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
37
|
Pathak S, Main BG, Blencowe NS, Rees JRE, Robertson HF, Abbadi RAG, Blazeby JM. A Systematic Review of Minimally Invasive Trans-thoracic Liver Resection to Examine Intervention Description, Governance, and Outcome Reporting of an Innovative Technique. Ann Surg 2021; 273:882-889. [PMID: 32511126 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0000000000003748] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The number of laparoscopic liver resections undertaken has increased. However, lesions located postero-superiorly are difficult to access. This may be overcome by the novel use of trans-thoracic port(s). Methods for the safe and transparent introduction of new and modified surgical procedures are limited and a summary of these issues, for minimally invasive trans-thoracic liver resections (MITTLR), is lacking. This study aims to understand and summarize technique description, governance procedures, and reporting of outcomes for MITTLR. METHODS A systematic literature search to identify primary studies of all designs describing MITTLR was undertaken. How patients were selected for the new technique was examined. The technical components of MITTLR were identified and summarized to understand technique development over time. Governance arrangements (eg, Institutional Review Board approval) and steps taken to mitigate harm were recorded. Finally, specific outcomes reported across studies were documented. RESULTS Of 2067 screened articles, 16 were included reporting data from 145 patients and 6 countries. Selection criteria for patients was explicitly stated in 2 papers. No studies fully described the technique. Five papers reported ethical approval and 3 gave details of patient consent. No study reported on steps taken to mitigate harm.Technical outcomes were commonly reported, for example, blood loss (15/16 studies), operative time (15/16), and margin status (11/16). Information on patient-reported outcomes and costs were lacking. CONCLUSIONS Technical details and governance procedures were poorly described. Outcomes focussed on short term details alone. Transparency is needed for reporting the introduction of new surgical techniques to allow their safe dissemination.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Samir Pathak
- Bristol Center for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK
- NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Center, Bristol, UK
- University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Barry G Main
- Bristol Center for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK
- NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Center, Bristol, UK
- University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Natalie S Blencowe
- Bristol Center for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK
- NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Center, Bristol, UK
- University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Jonathan R E Rees
- Bristol Center for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK
- University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Harry F Robertson
- Bristol Center for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK
| | | | - Jane M Blazeby
- Bristol Center for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK
- NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Center, Bristol, UK
- University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Touijer KA, Sjoberg DD, Benfante N, Laudone VP, Ehdaie B, Eastham JA, Scardino PT, Vickers A. Limited versus Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Prostate Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Eur Urol Oncol 2021; 4:532-539. [PMID: 33865797 DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2021.03.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 73] [Impact Index Per Article: 24.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/26/2020] [Revised: 03/08/2021] [Accepted: 03/19/2021] [Indexed: 01/23/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is the most reliable procedure for lymph node staging. However, the therapeutic benefit remains unproven; although most radical prostatectomies at academic centers are accompanied by PLND, there is no consensus regarding the optimal anatomical extent of PLND. OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether extended PLND results in a lower biochemical recurrence rate. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS We conducted a single-center randomized trial. Patients, enrolled between October 2011 and March 2017, were scheduled to undergo radical prostatectomy and PLND. Patients were assigned to limited or extended PLND by cluster randomization. Specifically, surgeons were randomized to perform limited or extended PLND for 3-mo periods. INTERVENTION Randomization to limited (external iliac nodes) or extended (external iliac, obturator fossa and hypogastric nodes) PLND. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The primary endpoint was the rate of biochemical recurrence. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Of 1440 patients included in the final analysis, 700 were randomized to limited PLND and 740 to extended PLND. The median number of nodes retrieved was 12 (interquartile range [IQR] 8-17) for limited PLND and 14 (IQR 10-20) extended PLND; the corresponding rate of positive nodes was 12% and 14% (difference -1.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -5.4% to 1.5%; p = 0.3). With median follow-up of 3.1 yr, there was no significant difference in the rate of biochemical recurrence between the groups (hazard ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.93-1.15; p = 0.5). Rates for grade 2 and 3 complications were similar at 7.3% for limited versus 6.4% for extended PLND; there were no grade 4 or 5 complications. CONCLUSIONS Extended PLND did not improve freedom from biochemical recurrence over limited PLND for men with clinically localized prostate cancer. However, there were smaller than expected differences in nodal count and the rate of positive nodes between the two templates. A randomized trial comparing PLND to no node dissection is warranted. PATIENT SUMMARY In this clinical trial we did not find a difference in the rate of biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer between limited and extended dissection of lymph nodes in the pelvis. This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT01407263.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karim A Touijer
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
| | - Daniel D Sjoberg
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Nicole Benfante
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Vincent P Laudone
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - James A Eastham
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Peter T Scardino
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Andrew Vickers
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Tyrell S, Coates E, Brown SR, Lee MJ. A systematic review of the quality of reporting of interventions in the surgical treatment of Crohn's anal fistula: an assessment using the TIDiER and Blencowe frameworks. Tech Coloproctol 2021; 25:359-369. [PMID: 33599902 PMCID: PMC8016786 DOI: 10.1007/s10151-020-02359-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/12/2020] [Accepted: 10/10/2020] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Crohn's anal fistula is a challenging condition, and may require multiple surgical procedures. To replicate successful procedures, these must be adequately reported in the literature. The aim of this study was to review the quality of reporting of components of surgical interventions for Crohn's anal fistula. METHODS A systematic review was conducted. It was registered with PROSPERO (CRD:42019135157). The Medline and EMBASE databases were searched for studies reporting interventions intended to close fistula in patients with Crohn's disease, published between 1999 and August 2019. Abstracts and full texts were screened for inclusion by two reviewers. Dual extraction of data was performed to compare reporting to the TIDiER and Blencowe frameworks for reporting of interventions. RESULTS Initial searches identified 207 unique studies; 38 full texts were screened for inclusion and 33 were included. The most common study design was retrospective cohort (17/33), and the most frequently reported interventions were anal fistula plug (n = 8) and fibrin glue (n = 6). No studies showed coverage of all domains of TIDieR. Reporting was poor among domains related to who provided an intervention, where it was provided, and how it was tailored. Reporting of domains in the Blencowe framework was poor; the majority of studies did not report the component steps of procedures or efforts to standardise them. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrates that reporting on technical aspects of interventions for Crohn's anal fistula is poor. Surgeons should aim to improve reporting to allow accurate reproduction of techniques both in clinical practice and in clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Tyrell
- School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - E Coates
- School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Steven R Brown
- Academic Directorate of General Surgery, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK
| | - M J Lee
- Academic Directorate of General Surgery, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.
- Department of Oncology and Metabolism, The Medical School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Vassar M, Page MJ, Glasbey J, Cooper C, Jorski A, Sosio J, Wayant C. Evaluation of the completeness of intervention reporting in Cochrane surgical systematic reviews using the TIDieR-SR checklist: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Evid Based Med 2021; 26:51-52. [PMID: 32576569 DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111417] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/22/2020] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Complete reporting of systematic reviews of interventions is essential to the interpretation of research findings and the reproducibility of research results. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist-and the version specific to systematic reviews (TIDieR-SR)-was created to provide authors and researchers an evidence-based guide for reporting trial and systematic review interventions. In this study, we apply TIDieR-SR to Cochrane systematic reviews of surgical interventions. METHODS We searched the Cochrane Database for relevant systematic reviews. Two investigators applied inclusion/exclusion criteria to all titles/abstracts and full texts. These same investigators extracted all data in duplicate while masked to the other's data. The primary outcome was adherence to TIDieR-SR items. RESULTS Two hundred and thirty-eight systematic reviews were included. Overall, included SRs adhered to a median of 6 (IQR 5-7) out of eight TIDieR-SR items. The item with the lowest adherence was item 7 (share intervention materials, 1/238 (0.4%). DISCUSSION Our results are encouraging, but the generalisability of our findings is compromised by the inclusion of only Cochrane systematic reviews. Future reporting of intervention materials is likely to improve the application of effective surgical interventions in the clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matt Vassar
- Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA
| | - Matthew J Page
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
| | - James Glasbey
- Academic Department of Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Craig Cooper
- Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA
| | - Austin Jorski
- Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA
| | - Jessica Sosio
- Medical Student Research, Kansas City University of Medicine and Biosciences, Kansas City, Missouri, USA
| | - Cole Wayant
- Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Currie AC, Glaysher MA, Blencowe NS, Kelly J. Systematic Review of Innovation Reporting in Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty. Obes Surg 2021; 31:2962-2978. [PMID: 33774775 DOI: 10.1007/s11695-021-05355-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/30/2020] [Revised: 03/03/2021] [Accepted: 03/16/2021] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is a novel endoscopic procedure used to treat obesity-related comorbidities. Whilst its use is increasing in clinical practice, there is comparatively little understanding about how it has been evaluated. This study aimed to systematically summarize and appraise the reporting of ESG in the context of guidelines for evaluating innovative surgical devices and procedures. METHODS Systematic searches were used to identify all published studies reporting ESG insertion. Data collected included patient selection, governance arrangements, proceduralist expertise, technique description and outcome reporting. RESULTS Searches identified 2289 abstracts; 37 full-text papers were included (one prospective comparative cohort study, 16 retrospective cohort studies, 17 prospective cohort studies and three case reports). No randomized trials were identified. Eighteen studies were conducted prospectively. The number of patients in the included studies ranged from 1 to 1000. The lower BMI limit ranged from 27 to 35 kg/m2. Research approvals were reported in 26 studies. Two studies reported on the learning curve. All studies reported some aspect of technical implementation, but many variations were noted. Suturing device used and suture pattern were the most commonly reported aspects (32 studies). Follow-up ranged from 1 to 24 months, but was 12 months or less in 28 studies. Forty-eight different outcomes were reported across all studies. CONCLUSION The literature on ESG has demonstrated some progression in reporting and analysis and the next stage of assessment should be a randomized controlled trial to demonstrate efficacy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew C Currie
- Department of Bariatric Surgery, Ashford & St Peter's Hospital NHS Trust, Guildford Street, Chertsey, UK.
| | - Michael A Glaysher
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - Natalie S Blencowe
- NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Jamie Kelly
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Cook JA, Baldwin M, Cooper C, Nagra NS, Crocker JC, Glaze M, Greenall G, Rangan A, Kottam L, Rees JL, Farrar-Hockley D, Merritt N, Hopewell S, Beard D, Thomas M, Dritsaki M, Carr AJ. Patch augmentation surgery for rotator cuff repair: the PARCS mixed-methods feasibility study. Health Technol Assess 2021; 25:1-138. [PMID: 33646096 PMCID: PMC7958078 DOI: 10.3310/hta25130] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND A rotator cuff tear is a common, disabling shoulder problem. Symptoms may include pain, weakness, lack of shoulder mobility and sleep disturbance. Many patients require surgery to repair the tear; however, there is a high failure rate. There is a need to improve the outcome of rotator cuff surgery, and the use of patch augmentation (on-lay or bridging) to provide support to the healing process and improve patient outcomes holds promise. Patches have been made using different materials (e.g. human/animal skin or tissue and synthetic materials) and processes (e.g. woven or mesh). OBJECTIVES The aim of the Patch Augmented Rotator Cuff Surgery (PARCS) feasibility study was to determine the design of a definitive randomised controlled trial assessing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a patch to augment surgical repair of the rotator cuff that is both acceptable to stakeholders and feasible. DESIGN A mixed-methods feasibility study of a randomised controlled trial. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases were searched between April 2006 and August 2018. METHODS The project involved six stages: a systematic review of clinical evidence, a survey of the British Elbow and Shoulder Society's surgical membership, a survey of surgeon triallists, focus groups and interviews with stakeholders, a two-round Delphi study administered via online questionnaires and a 2-day consensus meeting. The various stakeholders (including patients, surgeons and industry representatives) were involved in stages 2-6. RESULTS The systematic review comprised 52 studies; only 15 were comparative and, of these, 11 were observational (search conducted in August 2018). These studies were typically small (median number of participants 26, range 5-152 participants). There was some evidence to support the use of patches, although most comparative studies were at a serious risk of bias. Little to no published clinical evidence was available for a number of patches in clinical use. The membership survey of British Elbow and Shoulder surgeons [105 (21%) responses received] identified a variety of patches in use. Twenty-four surgeons (77%) completed the triallist survey relating to trial design. Four focus groups were conducted, involving 24 stakeholders. Differing views were held on a number of aspects of trial design, including the appropriate patient population (e.g. patient age) to participate. Agreement on the key research questions and the outline of two potential randomised controlled trials were achieved through the Delphi study [29 (67%)] and the consensus meeting that 22 participants attended. LIMITATIONS The main limitation was that the findings were influenced by the participants, who are not necessarily representative of the views of the relevant stakeholder groups. CONCLUSION The need for further clinical studies was clear, particularly given the range and number of different patches available. FUTURE WORK Randomised comparisons of on-lay patch use for completed rotator cuff repairs and bridging patch use for partial rotator cuff repairs were identified as areas for further research. The value of an observational study to assess safety concerns of patch use was also highlighted. These elements are included in the trial designs proposed in this study. STUDY REGISTRATION The systematic review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017057908. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jonathan A Cook
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Mathew Baldwin
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Cushla Cooper
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Navraj S Nagra
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Joanna C Crocker
- Health Experiences Research Group, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- National Institute for Health Research, Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK
| | - Molly Glaze
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Gemma Greenall
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Amar Rangan
- The James Cook University Hospital, South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, UK
| | - Lucksy Kottam
- The James Cook University Hospital, South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, UK
| | - Jonathan L Rees
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Dair Farrar-Hockley
- Patient representative, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Naomi Merritt
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Sally Hopewell
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - David Beard
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | - Melina Dritsaki
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Andrew J Carr
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Gaudino M, Kappetein AP, Di Franco A, Bagiella E, Bhatt DL, Boening A, Charlson ME, Flather M, Gelijns AC, Grover F, Head SJ, Jüni P, Lamy A, Miller M, Moskowitz A, Reents W, Shroyer AL, Taggart DP, Tam DY, Zenati MA, Fremes SE. Randomized Trials in Cardiac Surgery: JACC Review Topic of the Week. J Am Coll Cardiol 2020; 75:1593-1604. [PMID: 32241376 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.01.048] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/05/2020] [Revised: 01/29/2020] [Accepted: 01/30/2020] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
Compared with randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in medical specialties, RCTs in cardiac surgery face specific issues. Individual and collective equipoise, rapid evolution of the surgical techniques, as well as difficulties in obtaining funding, and limited education in clinical epidemiology in the surgical community are among the most important challenges in the design phase of the trial. Use of complex interventions and learning curve effect, differences in individual operators' expertise, difficulties in blinding, and slow recruitment make the successful completion of cardiac surgery RCTs particularly challenging. In fact, over the course of the last 20 years, the number of cardiac surgery RCTs has declined significantly. In this review, a team of surgeons, trialists, and epidemiologists discusses the most important challenges faced by RCTs in cardiac surgery and provides a list of suggestions for the successful design and completion of cardiac surgery RCTs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mario Gaudino
- Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York.
| | - A Pieter Kappetein
- Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. https://twitter.com/AKappetein
| | - Antonino Di Franco
- Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York
| | - Emilia Bagiella
- Department of Population Health Science and Policy, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
| | - Deepak L Bhatt
- Brigham and Women's Hospital, Heart and Vascular Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Andreas Boening
- Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Justus-Liebig University Gießen, Gießen, Germany
| | - Mary E Charlson
- Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluative Science Research, Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York
| | - Marcus Flather
- Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia and Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, United Kingdom
| | - Annetine C Gelijns
- Department of Population Health Science and Policy, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
| | - Frederick Grover
- Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Stuart J Head
- Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Peter Jüni
- Applied Health Research Centre (AHRC), Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, Department of Medicine and Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Andre Lamy
- Population Health Research Institute, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Marissa Miller
- Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Alan Moskowitz
- Department of Population Health Science and Policy, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
| | - Wilko Reents
- Department Cardiac Surgery, Cardiovascular Center Bad Neustadt/Saale, Bad Neustadt/Saale, Germany
| | | | - David P Taggart
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Derrick Y Tam
- Division of Cardiac Surgery, Schulich Heart Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Marco A Zenati
- Division of Cardiac Surgery, Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. https://twitter.com/MarcoZenatiMD
| | - Stephen E Fremes
- Division of Cardiac Surgery, Schulich Heart Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Hoffmann C, Macefield RC, Wilson N, Blazeby JM, Avery KNL, Potter S, McNair AGK. A systematic review and in-depth analysis of outcome reporting in early phase studies of colorectal cancer surgical innovation. Colorectal Dis 2020; 22:1862-1873. [PMID: 32882087 DOI: 10.1111/codi.15347] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/14/2020] [Revised: 08/19/2020] [Accepted: 08/20/2020] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
AIM Early phase studies are essential to evaluate new technologies prior to randomized evaluation. Evaluation is limited, however, by inconsistent measurement and reporting of outcomes. This study examines outcome reporting in studies of innovative colorectal cancer surgery. METHODS Systematic searches identified studies of invasive procedures treating primary colorectal adenocarcinoma. Included were a random sample of studies which authors reported as 'new' or 'modified'. Outcomes were extracted verbatim and categorized using an existing framework of 32 domains relevant to early phase studies. Outcomes were classified as 'measured' (where there was an explicit statement to that effect or evidence that data collection had occurred) or 'mentioned but not measured' (where outcomes were discussed but data collection was not evident). Patterns of identified outcomes are described. RESULTS Of 8373 records, 816 were potentially eligible. Full-text review of a random sample of 218 studies identified 51 for inclusion of which 34 (66%) were 'new' and 17 (33%) were 'modified'. Some 2073 outcomes were identified, and all mapped to domains. 'Anticipated disadvantages' were most frequently identified [660 (32%) outcomes identified across 50 (98%) studies]. No domain was represented in all studies. Under half (944, 46%) of outcomes were 'measured'. 'Surgeon's/operator's experience of the innovation' was more frequently 'mentioned but not measured' [207 (18%) outcomes across 46 (90%) studies] than 'measured' [17 (2%) outcomes, 11 (22%) studies]. CONCLUSION There is outcome reporting heterogeneity in studies of early phase colorectal cancer surgery. The adoption of core outcome sets may help to resolve these inconsistencies and enable efficient evaluation of surgical innovations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C Hoffmann
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - R C Macefield
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - N Wilson
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - J M Blazeby
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- Division of Surgery, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - K N L Avery
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - S Potter
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- Bristol Breast Care Centre, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - A G K McNair
- National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Sharples L, Papachristofi O, Rex S, Landau S. Exploring mechanisms of action in clinical trials of complex surgical interventions using mediation analysis. Clin Trials 2020; 17:654-663. [PMID: 32815418 PMCID: PMC7691573 DOI: 10.1177/1740774520947644] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Abstract
Background: Surgical interventions allow for tailoring of treatment to individual patients and implementation may vary with surgeon and healthcare provider. In addition, in clinical trials assessing two competing surgical interventions, the treatments may be accompanied by co-interventions. Aims: This study explores the use of causal mediation analysis to (1) delineate the treatment effect that results directly from the surgical intervention under study and the indirect effect acting through a co-intervention and (2) to evaluate the benefit of the surgical intervention if either everybody in the trial population received the co-intervention or nobody received it. Methods: Within a counterfactual framework, relevant direct and indirect effects of a surgical intervention are estimated and adjusted for confounding via parametric regression models, for the situation where both mediator and outcome are binary, with baseline stratification factors included as fixed effects and surgeons as random intercepts. The causal difference in probability of a successful outcome (estimand of interest) is calculated using Monte Carlo simulation with bootstrapping for confidence intervals. Packages for estimation within standard statistical software are reviewed briefly. A step by step application of methods is illustrated using the Amaze randomised trial of ablation as an adjunct to cardiac surgery in patients with irregular heart rhythm, with a co-intervention (removal of the left atrial appendage) administered to a subset of participants at the surgeon’s discretion. The primary outcome was return to normal heart rhythm at one year post surgery. Results: In Amaze, 17% (95% confidence interval: 6%, 28%) more patients in the active arm had a successful outcome, but there was a large difference between active and control arms in the proportion of patients who received the co-intervention (55% and 30%, respectively). Causal mediation analysis suggested that around 1% of the treatment effect was attributable to the co-intervention (16% natural direct effect). The controlled direct effect ranged from 18% (6%, 30%) if the co-intervention were mandated, to 14% (2%, 25%) if it were prohibited. Including age as a moderator of the mediation effects showed that the natural direct effect of ablation appeared to decrease with age. Conclusions: Causal mediation analysis is a useful quantitative tool to explore mediating effects of co-interventions in surgical trials. In Amaze, investigators could be reassured that the effect of the active treatment, not explainable by differential use of the co-intervention, was significant across analyses.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Linda Sharples
- Department of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Olympia Papachristofi
- Department of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.,Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Saleema Rex
- Department of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.,University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
46
|
Price C, Reeves B, Ahmad A, Baloch M, Baranidharan G, Correa R, McCormick T, Sharma M, Veemarajan B, Grimwood M, Pirie KI, Wylde V. Radiofrequency denervation of the lumbar facet joints: guidelines for the RADICAL randomised controlled trial. Br J Pain 2020; 15:251-258. [PMID: 34377456 PMCID: PMC8339950 DOI: 10.1177/2049463720941053] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Abstract
Background and aim: The RADICAL trial has been funded by the National Institute for Health
Research (NIHR) to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of
radiofrequency denervation (RFD) for low back pain. Recommendations have
been published which aim to standardise selection of patients and RFD
technique. However, it is important to ensure these recommendations are
acceptable to clinicians within the context of the trial. The aim of this
work was to develop standardised criteria for the trial entry and RFD
technique for implementation within the RADICAL trial. Methods: Fourteen pain clinicians completed a survey, which involved reviewing the
current recommendations and indicating whether they disagreed with any of
the recommendations and if so why. Responses were collated and presented at
a half-day workshop with 14 attendees. During the workshop, the National Low
Back and Radicular Pain Pathway (NLBRPP) guidelines for patient selection
and an article by Eldabe and colleagues presenting recommendations on the
RFD technique were reviewed. Attendees discussed whether each component of
the recommendations should be mandatory, mandatory with alteration or
clarification or optional within the RADICAL trial. Results: Attendees agreed during the workshop that 5 of the 10 criteria for patient
selection described in the NLBRPP should be mandatory within the RADICAL
trial. Three were agreed as mandatory criteria but required further
clarification, one of which involved defining a positive response to a
diagnostic medial branch block as ⩾60% pain relief. Two criteria had
optional components. After reviewing the recommendations on the RFD
technique from Eldabe and colleagues, seven components were agreed as
mandatory, three were mandatory with alterations and three were
optional. Conclusion: When evaluating complex interventions, such as RFD, it is important to ensure
agreement and clarity on the clinical protocol, so that the intervention can
be reproduced, if found to be effective.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Barney Reeves
- Bristol Trials Centre, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.,National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | | | | | | | - Robin Correa
- University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, UK
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Vikki Wylde
- Bristol Trials Centre, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.,Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Lee MJ, Coe PO, O'Donoghue R, Peirson M, Saha A. Variation in descriptors of patient characteristics in randomized clinical trials of peptic ulcer repair: a systematic review. Br J Surg 2020; 107:1570-1579. [PMID: 32671830 DOI: 10.1002/bjs.11771] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/11/2020] [Revised: 05/02/2020] [Accepted: 05/14/2020] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The ability to compare findings across surgical research is important. Inadequate description of participants, interventions or outcomes could lead to bias and inaccurate assessment of findings. The aim of this study was to assess consistency of description of participants using studies comparing laparoscopic and open repair of peptic ulcer as an example. METHODS This systematic review is reported in line with the PRISMA checklist. Searches of MEDLINE and Embase databases were performed to identify studies comparing laparoscopic and open repair of perforated peptic ulcer in adults, published in the English language. Manuscripts were dual-screened for eligibility. Full texts were retrieved and dual-screened for inclusion. Data extracted from studies included descriptors of participants in studies from tables and text. Descriptors were categorized into conceptual domains by the research team, and coverage of each domain by study was tabulated. RESULTS Searches identified 2018 studies. After screening, 37 full texts were retrieved and 23 studies were included in the final synthesis. A total of 76 unique descriptors were identified. These were classified into demographics (11 descriptors), vital signs (9 descriptors), disease-specific characteristics (10 descriptors), presentation and pathway factors (4 descriptors), risk factors (8 descriptors), laboratory tests (14 descriptors) and baseline health (28 descriptors). The number of descriptors in a single study ranged from three to 31. All studies reported at least one demographic descriptor. Laboratory tests was the least frequently described domain. CONCLUSION Study participants are described inconsistently in studies of a single example surgical condition.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M J Lee
- Department of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.,Academic Directorate of General Surgery, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK
| | - P O Coe
- Academic Directorate of General Surgery, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK
| | | | - M Peirson
- Department of General Surgery, Ysbyty Gwynedd Hospital, Bangor, UK
| | - A Saha
- Department of General Surgery, Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust, Huddersfield, UK
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Wright A, McCoy AB, Choudhry NK. Recommendations for the Conduct and Reporting of Research Involving Flexible Electronic Health Record-Based Interventions. Ann Intern Med 2020; 172:S110-S115. [PMID: 32479179 DOI: 10.7326/m19-0880] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
In the past 2 decades, the United States has seen widespread adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) and a transition from mostly locally developed EHRs to commercial systems. However, most research on quality improvement and safety interventions in EHRs is still conducted at a single site, in a single EHR. Although single-site studies are important early in the innovation lifecycle, multisite studies of EHR interventions are critical for generalizability. Because EHR software, configuration, and local context differ considerably across health care organizations, it can be difficult to implement a single, standardized intervention across multiple sites in a study. This article outlines key strengths, weaknesses, challenges, and opportunities for standardization of EHR interventions in multisite studies and describes flexible trial designs suitable for studying complex interventions, including EHR interventions. It also outlines key considerations for reporting on flexible trials of EHR interventions, including sharing details of the process for designing interventions and their content, details of outcomes being studied and approaches for pooling, and the importance of sharing code and configuration whenever possible.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adam Wright
- Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee (A.W., A.B.M.)
| | - Allison B McCoy
- Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee (A.W., A.B.M.)
| | | |
Collapse
|
49
|
Cousins S, Blencowe NS, Tsang C, Chalmers K, Mardanpour A, Carr AJ, Campbell MK, Cook JA, Beard DJ, Blazeby JM. Optimizing the design of invasive placebo interventions in randomized controlled trials. Br J Surg 2020; 107:1114-1122. [PMID: 32187680 PMCID: PMC7496319 DOI: 10.1002/bjs.11509] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/20/2019] [Revised: 10/11/2019] [Accepted: 12/13/2019] [Indexed: 01/09/2023]
Abstract
Background Placebo‐controlled trials play an important role in the evaluation of healthcare interventions. However, they can be challenging to design and deliver for invasive interventions, including surgery. In‐depth understanding of the component parts of the treatment intervention is needed to ascertain what should, and should not, be delivered as part of the placebo. Assessment of risk to patients and strategies to ensure that the placebo effectively mimics the treatment are also required. To date, no guidance exists for the design of invasive placebo interventions. This study aimed to develop a framework to optimize the design and delivery of invasive placebo interventions in
RCTs. Methods A preliminary framework was developed using published literature to: expand the scope of an existing typology, which facilitates the deconstruction of invasive interventions; and identify placebo optimization strategies. The framework was refined after consultation with key stakeholders in surgical trials, consensus methodology and medical ethics. Results The resulting DITTO framework consists of five stages: deconstruct treatment intervention into constituent components and co‐interventions; identify critical surgical element(s); take out the critical element(s); think risk, feasibility and role of placebo in the trial when considering remaining components; and optimize placebo to ensure effective blinding of patients and trial personnel. Conclusion DITTO considers invasive placebo composition systematically, accounting for risk, feasibility and placebo optimization. Use of the framework can support the design of high‐quality RCTs, which are needed to underpin delivery of healthcare interventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Cousins
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol, Surgical Innovation Theme.,Medical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School
| | - N S Blencowe
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol, Surgical Innovation Theme.,Medical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School.,Division of Surgery, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol
| | - C Tsang
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol, Surgical Innovation Theme.,Medical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School
| | - K Chalmers
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol, Surgical Innovation Theme.,Medical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School
| | - A Mardanpour
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol, Surgical Innovation Theme.,Medical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School
| | - A J Carr
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford
| | - M K Campbell
- Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - J A Cook
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford.,Royal College of Surgeons (England) Surgical Interventional Trials Unit, University of Oxford, Headington, Oxford
| | - D J Beard
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford.,Royal College of Surgeons (England) Surgical Interventional Trials Unit, University of Oxford, Headington, Oxford
| | - J M Blazeby
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol, Surgical Innovation Theme.,Medical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School.,Division of Surgery, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Beard DJ, Campbell MK, Blazeby JM, Carr AJ, Weijer C, Cuthbertson BH, Buchbinder R, Pinkney T, Bishop FL, Pugh J, Cousins S, Harris IA, Lohmander LS, Blencowe N, Gillies K, Probst P, Brennan C, Cook A, Farrar-Hockley D, Savulescu J, Huxtable R, Rangan A, Tracey I, Brocklehurst P, Ferreira ML, Nicholl J, Reeves BC, Hamdy F, Rowley SC, Cook JA. Considerations and methods for placebo controls in surgical trials (ASPIRE guidelines). Lancet 2020; 395:828-838. [PMID: 32145797 DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(19)33137-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/14/2019] [Revised: 11/13/2019] [Accepted: 12/06/2019] [Indexed: 01/09/2023]
Abstract
Placebo comparisons are increasingly being considered for randomised trials assessing the efficacy of surgical interventions. The aim of this Review is to provide a summary of knowledge on placebo controls in surgical trials. A placebo control is a complex type of comparison group in the surgical setting and, although powerful, presents many challenges. This Review outlines what a placebo control entails and present understanding of this tool in the context of surgery. We consider when placebo controls in surgery are acceptable (and when they are desirable) in terms of ethical arguments and regulatory requirements, how a placebo control should be designed, how to identify and mitigate risk for participants in these trials, and how such trials should be done and interpreted. Use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided there is a strong scientific and ethical rationale. Surgical placebos might be most appropriate when there is poor evidence for the efficacy of the procedure and a justified concern that results of a trial would be associated with high risk of bias, particularly because of the placebo effect. Feasibility work is recommended to optimise the design and implementation of randomised controlled trials. This Review forms an outline for best practice and provides guidance, in the form of the Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations (known as ASPIRE) checklist, for those considering the use of a placebo control in a surgical randomised controlled trial.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David J Beard
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
| | - Marion K Campbell
- Health Services Research Unit, Health Sciences Building, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Jane M Blazeby
- Centre for Surgical Research Population Health Sciences, Beacon House, University of Bristol, Bristol
| | - Andrew J Carr
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Charles Weijer
- Rotman Institute of Philosophy, Western Interdisciplinary Research Building, Western University, London, ON, Canada
| | - Brian H Cuthbertson
- Department of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Rachelle Buchbinder
- Cabrini-Monash Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Cabrini Institute and Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Thomas Pinkney
- Academic Department of Surgery, Heritage Building, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Felicity L Bishop
- Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Jonathan Pugh
- The Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Sian Cousins
- Centre for Surgical Research Population Health Sciences, Beacon House, University of Bristol, Bristol
| | - Ian A Harris
- Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, South Western Sydney Clinical School, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - L Stefan Lohmander
- Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Department of Orthopaedics Lund, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - Natalie Blencowe
- Centre for Surgical Research Population Health Sciences, Beacon House, University of Bristol, Bristol
| | - Katie Gillies
- Health Services Research Unit, Health Sciences Building, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Pascal Probst
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | | | - Andrew Cook
- Wessex Institute, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK; University Hospital Southampton National Health Service Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | | | - Julian Savulescu
- The Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Richard Huxtable
- Centre for Surgical Research Population Health Sciences, Beacon House, University of Bristol, Bristol
| | - Amar Rangan
- Department of Health Sciences, Seebohm Rowntree Building, University of York, York, UK
| | - Irene Tracey
- Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Peter Brocklehurst
- Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Manuela L Ferreira
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, Institute of Bone and Joint Research, Northern Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Jon Nicholl
- School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | | | - Freddie Hamdy
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Old Road Campus Research Building, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | - Jonathan A Cook
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|