Evidence-based practice requires evidence

Are cancer trials valid and useful for the general surgeon and surgical oncologist?

Cancer trials represent a rigorous and clear approach to testing whether an intervention or treatment will alter the outcomes of individuals with cancer in an experimental manner that is beyond the level of observational studies. As such, they remain useful and valid to the day-to-day practice of general surgeons and surgical oncologists. However, the shortcomings of current cancer clinical trials need to be recognized, especially when less than 1% of adults persons with cancer participate in cancer clinical trials, thus leaving the ability to generalize these trials to patients and their surgeons in the real-world setting an open question. Moving forward, physicians, payers, professional societies, advocates, the NCI, and other stakeholders need to develop broader cancer trials to benefit the millions of patients with cancer in the United States.

Evidence-based surgical practice in academic medical centers: consistently anecdotal?

INTRODUCTION

Randomized trials, meta-analyses, and guidelines form the basis of clinical decision making. We queried a small sample of surgeons at three academic medical centers to determine whether key elements of surgical practice were concordant with available evidence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A French Society of Digestive Surgery (FSDS) questionnaire was submitted to general surgery trainees and faculty at the University of South Florida and University of Chicago and to surgical oncology fellows at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Participants were asked to respond "never," "rarely," "often," or "always" to 13 questions involving different aspects of gastrointestinal surgery. For each question, a correct evidence-based answer was available from published studies.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

One hundred ten surgeons (79% of eligible participants) completed the survey. Only 60% of the answers were concordant with existing data. The percentages of correct answers did not differ significantly according to institution or level of experience of participants. The low frequency of correct responses in our subjects paralleled the findings from the 2004 FSDS study. Variability in the quality of evidence and ambiguity in the survey questions may have influenced the responses, but evidence-based medicine does not appear to uniformly influence clinical decision making.

[Transferabilty of study results in routine health care: non-pharmacological interventions (surgery)]

In surgery, too, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the scientific method of choice for proving the effectiveness of a new intervention or the superiority of an innovative technique over an established one. However, there are particular challenges in surgical studies regarding the equality of structure, of treatments and observation in the study groups. The design of valid study protocols in surgery is very complex, which is the reason for the relatively small number of high-quality RCTs in surgical literature. Pragmatic studies offer a promising approach to the implementation of surgical innovations in health care. The German Society of Surgeons supports the conduct of multicentre clinical studies by providing the relevant structures (study centre, multicentre network CHIR-Net). Good clinical and comparative health care effectiveness research in surgery also needs stronger academic appreciation as a career incentive for young academic surgeons.

Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation

Research on surgical interventions is associated with several methodological and practical challenges of which few, if any, apply only to surgery. However, surgical evaluation is especially demanding because many of these challenges coincide. In this report, the second of three on surgical innovation and evaluation, we discuss obstacles related to the study design of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies assessing surgical interventions. We also describe the issues related to the nature of surgical procedures-for example, their complexity, surgeon-related factors, and the range of outcomes. Although difficult, surgical evaluation is achievable and necessary. Solutions tailored to surgical research and a framework for generating evidence on which to base surgical practice are essential.

Four years of teaching principles in clinical trials--a continuous evaluation of the postgraduate workshop for surgical investigators at the study center of the German Surgical Society

INTRODUCTION

Only a small part of the daily work in the field of surgery is based on high-level evidence. To improve the rate of evidence-based medicine (EBM) in surgery, more surgical, randomized controlled trials have been advocated. In addition, it has been recognized that educational issues that concern methods and techniques of clinical research are of similar importance. Therefore, a clinical investigator course focusing particularly on the issues of surgical trials was initiated in 2005. The structure of this course is demonstrated here as well as the results of its evaluation over the last 4 years.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All participants were invited to rate both the lecture and the teachers with the help of a standardized evaluation questionnaires (rating scale from 1 = excellent to 6 = insufficient). Lectures were evaluated via questions on content, comprehension, and learning effect. Teachers were evaluated in terms of rhetorical abilities, content, and presentation technique, respectively. Assessment of personal long-term learning effects was evaluated by an e-mail survey.

RESULTS

Seventy-three participants were trained in a total of 4 courses. Participants in each course completed the evaluation questionnaires. In 2005, 20 of 21 (95.2%) participants completed the questionnaire; in 2006, 11 of 11 participants completed it (100%); in 2007, 19 of 22 (86.4%) participants completed it; and in 2008, 16 of 19 (84.2%) participants completed it. The overall evaluation of the course was graded 1.52 for content and 1.72 for clarity, and the learning effect was assessed at 1.60. The 16 lecturers came from different institutions involved in clinical research and evidence-based surgery. Besides classic lecturing, the current assembly of the course consists of 6 lectures designed as hands-on sessions. A survey (48.5% response rate) with a mean follow-up of 1.72 years (range, 6 months to 3 years) revealed that the enduring learning effect was rated 2.09, and 70.4% of former participants actually participated in randomized controlled trials.

CONCLUSIONS

The development of a clinical investigator course tailored to the needs of surgeons provides hospitals with a key tool for promoting surgical interest in clinical trials.