Klinische Studien in der Chirurgie: Auf dem Weg zur evidenzbasierten Chirurgie

[Evaluation of the infrastructure for clinical surgical studies in Germany : A nationwide survey of the surgical study network CHIR-Net]

BACKGROUND

In order to improve the quality and quantity of clinical trials in Germany a surgical study network called CHIR-Net funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) was established. The focus was on building an infrastructure for the performance of surgical multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trials with the inclusion of university and non-university hospitals. The education of clinicians with an interest in clinical research and the transfer of research ideas (as investigator initiated trials, IIT) were clear goals for this grant. The aim of this article is to evaluate the incentive measures by comparison of clinics with and without participation in CHIR-Net structures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A nationwide online survey included a total of 475 heads of surgical departments of whom 268 worked in hospitals with participation in CHIR-Net structures and 207 at hospitals without. They were asked to answer 20 questions in the following categories: education and activities in clinical trials, number of publications and participation in grant applications at the BMBF and/or German Research Foundation (DFG). The evaluation of the survey was performed according to a priori defined criteria.

RESULTS

The response rate was 23.4% and 68 CHIR-Net hospitals and 43 non-CHIR-Net hospitals participated in the survey. The comparison of the results between the hospitals showed that the network significantly contributed to improvement of the study culture, especially in the areas of education in clinical research, infrastructure for clinical trials, study activity, grant applications and publication rates.

CONCLUSION

The hospitals that participate in CHIR-Net structures were superior to hospitals that do not participate in CHIR-Net structures regarding study activity, infrastructure for clinical trials, study-specific education of clinicians, grant applications and publication rates. The goal of the grant was achieved and the funding led to manifold, long-term cooperation and a clear improvement of the study culture in surgery.

Closed cannulation of subclavian vein vs open cut-down of cephalic vein for totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) implantation: protocol for a systematic review and proportional meta-analysis of perioperative and postoperative complications

BACKGROUND

Totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) implantation is one of the most often performed operations in general surgery (over 100,000/year in Germany). The two main approaches for TIVAP placement are insertion into the cephalic vein through an open cut-down technique (OCD) or closed cannulation technique of the subclavian vein (CC) with Seldinger technique. Both procedures are performed with high success rates and very low complication frequencies. Because of the low incidence of complications, no single interventional trial is able to report a valid comparison of peri- and postoperative complication frequencies between both techniques. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to summarize evidence for peri- and postoperative complication rates in patients undergoing OCD or CC.

METHODS/DESIGN

A systematic literature search will be conducted in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and Embase to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational clinical studies (OCS), or case series (CS) reporting peri- and/or postoperative complications of at least one implantation technique. A priori defined data will be extracted from included studies, and methodological quality will be assessed. Event rates with their 95% confidence intervals will be derived taking into account the follow-up time per study by patient-months where appropriate. Pooled estimates of event rates with corresponding 95% confidence intervals will be calculated on the base of the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation within a random effect model framework.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this systematic review with proportional meta-analysis will help to identify the procedure with the best benefit/risk ratio for TIVAP implantation. This may have influence on daily practice, and data may be implemented in treatment guidelines. Considering the impact of TIVAP implantation on patients' well being together with its socioeconomic relevance, patients will benefit from evidence-based treatment and health-care costs may also be reduced.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42013005180.

Evidence-based medicine in daily surgical decision making: a survey-based comparison between the UK and Germany

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based medicine (EbM) is a vital part of reasonable and conclusive decision making for clinicians in daily clinical work. To analyze the knowledge and the attitude of surgeons towards EbM, a survey was performed in the UK and Germany.

METHODS

A web-based questionnaire was distributed via mailing lists from the Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCSE) and the Berufsverband Deutscher Chirurgen (BDC). Our primary aim was to get information about knowledge of EbM amongst German and British surgeons.

RESULTS

A total of 549 individuals opened the questionnaire, but only 198 questionnaires were complete and valid for analysis. In total, 40,000 recipients were approached via the mailing lists of the BDC and RCSE. The response rate was equally low in both countries. On a scale from 1 (unimportant) to 10 (very important), all participants rated EbM as very important for daily clinical decision making (7.3 ± 1.9) as well as for patients (7.8 ± 1.9) and the national health system (7.8 ± 1.9). On a scale from 1 (unimportant) to 5 (very important), systematic reviews (4.6 ± 0.6) and randomized controlled trials (4.6 ± 0.6) were identified as the highest levels of study designs to enhance evidence in medicine. British surgeons considered EbM to be more important in daily clinical work when compared to data from German surgeons (7.9 ± 1.6 vs. 6.7 ± 2.1, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed different results in some categories; however, a pattern to explain the differences was not evident. Personal requirements expressed in a free text field emphasized the results and reflected concerns such as broad unwillingness and lack of interdisciplinary approaches for patients (n = 59: 25 in the UK and 34 in Germany).

CONCLUSION

The overall results show that EbM is believed to be important by surgeons in the UK and Germany. However, perception of EbM in the respective health system (UK vs. Germany) may be different. Nonetheless, EbM is an important tool to navigate through daily clinical problems although a discrepancy between the knowledge of theoretical abstract terms and difficulties in implementing EbM in daily clinical work has been detected. The provision of infrastructure, courses and structured education as a permanent instrument will advance the knowledge, application and improvement of EbM in the future.

Strategies to improve clinical research in surgery through international collaboration

More than 235 million patients undergo surgery every year worldwide, but less than 1% are enrolled in surgical clinical trials--few of which are international collaborations. Several levels of action are needed to improve this situation. International research collaborations in surgery between developed and developing countries could encourage capacity building and quality improvement, and mutually enhance care for patients with surgical disorders. Low-income and middle-income countries increasingly report much the same range of surgical diseases as do high-income countries (eg, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and the surgical sequelae of metabolic syndrome); collaboration is therefore of mutual interest. Large multinational trials that cross cultures and levels of socioeconomic development might have faster results and wider applicability than do single-country trials. Surgeons educated in research methods, and aided by research networks and trial centres, are needed to foster these international collaborations. Barriers to collaboration could be overcome by adoption of global strategies for regulation, health insurance, ethical approval, and indemnity coverage for doctors.