No surgical innovation without evaluation: The IDEAL recommendations

Peter McCulloch, Douglas G. Altman, W. Bruce Campbell, David R. Flum, Paul Glasziou, John C. Marshall, Jon Nicholl, Balliol Collaboration

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

778 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Surgery and other invasive therapies are complex interventions, the assessment of which is challenged by factors that depend on operator, team, and setting, such as learning curves, quality variations, and perception of equipoise. We propose recommendations for the assessment of surgery based on a five-stage description of the surgical development process. We also encourage the widespread use of prospective databases and registries. Reports of new techniques should be registered as a professional duty, anonymously if necessary when outcomes are adverse. Case series studies should be replaced by prospective development studies for early technical modifications and by prospective research databases for later pre-trial evaluation. Protocols for these studies should be registered publicly. Statistical process control techniques can be useful in both early and late assessment. Randomised trials should be used whenever possible to investigate efficacy, but adequate pre-trial data are essential to allow power calculations, clarify the definition and indications of the intervention, and develop quality measures. Difficulties in doing randomised clinical trials should be addressed by measures to evaluate learning curves and alleviate equipoise problems. Alternative prospective designs, such as interrupted time series studies, should be used when randomised trials are not feasible. Established procedures should be monitored with prospective databases to analyse outcome variations and to identify late and rare events. Achievement of improved design, conduct, and reporting of surgical research will need concerted action by editors, funders of health care and research, regulatory bodies, and professional societies.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1105-1112
Number of pages8
JournalThe Lancet
Volume374
Issue number9695
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2 Oct 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Learning Curve
Databases
Health Services Research
Research
Registries
Randomized Controlled Trials
Prospective Studies
boldenone undecylenate
Therapeutics
Interrupted Time Series Analysis
Power (Psychology)

Cite this

McCulloch, P., Altman, D. G., Campbell, W. B., Flum, D. R., Glasziou, P., Marshall, J. C., ... Balliol Collaboration (2009). No surgical innovation without evaluation: The IDEAL recommendations. The Lancet, 374(9695), 1105-1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61116-8
McCulloch, Peter ; Altman, Douglas G. ; Campbell, W. Bruce ; Flum, David R. ; Glasziou, Paul ; Marshall, John C. ; Nicholl, Jon ; Balliol Collaboration. / No surgical innovation without evaluation : The IDEAL recommendations. In: The Lancet. 2009 ; Vol. 374, No. 9695. pp. 1105-1112.
@article{e5239e4c44ab4c96a0f0ac9b8f5015e4,
title = "No surgical innovation without evaluation: The IDEAL recommendations",
abstract = "Surgery and other invasive therapies are complex interventions, the assessment of which is challenged by factors that depend on operator, team, and setting, such as learning curves, quality variations, and perception of equipoise. We propose recommendations for the assessment of surgery based on a five-stage description of the surgical development process. We also encourage the widespread use of prospective databases and registries. Reports of new techniques should be registered as a professional duty, anonymously if necessary when outcomes are adverse. Case series studies should be replaced by prospective development studies for early technical modifications and by prospective research databases for later pre-trial evaluation. Protocols for these studies should be registered publicly. Statistical process control techniques can be useful in both early and late assessment. Randomised trials should be used whenever possible to investigate efficacy, but adequate pre-trial data are essential to allow power calculations, clarify the definition and indications of the intervention, and develop quality measures. Difficulties in doing randomised clinical trials should be addressed by measures to evaluate learning curves and alleviate equipoise problems. Alternative prospective designs, such as interrupted time series studies, should be used when randomised trials are not feasible. Established procedures should be monitored with prospective databases to analyse outcome variations and to identify late and rare events. Achievement of improved design, conduct, and reporting of surgical research will need concerted action by editors, funders of health care and research, regulatory bodies, and professional societies.",
author = "Peter McCulloch and Altman, {Douglas G.} and Campbell, {W. Bruce} and Flum, {David R.} and Paul Glasziou and Marshall, {John C.} and Jon Nicholl and {Balliol Collaboration}",
year = "2009",
month = "10",
day = "2",
doi = "10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61116-8",
language = "English",
volume = "374",
pages = "1105--1112",
journal = "Lancet",
issn = "0140-6736",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "9695",

}

McCulloch, P, Altman, DG, Campbell, WB, Flum, DR, Glasziou, P, Marshall, JC, Nicholl, J & Balliol Collaboration 2009, 'No surgical innovation without evaluation: The IDEAL recommendations' The Lancet, vol. 374, no. 9695, pp. 1105-1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61116-8

No surgical innovation without evaluation : The IDEAL recommendations. / McCulloch, Peter; Altman, Douglas G.; Campbell, W. Bruce; Flum, David R.; Glasziou, Paul; Marshall, John C.; Nicholl, Jon; Balliol Collaboration.

In: The Lancet, Vol. 374, No. 9695, 02.10.2009, p. 1105-1112.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - No surgical innovation without evaluation

T2 - The IDEAL recommendations

AU - McCulloch, Peter

AU - Altman, Douglas G.

AU - Campbell, W. Bruce

AU - Flum, David R.

AU - Glasziou, Paul

AU - Marshall, John C.

AU - Nicholl, Jon

AU - Balliol Collaboration

PY - 2009/10/2

Y1 - 2009/10/2

N2 - Surgery and other invasive therapies are complex interventions, the assessment of which is challenged by factors that depend on operator, team, and setting, such as learning curves, quality variations, and perception of equipoise. We propose recommendations for the assessment of surgery based on a five-stage description of the surgical development process. We also encourage the widespread use of prospective databases and registries. Reports of new techniques should be registered as a professional duty, anonymously if necessary when outcomes are adverse. Case series studies should be replaced by prospective development studies for early technical modifications and by prospective research databases for later pre-trial evaluation. Protocols for these studies should be registered publicly. Statistical process control techniques can be useful in both early and late assessment. Randomised trials should be used whenever possible to investigate efficacy, but adequate pre-trial data are essential to allow power calculations, clarify the definition and indications of the intervention, and develop quality measures. Difficulties in doing randomised clinical trials should be addressed by measures to evaluate learning curves and alleviate equipoise problems. Alternative prospective designs, such as interrupted time series studies, should be used when randomised trials are not feasible. Established procedures should be monitored with prospective databases to analyse outcome variations and to identify late and rare events. Achievement of improved design, conduct, and reporting of surgical research will need concerted action by editors, funders of health care and research, regulatory bodies, and professional societies.

AB - Surgery and other invasive therapies are complex interventions, the assessment of which is challenged by factors that depend on operator, team, and setting, such as learning curves, quality variations, and perception of equipoise. We propose recommendations for the assessment of surgery based on a five-stage description of the surgical development process. We also encourage the widespread use of prospective databases and registries. Reports of new techniques should be registered as a professional duty, anonymously if necessary when outcomes are adverse. Case series studies should be replaced by prospective development studies for early technical modifications and by prospective research databases for later pre-trial evaluation. Protocols for these studies should be registered publicly. Statistical process control techniques can be useful in both early and late assessment. Randomised trials should be used whenever possible to investigate efficacy, but adequate pre-trial data are essential to allow power calculations, clarify the definition and indications of the intervention, and develop quality measures. Difficulties in doing randomised clinical trials should be addressed by measures to evaluate learning curves and alleviate equipoise problems. Alternative prospective designs, such as interrupted time series studies, should be used when randomised trials are not feasible. Established procedures should be monitored with prospective databases to analyse outcome variations and to identify late and rare events. Achievement of improved design, conduct, and reporting of surgical research will need concerted action by editors, funders of health care and research, regulatory bodies, and professional societies.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70349280608&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61116-8

DO - 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61116-8

M3 - Article

VL - 374

SP - 1105

EP - 1112

JO - Lancet

JF - Lancet

SN - 0140-6736

IS - 9695

ER -

McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Marshall JC et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: The IDEAL recommendations. The Lancet. 2009 Oct 2;374(9695):1105-1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61116-8