Markus K Diener1, Thomas Simon, Markus W Büchler, Christoph M Seiler. 1. Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. markus.diener@med.uni-heidelberg.de
Abstract
PURPOSE: This article aims to outline the framework of surgical evaluation and knowledge transfer. Therefore, special design issues affecting surgical clinical research will be discussed. Moreover, principles and challenges of knowledge transfer from research into practice will be addressed. BACKGROUND: The ultimate goal of academic surgery is to improve surgical and perioperative care in order to achieve the best outcomes for patients. Randomized controlled trials and reviews with and without meta-analyses are fundamental requirements for evidence-based decision making. DISCUSSION: Despite calls for more rigorous research methods in surgery, the frequency of high-quality randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews is low. Specific methodological and design issues have to be implemented for valid evaluation of surgical procedures. Thus, general catchwords of clinical epidemiology such as timing, randomization, registration, and reporting standards demand special appraisal. Moreover, blinding methods, placebo controls, learning curves, standardized outcome assessment, and generalizability are critical design issues in surgical trials. Moreover, systematic reviews and meta-analyses are desirable for answering clinical issues or defining new research questions. CONCLUSION: For a rigorous evaluation of surgical procedures, a basic understanding of research methodology is urgently needed, and to improve methodological expertise, collaboration between surgeons and methodologists is encouraged.
PURPOSE: This article aims to outline the framework of surgical evaluation and knowledge transfer. Therefore, special design issues affecting surgical clinical research will be discussed. Moreover, principles and challenges of knowledge transfer from research into practice will be addressed. BACKGROUND: The ultimate goal of academic surgery is to improve surgical and perioperative care in order to achieve the best outcomes for patients. Randomized controlled trials and reviews with and without meta-analyses are fundamental requirements for evidence-based decision making. DISCUSSION: Despite calls for more rigorous research methods in surgery, the frequency of high-quality randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews is low. Specific methodological and design issues have to be implemented for valid evaluation of surgical procedures. Thus, general catchwords of clinical epidemiology such as timing, randomization, registration, and reporting standards demand special appraisal. Moreover, blinding methods, placebo controls, learning curves, standardized outcome assessment, and generalizability are critical design issues in surgical trials. Moreover, systematic reviews and meta-analyses are desirable for answering clinical issues or defining new research questions. CONCLUSION: For a rigorous evaluation of surgical procedures, a basic understanding of research methodology is urgently needed, and to improve methodological expertise, collaboration between surgeons and methodologists is encouraged.
Authors: Catherine D DeAngelis; Jeffrey M Drazen; Frank A Frizelle; Charlotte Haug; John Hoey; Richard Horton; Sheldon Kotzin; Christine Laine; Ana Marusic; A John P M Overbeke; Torben V Schroeder; Hal C Sox; Martin B Van Der Weyden Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-09-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Markus K Diener; Keyvan Tadjalli-Mehr; Keyvan-Tadjalli Mehr; Moritz N Wente; Meinhard Kieser; Markus W Büchler; Christoph M Seiler Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2010-10-21 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Christoph M Seiler; Andreas Deckert; Markus K Diener; Hanns-Peter Knaebel; Markus A Weigand; Norbert Victor; Markus W Büchler Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Phillip Knebel; Shafreena Kühn; Alexis B Ulrich; Markus W Büchler; Markus K Diener Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2012-02-29 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Markus K Diener; Michael D Menger; Joachim Jähne; Hans-Detlev Saeger; Ernst Klar Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2014-03-11 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Martin Wagner; Benjamin Friedrich Berthold Mayer; Sebastian Bodenstedt; Katherine Stemmer; Arash Fereydooni; Stefanie Speidel; Rüdiger Dillmann; Felix Nickel; Lars Fischer; Hannes Götz Kenngott Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-03-05 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Ulrike Heger; Sabine Voss; Phillip Knebel; Colette Doerr-Harim; Jens Neudecker; Christoph Schuhmacher; Eugen Faist; Markus K Diener; Meinhard Kieser; Christoph M Seiler; Markus W Büchler Journal: Trials Date: 2011-11-21 Impact factor: 2.279