Jake D Foster1, Hugh Mackenzie, Heidi Nelson, George B Hanna, Nader K Francis. 1. *Department of Surgery, Yeovil District Hospital, Yeovil, UK †Division of Surgery, Imperial College London, London, UK; and ‡Division of Surgery, Research, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, MN.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the risk of bias in multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery and review the use of quality assurance mechanisms to reduce performance bias. BACKGROUND: RCTs represent the criterion standard comparison for health care interventions. For trials investigating interventional techniques, performance bias can arise through variation in delivery of the intervention. METHODS: A comprehensive systematic review was undertaken using MEDLINE and EMBASE databases to identify all large RCTs investigating laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. Risk of performance bias was evaluated through assessment of publications and protocols to identify methods used for quality assurance of surgical technique. In addition, the Cochrane Collaboration's "risk of bias" tool was used to evaluate other potential sources of bias. RESULTS: The literature search identified 48 publications, reporting upon 8 individual RCTs. All studies used mechanisms for quality assurance of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Methods employed included credentialing of surgeons or units through assessment of experience and expertise, standardization of surgical technique, and monitoring. None report the use of structure objective assessment tools for accrediting expertise. All 8 were assessed as low risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. A framework is proposed for use as a model for quality assurance in future surgical trials. CONCLUSIONS: Consideration of risk of performance bias is important when appraising trials investigating an interventional technique. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery RCTs have all employed quality assurance mechanisms to reduce risk of performance bias. Further research is indicated to investigate adopting objective assessment tools for quality assurance within multicenter RCTs.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the risk of bias in multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery and review the use of quality assurance mechanisms to reduce performance bias. BACKGROUND: RCTs represent the criterion standard comparison for health care interventions. For trials investigating interventional techniques, performance bias can arise through variation in delivery of the intervention. METHODS: A comprehensive systematic review was undertaken using MEDLINE and EMBASE databases to identify all large RCTs investigating laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. Risk of performance bias was evaluated through assessment of publications and protocols to identify methods used for quality assurance of surgical technique. In addition, the Cochrane Collaboration's "risk of bias" tool was used to evaluate other potential sources of bias. RESULTS: The literature search identified 48 publications, reporting upon 8 individual RCTs. All studies used mechanisms for quality assurance of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Methods employed included credentialing of surgeons or units through assessment of experience and expertise, standardization of surgical technique, and monitoring. None report the use of structure objective assessment tools for accrediting expertise. All 8 were assessed as low risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. A framework is proposed for use as a model for quality assurance in future surgical trials. CONCLUSIONS: Consideration of risk of performance bias is important when appraising trials investigating an interventional technique. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery RCTs have all employed quality assurance mechanisms to reduce risk of performance bias. Further research is indicated to investigate adopting objective assessment tools for quality assurance within multicenter RCTs.
Authors: Nathan J Curtis; Jake D Foster; Danilo Miskovic; Chris S B Brown; Peter J Hewett; Sarah Abbott; George B Hanna; Andrew R L Stevenson; Nader K Francis Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Kristen Moloney; Monika Janda; Michael Frumovitz; Mario Leitao; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Emma Rossi; James L Nicklin; Marie Plante; Fabrice R Lecuru; Alessandro Buda; Andrea Mariani; Yee Leung; Sarah Elizabeth Ferguson; Rene Pareja; Rainer Kimmig; Pearl Shuang Ye Tong; Orla McNally; Naven Chetty; Kaijiang Liu; Ken Jaaback; Julio Lau; Soon Yau Joseph Ng; Henrik Falconer; Jan Persson; Russell Land; Fabio Martinelli; Andrea Garrett; Alon Altman; Adam Pendlebury; David Cibula; Roberto Altamirano; Donal Brennan; Thomas Edward Ind; Cornelis De Kroon; Ka Yu Tse; George Hanna; Andreas Obermair Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2021-03-04 Impact factor: 4.661
Authors: Natalie S Blencowe; Anni Skilton; Daisy Gaunt; Rachel Brierley; Andrew Hollowood; Simon Dwerryhouse; Simon Higgs; William Robb; Alex Boddy; George Hanna; C Paul Barham; Jane Blazeby Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: M Veltcamp Helbach; S E van Oostendorp; T W A Koedam; J J Knol; H B A C Stockmann; S J Oosterling; R C L M Vuylsteke; E J R de Graaf; P G Doornebosch; R Hompes; H J Bonjer; C Sietses; J B Tuynman Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-03-19 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Felix Nickel; Pascal Probst; Alexander Studier-Fischer; Henrik Nienhüser; Jana Pauly; Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski; Sebastian Weiterer; Philipp Knebel; Markus K Diener; Markus A Weigand; Markus W Büchler; Thomas Schmidt; Beat P Müller-Stich Journal: Trials Date: 2021-01-11 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Marco Milone; Michele Manigrasso; Pietro Anoldo; Anna D'Amore; Ugo Elmore; Mariano Cesare Giglio; Gianluca Rompianesi; Sara Vertaldi; Roberto Ivan Troisi; Nader K Francis; Giovanni Domenico De Palma Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-02-18