BACKGROUND/AIM: Paediatric surgical practice should be based upon solid scientific evidence. A study in 1998 (Baraldini et al., Pediatr Surg Int) indicated that only a quarter of paediatric operations were supported by the then gold standard of evidence based medicine (EBM) which was defined by randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The aim of the current study was to re-evaluate paediatric surgical practice 16 years after the previous study in a larger cohort of patients. METHODS: A prospective observational study was performed in a tertiary level teaching hospital for children. The study was approved by the local research ethics board. All diagnostic and therapeutic procedures requiring a general anaesthetic carried out over a 4-week period (24 Feb 2014-22 Mar 2014) under the general surgery service or involving a general paediatric surgeon were included in the study. Pubmed and EMBASE were used to search in the literature for the highest level of evidence supporting the recorded procedures. Evidence was classified according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (OCEBM) 2009 system as well as according to the classification used by Baraldini et al. Results was compared using Χ (2) test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: During the study period, 126 operations (36 different types) were performed on 118 patients. According to the OCEBM classification, 62 procedures (49 %) were supported by systematic reviews of multiple homogeneous RCTs (level 1a), 13 (10 %) by individual RCTs (level 1b), 5 (4 %) by systematic reviews of cohort studies (level 2a), 11 (9 %) by individual cohort studies, 1 (1 %) by systematic review of case-control studies (level 3a), 14 (11 %) by case-control studies (level 3b), 9 (7 %) by case series (type 4) and 11 procedures (9 %) were based on expert opinion or deemed self-evident interventions (type 5). High level of evidence (OCEBM level 1a or 1b or level I according to Baraldini et al. PSI 1998) supported 75 (60 %) operations in the current study compared to 18 (26 %) in the study of 1998 (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The present study shows that nowadays a remarkable number of paediatric surgical procedures are supported by high level of evidence. Despite this improvement in evidence-based paediatric surgical practice, more than a third of the procedures still lack sufficient evidence-based literature support. More RCTs are warranted to support and direct paediatric surgery practice according to the principals of EBM.
BACKGROUND/AIM: Paediatric surgical practice should be based upon solid scientific evidence. A study in 1998 (Baraldini et al., Pediatr Surg Int) indicated that only a quarter of paediatric operations were supported by the then gold standard of evidence based medicine (EBM) which was defined by randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The aim of the current study was to re-evaluate paediatric surgical practice 16 years after the previous study in a larger cohort of patients. METHODS: A prospective observational study was performed in a tertiary level teaching hospital for children. The study was approved by the local research ethics board. All diagnostic and therapeutic procedures requiring a general anaesthetic carried out over a 4-week period (24 Feb 2014-22 Mar 2014) under the general surgery service or involving a general paediatric surgeon were included in the study. Pubmed and EMBASE were used to search in the literature for the highest level of evidence supporting the recorded procedures. Evidence was classified according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (OCEBM) 2009 system as well as according to the classification used by Baraldini et al. Results was compared using Χ (2) test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: During the study period, 126 operations (36 different types) were performed on 118 patients. According to the OCEBM classification, 62 procedures (49 %) were supported by systematic reviews of multiple homogeneous RCTs (level 1a), 13 (10 %) by individual RCTs (level 1b), 5 (4 %) by systematic reviews of cohort studies (level 2a), 11 (9 %) by individual cohort studies, 1 (1 %) by systematic review of case-control studies (level 3a), 14 (11 %) by case-control studies (level 3b), 9 (7 %) by case series (type 4) and 11 procedures (9 %) were based on expert opinion or deemed self-evident interventions (type 5). High level of evidence (OCEBM level 1a or 1b or level I according to Baraldini et al. PSI 1998) supported 75 (60 %) operations in the current study compared to 18 (26 %) in the study of 1998 (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The present study shows that nowadays a remarkable number of paediatric surgical procedures are supported by high level of evidence. Despite this improvement in evidence-based paediatric surgical practice, more than a third of the procedures still lack sufficient evidence-based literature support. More RCTs are warranted to support and direct paediatric surgery practice according to the principals of EBM.
Authors: M N de la Hunt; N Madden; J E Scott; J N Matthews; J Beck; C Sadler; A M Barrett; S A Boddy; R J Bray; E Cusick; L Gardner; S A Hargrave; W Hinton; L Rangecroft; R Spicer; M Stafford; D Thomas; C J Vallis; J Wagget Journal: J Pediatr Surg Date: 1996-11 Impact factor: 2.545
Authors: Elke Zani-Ruttenstock; Augusto Zani; Emma Bullman; Eveline Lapidus-Krol; Agostino Pierro Journal: Pediatr Surg Int Date: 2015-04-03 Impact factor: 1.827
Authors: Aurélien Binet; C Klipfel; P Meignan; F Bastard; A R Cook; K Braïk; A Le Touze; T Villemagne; M Robert; Q Ballouhey; F Lengelle; S Amar; H Lardy Journal: Pediatr Surg Int Date: 2018-02-06 Impact factor: 1.827
Authors: Benjamin Allin; Nicholas Aveyard; Timothy Campion-Smith; Eleanor Floyd; James Kimpton; Kate Swarbrick; Emma Williams; Marian Knight Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-09 Impact factor: 3.240