BACKGROUND: The IDEAL framework (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term study) proposes a staged assessment of surgical innovation, but whether it can be used in practice is uncertain. This study aimed to review the reporting of a surgical innovation according to the IDEAL framework. METHODS: Systematic literature searches identified articles reporting laparoendoscopic excision for benign colonic polyps. Using the IDEAL stage recommendations, data were collected on: patient selection, surgeon and unit expertise, description of the intervention and modifications, outcome reporting, and research governance. Studies were categorized by IDEAL stages: 0/1, simple technical preclinical/clinical reports; 2a, technique modifications with rationale and safety data; 2b, expanded patient selection and reporting of both innovation and standard care outcomes; 3, formal randomized controlled trials; and 4, long-term audit and registry studies. Each stage has specific requirements for reporting of surgeon expertise, governance details and outcome reporting. RESULTS: Of 615 abstracts screened, 16 papers reporting outcomes of 550 patients were included. Only two studies could be put into IDEAL categories. One animal study was classified as stage 0 and one clinical study as stage 2a through prospective ethical approval, protocol registration and data collection. Studies could not be classified according to IDEAL for insufficient reporting details of patient selection, relevant surgeon expertise, and how and why the technique was modified or adapted. CONCLUSION: The reporting of innovation in the context of laparoendoscopic colonic polyp excision would benefit from standardized methods.
BACKGROUND: The IDEAL framework (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term study) proposes a staged assessment of surgical innovation, but whether it can be used in practice is uncertain. This study aimed to review the reporting of a surgical innovation according to the IDEAL framework. METHODS: Systematic literature searches identified articles reporting laparoendoscopic excision for benign colonic polyps. Using the IDEAL stage recommendations, data were collected on: patient selection, surgeon and unit expertise, description of the intervention and modifications, outcome reporting, and research governance. Studies were categorized by IDEAL stages: 0/1, simple technical preclinical/clinical reports; 2a, technique modifications with rationale and safety data; 2b, expanded patient selection and reporting of both innovation and standard care outcomes; 3, formal randomized controlled trials; and 4, long-term audit and registry studies. Each stage has specific requirements for reporting of surgeon expertise, governance details and outcome reporting. RESULTS: Of 615 abstracts screened, 16 papers reporting outcomes of 550 patients were included. Only two studies could be put into IDEAL categories. One animal study was classified as stage 0 and one clinical study as stage 2a through prospective ethical approval, protocol registration and data collection. Studies could not be classified according to IDEAL for insufficient reporting details of patient selection, relevant surgeon expertise, and how and why the technique was modified or adapted. CONCLUSION: The reporting of innovation in the context of laparoendoscopic colonic polyp excision would benefit from standardized methods.
Authors: I S Muskens; S J H Diederen; J T Senders; A H Zamanipoor Najafabadi; W R van Furth; A M May; T R Smith; A L Bredenoord; M L D Broekman Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2017-08-06 Impact factor: 2.216
Authors: Sian Cousins; Hollie Richards; Jesmond Zahra; Daisy Elliott; Kerry Avery; Harry F Robertson; Sangeetha Paramasivan; Nicholas Wilson; Johnny Mathews; Zoe Tolkien; Barry G Main; Natalie S Blencowe; Robert Hinchliffe; Jane M Blazeby Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-08-26 Impact factor: 2.692