S Weber1, A Haverich2. 1. Klinik für Thorax-, Herz- und Gefäßchirurgie, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Deutschland. 2. Klinik für Thorax-, Herz- und Gefäßchirurgie, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Deutschland. Haverich.Axel@mh-hannover.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In recent years research that conforms with evidence-based medicine (EBM) has been demanded even in surgery. Uniform studies were carried out to prove the benefits of new procedures; however, compared to other research sectors, public third party funding for surgical research was significantly cut back. OBJECTIVE: Collation of special features in surgery with respect to external funding of surgical top level research. Examination of the benefits of a continuous promotion and of organizations involved in research. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Part one of this investigation presented the methods used to identify and analyze pioneering research in surgery. RESULTS: Out of a total of 15 revolutionary innovations only 3 projects were financed by external funding and 2 projects received indirect financial support as a result of a cooperation with the medical industry. This demonstrates that the majority of projects were neither directly nor indirectly subsidized. Apart from one instance the majority of innovations were generated by university hospitals highly active in research. DISCUSSION: In effect, the non-existing external funding for outstanding surgical innovations and hospitals suggests that a reformation of surgical research is required. To strengthen the quality of innovations in surgery a concentration of funding to institutions that are highly active in research makes sense. Institutional funding directly linked to a project should form a key component of support particularly in the early stages of development.
BACKGROUND: In recent years research that conforms with evidence-based medicine (EBM) has been demanded even in surgery. Uniform studies were carried out to prove the benefits of new procedures; however, compared to other research sectors, public third party funding for surgical research was significantly cut back. OBJECTIVE: Collation of special features in surgery with respect to external funding of surgical top level research. Examination of the benefits of a continuous promotion and of organizations involved in research. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Part one of this investigation presented the methods used to identify and analyze pioneering research in surgery. RESULTS: Out of a total of 15 revolutionary innovations only 3 projects were financed by external funding and 2 projects received indirect financial support as a result of a cooperation with the medical industry. This demonstrates that the majority of projects were neither directly nor indirectly subsidized. Apart from one instance the majority of innovations were generated by university hospitals highly active in research. DISCUSSION: In effect, the non-existing external funding for outstanding surgical innovations and hospitals suggests that a reformation of surgical research is required. To strengthen the quality of innovations in surgery a concentration of funding to institutions that are highly active in research makes sense. Institutional funding directly linked to a project should form a key component of support particularly in the early stages of development.
Keywords:
Evidence based medicine; Origin of innovations; Research; Surgery; Third party funding
Authors: Peter F Svider; Qasim Husain; Adam J Folbe; William T Couldwell; James K Liu; Jean Anderson Eloy Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Thejus T Jayakrishnan; Danielle E Green; Michael Hwang; Anthony J Zacharias; Avishkar Sharma; Fabian M Johnston; Thomas Clark Gamblin; Kiran K Turaga Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2014-07-29 Impact factor: 2.192