Allison Hirst1, Yiannis Philippou1, Jane Blazeby2, Bruce Campbell3, Marion Campbell4, Joshua Feinberg5, Maroeska Rovers6, Natalie Blencowe2, Christopher Pennell5, Tom Quinn7, Wendy Rogers8, Jonathan Cook9, Angelos G Kolias10,11, Riaz Agha12, Philipp Dahm13, Art Sedrakyan14, Peter McCulloch1. 1. Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 2. Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. 3. University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK. 4. Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK. 5. Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY. 6. Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 7. Faculty of Health, Social Care and Education, Kingston University and St George's, University of London, London, UK. 8. Department of Philosophy and Department of Clinical Medicine, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. 9. Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 10. Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Addenbrooke's Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 11. Surgery Theme, Cambridge Clinical Trials Unit, Cambridge, UK. 12. Department of Plastic Surgery, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 13. Department of Urology, Minneapolis VAMC and University of Minnesota, Minneapolis MN. 14. Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To update, clarify, and extend IDEAL concepts and recommendations. BACKGROUND: New surgical procedures, devices, and other complex interventions need robust evaluation for safety, efficacy, and effectiveness. Unlike new medicines, there is no internationally agreed evaluation pathway for generating and analyzing data throughout the life cycle of surgical innovations. The IDEAL Framework and Recommendations were designed to provide this pathway and they have been used increasingly since their introduction in 2009. Based on a Delphi survey, expert workshop and major discussions during IDEAL conferences held in Oxford (2016) and New York (2017), this article updates and extends the IDEAL Recommendations, identifies areas for future research, and discusses the ethical problems faced by investigators at each IDEAL stage. METHODS: The IDEAL Framework describes 5 stages of evolution for new surgical therapeutic interventions-Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, and Long-term Study. This comprehensive update proposes several modifications. First, a "Pre-IDEAL" stage describing preclinical studies has been added. Second we discuss potential adaptations to expand the scope of IDEAL (originally designed for surgical procedures) to accommodate therapeutic devices, through an IDEAL-D variant. Third, we explicitly recognise the value of comprehensive data collection through registries at all stages in the Framework and fourth, we examine the ethical issues that arise at each stage of IDEAL and underpin the recommendations. The Recommendations for each stage are reviewed, clarified and additional detail added. CONCLUSIONS: The intention of this article is to widen the practical use of IDEAL by clarifying the rationale for and practical details of the Recommendations. Additional research based on the experience of implementing these Recommendations is needed to further improve them.
OBJECTIVE: To update, clarify, and extend IDEAL concepts and recommendations. BACKGROUND: New surgical procedures, devices, and other complex interventions need robust evaluation for safety, efficacy, and effectiveness. Unlike new medicines, there is no internationally agreed evaluation pathway for generating and analyzing data throughout the life cycle of surgical innovations. The IDEAL Framework and Recommendations were designed to provide this pathway and they have been used increasingly since their introduction in 2009. Based on a Delphi survey, expert workshop and major discussions during IDEAL conferences held in Oxford (2016) and New York (2017), this article updates and extends the IDEAL Recommendations, identifies areas for future research, and discusses the ethical problems faced by investigators at each IDEAL stage. METHODS: The IDEAL Framework describes 5 stages of evolution for new surgical therapeutic interventions-Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, and Long-term Study. This comprehensive update proposes several modifications. First, a "Pre-IDEAL" stage describing preclinical studies has been added. Second we discuss potential adaptations to expand the scope of IDEAL (originally designed for surgical procedures) to accommodate therapeutic devices, through an IDEAL-D variant. Third, we explicitly recognise the value of comprehensive data collection through registries at all stages in the Framework and fourth, we examine the ethical issues that arise at each stage of IDEAL and underpin the recommendations. The Recommendations for each stage are reviewed, clarified and additional detail added. CONCLUSIONS: The intention of this article is to widen the practical use of IDEAL by clarifying the rationale for and practical details of the Recommendations. Additional research based on the experience of implementing these Recommendations is needed to further improve them.
Authors: Jonathan A Cook; Mathew Baldwin; Cushla Cooper; Navraj S Nagra; Joanna C Crocker; Molly Glaze; Gemma Greenall; Amar Rangan; Lucksy Kottam; Jonathan L Rees; Dair Farrar-Hockley; Naomi Merritt; Sally Hopewell; David Beard; Michael Thomas; Melina Dritsaki; Andrew J Carr Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Henrik Petrowsky; Ralph Fritsch; Matthias Guckenberger; Michelle L De Oliveira; Philipp Dutkowski; Pierre-Alain Clavien Journal: Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2020-07-17 Impact factor: 46.802
Authors: Marc M Huttman; Harry F Robertson; Alexander N Smith; Sarah E Biggs; Ffion Dewi; Lauren K Dixon; Emily N Kirkham; Conor S Jones; Jozel Ramirez; Darren L Scroggie; Benjamin E Zucker; Samir Pathak; Natalie S Blencowe Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2022-09-08
Authors: Baptiste Vasey; Myura Nagendran; Bruce Campbell; David A Clifton; Gary S Collins; Spiros Denaxas; Alastair K Denniston; Livia Faes; Bart Geerts; Mudathir Ibrahim; Xiaoxuan Liu; Bilal A Mateen; Piyush Mathur; Melissa D McCradden; Lauren Morgan; Johan Ordish; Campbell Rogers; Suchi Saria; Daniel S W Ting; Peter Watkinson; Wim Weber; Peter Wheatstone; Peter McCulloch Journal: Nat Med Date: 2022-05-18 Impact factor: 87.241