Literature DB >> 31634176

Procedural Surgical RCTs in Daily Practice: Do Surgeons Adopt Or Is It Just a Waste of Time?

Christian E Oberkofler1, Jacob F Hamming2, Roxane D Staiger1, Philippe Brosi1, Sebastiano Biondo3, Olivier Farges4, Dink A Legemate5, Mario Morino6, Antonio D Pinna7, Hugo Pinto-Marques8, John V Reynolds9, Ricardo Robles Campos10, Xavier Rogiers11, Kjetil Soreide12, Milo A Puhan13, Pierre-Alain Clavien1, Inne Borel Rinkes14.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the adoption of recommendation from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and investigate factors favoring or preventing adoption.
BACKGROUND: RCT are considered to be the cornerstone of evidence-based medicine by representing the highest level of evidence. As such, we expect RCT's recommendations to be followed rigorously in daily surgical practice.
METHODS: We performed a structured search for RCTs published in the medical and surgical literature from 2009 to 2013, allowing a minimum of 5-year follow-up to convincingly test implementation. We focused on comparative technical or procedural RCTs trials addressing the domains of general, colorectal, hepatobiliary, upper gastrointestinal and vascular surgery. In a second step we composed a survey of 29 questions among ESA members as well as collaborators from their institutions to investigate the adoption of surgical RCTs recommendation.
RESULTS: The survey based on 36 RCTs (median 5-yr citation index 85 (24-474), from 21 different countries, published in 15 high-ranked journals with a median impact factor of 3.3 (1.23-7.9) at the time of publication. Overall, less than half of the respondents (47%) appeared to adhere to the recommendations of a specific RCT within their field of expertise, even when included in formal guidelines. Adoption of a new surgical practice was favored by watching videos (46%) as well as assisting live operations (18%), while skepticism regarding the methodology of a surgical RCT (40%) appears to be the major reason to resist adoption.
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, surgical RCTs appear to have moderate impact on daily surgical practice. While RCTs are still accepted to provide the highest level of evidence, alternative methods of evaluating surgical innovations should also be explored.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 31634176     DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003546

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg        ISSN: 0003-4932            Impact factor:   12.969


  4 in total

1.  How to assess applicability and methodological quality of comparative studies of operative interventions in orthopedic trauma surgery.

Authors:  Kim Luijken; Bryan J M van de Wall; Lotty Hooft; Luke P H Leenen; R Marijn Houwert; Rolf H H Groenwold
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2022-07-09       Impact factor: 3.693

2.  Laparoscopic versus open resections in the posterosuperior liver segments within an enhanced recovery programme (ORANGE Segments): study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Christoph Kuemmerli; Robert S Fichtinger; Alma Moekotte; Luca A Aldrighetti; Somaiah Aroori; Marc G H Besselink; Mathieu D'Hondt; Rafael Díaz-Nieto; Bjørn Edwin; Mikhail Efanov; Giuseppe M Ettorre; Krishna V Menon; Aali J Sheen; Zahir Soonawalla; Robert Sutcliffe; Roberto I Troisi; Steven A White; Lloyd Brandts; Gerard J P van Breukelen; Jasper Sijberden; Siân A Pugh; Zina Eminton; John N Primrose; Ronald van Dam; Mohammed Abu Hilal
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2022-03-09       Impact factor: 2.279

3.  Trends in bariatric surgery in Texas: an analysis of a statewide administrative database 2013-2017.

Authors:  Benjamin Clapp; William Klingsporn; Isaac Lee; Evan Liggett; Ashtyn Barrientes; Brittany Harper; Alan Tyroch
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-04-03       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Alternative Randomized Trial Designs in Surgery: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Simone Augustinus; Iris W J M van Goor; Johannes Berkhof; Lois A Daamen; Bas Groot Koerkamp; Tara M Mackay; I Q Molenaar; Hjalmar C van Santvoort; Helena M Verkooijen; Peter M van de Ven; Marc G Besselink
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2022-07-22       Impact factor: 13.787

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.