Kaiping Zhang1,2, Yanfang Ma3, Qianling Shi4, Jianfei Shen5, Jinlin Wu6, Xianzhuo Zhang4, Panpan Jiao4, Grace S Li1, Xueqin Tang1, René Horsleben Petersen7, Calvin S H Ng8, Alfonso Fiorelli9, Nuria M Novoa10, Benedetta Bedetti11, Giovanni Battista Levi Sandri12, Steven Hochwald13, Toni Lerut14, Alan D L Sihoe15, Leandro Cardoso Barchi16, Sebastien Gilbert17, Ryuichi Waseda18, Alper Toker19, Diego Gonzalez-Rivas20,21,22, Robert Fruscio23,24, Marco Scarci25, Fabio Davoli26, Guillaume Piessen27, Bin Qiu28, Stephen D Wang1, Yaolong Chen29,30, Shugeng Gao28. 1. Editorial Office, AME Publishing Company, Hong Kong, China. 2. School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK. 3. Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China. 4. The First School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China. 5. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province Affiliated to Wenzhou Medical University, Linhai, China. 6. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangdong, China. 7. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University Hospital of Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. 8. The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong, China. 9. Thoracic Surgery Unit, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy. 10. Thoracic Surgery Service, University Hospital of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain. 11. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Helios Clinic Bonn/Rhein Sieg, Bonn, Germany. 12. Division of General Surgery and Liver Transplantation, S. Camillo Hospital, Rome, Lazio, Italy. 13. Department of Surgical Oncology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA. 14. Department of Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 15. Gleneagles Hong Kong Hospital, Hong Kong, China. 16. Digestive Surgery Division, Department of Gastroenterology, University of Sao Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil. 17. Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. 18. Department of General Thoracic, Breast and Pediatric Surgery, Fukuoka University, Fukuoka, Japan. 19. Department of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, West Virginia University Heart and Vascular Institute, Morgantown, WV, USA. 20. Department of Thoracic Surgery and Lung Transplant, Coruña University Hospital, Coruña, Spain. 21. Minimally Invasive Thoracic Surgery Unit (UCTMI), Coruña, Spain. 22. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. 23. Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy. 24. Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan-Bicocca, Milan, Italy. 25. Department of Thoracic Surgery, S. Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy. 26. Department of Thoracic Surgery, AUSL Romagna, S. Maria delle Croci Teaching Hospital, Ravenna, Italy. 27. University of Lille, Department of Digestive and Oncological Surgery, Claude Huriez University Hospital, Lille, France. 28. Department of Thoracic Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China. 29. World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Centre for Guideline Implementation and Knowledge Translation, Lanzhou, China. 30. Lanzhou University Institute of Health Data Science, Lanzhou, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The reporting of surgical techniques is of mixed quality, with most at a very minimal level. Reporting guidelines that could be applied to guide surgical technique reporting vary in methodology for development, discipline coverage, dimension coverage and detail requested. However, a scoping review that could indicate the gaps and efforts needed in surgical technique reporting guidelines is lacking and warranted. This study aims to design a methodological rigour protocol to guide the development of a scoping review of surgical technique reporting guidelines. METHODS: This protocol is designed following the 2020 manual proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. To further ensure the soundness of the protocol, we also included multidisciplinary professionals (including methodologists, clinicians, and journal editors) to refine the protocol. DISCUSSION: Seven key steps for developing the scoping review are identified and presented in detail, including (I) identifying the research questions; (II) inclusion criteria; (III) search strategy; (IV) source of evidence selection; (V) data extraction; (VI) analysis of the evidence; and (VII) presentation of the results. Guided by this protocol, the subsequent scoping review will inform us the overview of surgical technique reporting guidelines and precisely guide our direction and next steps in improving surgical technique reporting guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This protocol is not registered as the PROSPERO database only accepts registration of systematic review protocols while does not accept registration of scoping review protocols. 2021 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: The reporting of surgical techniques is of mixed quality, with most at a very minimal level. Reporting guidelines that could be applied to guide surgical technique reporting vary in methodology for development, discipline coverage, dimension coverage and detail requested. However, a scoping review that could indicate the gaps and efforts needed in surgical technique reporting guidelines is lacking and warranted. This study aims to design a methodological rigour protocol to guide the development of a scoping review of surgical technique reporting guidelines. METHODS: This protocol is designed following the 2020 manual proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. To further ensure the soundness of the protocol, we also included multidisciplinary professionals (including methodologists, clinicians, and journal editors) to refine the protocol. DISCUSSION: Seven key steps for developing the scoping review are identified and presented in detail, including (I) identifying the research questions; (II) inclusion criteria; (III) search strategy; (IV) source of evidence selection; (V) data extraction; (VI) analysis of the evidence; and (VII) presentation of the results. Guided by this protocol, the subsequent scoping review will inform us the overview of surgical technique reporting guidelines and precisely guide our direction and next steps in improving surgical technique reporting guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This protocol is not registered as the PROSPERO database only accepts registration of systematic review protocols while does not accept registration of scoping review protocols. 2021 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved.
Authors: Riaz A Agha; Mimi R Borrelli; Reem Farwana; Kiron Koshy; Alexander J Fowler; Dennis P Orgill Journal: Int J Surg Date: 2018-10-18 Impact factor: 6.071
Authors: R A Agha; A J Fowler; S-Y Lee; B Gundogan; K Whitehurst; H K Sagoo; K J L Jeong; D G Altman; D P Orgill Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2016-08-11 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Nicole A Bilbro; Allison Hirst; Arsenio Paez; Baptiste Vasey; Maria Pufulete; Art Sedrakyan; Peter McCulloch Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2021-01-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Riaz A Agha; Mimi R Borrelli; Reem Farwana; Kiron Koshy; Alexander J Fowler; Dennis P Orgill Journal: Int J Surg Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 6.071
Authors: Tammy C Hoffmann; Paul P Glasziou; Isabelle Boutron; Ruairidh Milne; Rafael Perera; David Moher; Douglas G Altman; Virginia Barbour; Helen Macdonald; Marie Johnston; Sarah E Lamb; Mary Dixon-Woods; Peter McCulloch; Jeremy C Wyatt; An-Wen Chan; Susan Michie Journal: BMJ Date: 2014-03-07