Literature DB >> 7975698

Unexpected difficulties in randomizing patients in a surgical trial: a prospective study comparing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy with open cholecystectomy.

P W Plaisier1, M Y Berger, R L van der Hul, H G Nijs, R den Toom, O T Terpstra, H A Bruining.   

Abstract

Shortly after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) was introduced as a promising new treatment modality for gallstone disease, a randomized controlled study was performed to assess the cost-effectiveness of ESWL compared to open cholecystectomy, the gold standard. During the performance of this study it was found that during a 3-year intake period only 8.3% (37 of 448) of the patients could be entered into the trial. Three factors were identified that hampered patient accrual: (1) restricted eligibility for ESWL (and thus for the study), which could not have been predicted on the data provided in the literature; (2) the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy; and (3) strong patient preference, inhibiting randomization. All three mechanisms could not have been predicted during the design phase of the study. It is concluded that it is not always feasible to conduct a randomized study in surgery due to unforeseen circumstances. Entering patients into surgical trials is difficult in quickly evolving fields of surgery, such as the management of gallstone disease. Acquiring informed consent is also difficult when treatment characteristics are divergent. A randomized controlled study on the effects of laparoscopic cholecystectomy will therefore probably never be performed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7975698     DOI: 10.1007/BF00298927

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Surg        ISSN: 0364-2313            Impact factor:   3.352


  27 in total

1.  Numerators without denominators. There is no FDA for the surgeon.

Authors:  D H Spodick
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1975-04-07       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  M Emberton; R Howerton
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1992-03-21

Review 3.  Kidney stones and lithotripters: critical analysis of the introduction of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy into Canada.

Authors:  L C Wiser; R H Plain; J B Dossetor
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1990-12-15       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  Conventional versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the randomized controlled trial. Cholecystectomy Study Group.

Authors:  E Neugebauer; H Troidl; W Spangenberger; A Dietrich; R Lefering
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 6.939

5.  Patient preferences and randomised clinical trials.

Authors:  C R Brewin; C Bradley
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1989-07-29

6.  Recruitment to a prospective breast conservation trial: why are so few patients randomised?

Authors:  W J Jack; U Chetty; A Rodger
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1990-07-14

7.  Shock-wave lithotripsy of gallbladder stones. The first 175 patients.

Authors:  M Sackmann; M Delius; T Sauerbruch; J Holl; W Weber; E Ippisch; U Hagelauer; O Wess; W Hepp; W Brendel
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1988-02-18       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 8.  Summary of NIH Consensus development conference "gallstones and laparoscopic cholecystectomy".

Authors: 
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  1993 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 9.  Cholecystectomy: the gold standard.

Authors:  C K McSherry
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1989-09       Impact factor: 2.565

10.  Laparoscopy: the preferred method of cholecystectomy in the morbidly obese.

Authors:  R H Miles; R E Carballo; R A Prinz; M McMahon; G Pulawski; R N Olen; D L Dahlinghaus
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  1992-10       Impact factor: 3.982

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Do surgical trials meet the scientific standards for clinical trials?

Authors:  Danielle M Wenner; Baruch A Brody; Anna F Jarman; Jacob M Kolman; Nelda P Wray; Carol M Ashton
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2012-07-21       Impact factor: 6.113

2.  Laparoscopic sigmoid resection for diverticular disease has no advantages over open approach: midterm results of a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Wieland Raue; V Paolucci; W Asperger; R Albrecht; M W Büchler; W Schwenk
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2011-07-16       Impact factor: 3.445

3.  Problems of randomization to open or laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease.

Authors:  Wieland Raue; Corinna Langelotz; Vittorio Paolucci; Matthias Pross; Kaja Ludwig; Walter Asperger; Wolfgang Schwenk
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2010-10-17       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Why don't women participate? A qualitative study on non-participation in a surgical randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  D Gopinath; A R B Smith; C Holland; F M Reid
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-11-01       Impact factor: 2.894

5.  Factors influencing women's decision to participate or not in a surgical randomised controlled trial for surgical treatment of female stress urinary incontinence.

Authors:  Alyaa Mostafa; James N'Dow; Mohamed Abdel-Fattah
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2013-09-17       Impact factor: 3.411

6.  Factors affecting patient participation in orthopaedic trials comparing surgery to non-surgical interventions.

Authors:  Rajat Mittal; Ian A Harris; Sam Adie; Justine M Naylor
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials Commun       Date:  2016-05-13
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.