Top

Published in:

01-04-2005 | New Surgical Horizons

The Study Centre of the German Surgical Society—rationale and current status

Authors: Hanns-Peter Knaebel, Markus K. Diener, Moritz N. Wente, Hartwig Bauer, Markus W. Büchler, Matthias Rothmund, Christoph M. Seiler

Published in: Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery | Issue 2/2005

Abstract

Background

The concept of evidence-based medicine was introduced into surgery in the mid-1990s, initially focussing on the integration of best research evidence, surgeons’ expertise and patients’ value. The lack of relevant external evidence [randomised controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews] in favour of surgical procedures has led to the need for a new approach in clinical research.

Design

Development and implementation of the Study Centre of the German Surgical Society (SDGC) in order to design, perform and analyse multicentre randomised controlled trials in surgery.

Results

The German Surgical Society has recently initiated four surgical RCTs within the SDGC in order to improve the national infrastructure for clinical research and its international scientific standing. All surgical trials focus on procedures in various fields (thyroid and parathyroid diseases, pancreatic surgery, abdominal wall closure) and are designed to fit the specific needs of each study (blinding of patients and assessors, ranking of endpoints, patients’ perspective). Additionally, in a nationwide survey of 1,274 surgical departments in Germany, 307 replied, of which 237 (19%) were willing to participate in multicentre projects.

Conclusion

Evidence-based medicine has changed surgical practice, leading to an increase in demand for RCTs and requiring a new infrastructure in surgical departments and scientific societies.

Uhl W, Wente MN, Buchler MW (2000) Surgical clinical studies and their practical realization. Chirurg 71:615–625

Goligher JC, Pulvertaft CN, Watkinson G (1964) Controlled trial of vagotomy and gastro-enterostomy, vagotomy and antrectomy, and subtotal gastrectomy in elective treatment of duodenal ulcer. BMJ 5381:455–460

Pollock AV (1989) The rise and fall of the random controlled trial in surgery. Theor Surg 4:163–170

Solomon MJ, McLeod RS (1993) Clinical studies in surgical journals—have we improved? Dis Colon Rectum 36:43–48

Horton R (1996) Surgical research or comic opera: questions, but few answers. Lancet 347:984–985

Hall JC, Mills B, Nguyen H, Hall JL (1996) Methodologic standards in surgical trials. Surgery 119:466–472

Solomon MJ, Laxamana A, Devore L, McLeod RS (1994) Randomized controlled trials in surgery. Surgery 115:707–712

Meakins JL (2002) Innovation in surgery: the rules of evidence. Am J Surg 183:399–405

Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG (2001) The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 357:1191–1194CrossRefPubMed

10.

Stirrat GM, Farrow SC, Farndon J, Dwyer N (1992) The challenge of evaluating surgical procedures. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 74:80–84

11.

McLeod RS, Wright JG, Solomon MJ, Hu X, Walters BC, Lossing A (1996) Randomized controlled trials in surgery: issues and problems. Surgery 119:483–486PubMed

12.

McLeod RS (1999) Issues in surgical randomized controlled trials. World J Surg 23:1210–1214CrossRefPubMed

13.

van der Linden W (1980) Pitfalls in randomized surgical trials. Surgery 87:258–262

14.

Wente MN, Seiler CM, Uhl W, Buchler MW (2003) Perspectives of evidence-based surgery. Dig Surg 20:263–269

15.

McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M, Lovett B, Griffin D (2002) Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions. BMJ 324:1448–1451

16.

Lilford R, Braunholtz D, Harris J, Gill T (2004) Trials in surgery. Br J Surg 91:6–16

17.

Treasure T, MacRae KD (1998) Minimisation: the platinum standard for trials? Randomisation doesn’t guarantee similarity of groups; minimisation does. BMJ 317:362–363

18.

Taylor KM, Margolese RG, Soskolne CL (1984) Physicians’ reasons for not entering eligible patients in a randomized clinical trial of surgery for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 310:1363–1367

19.

Chalmers TC (1975) Randomization of the first patient. Med Clin North Am 59:1035–1038

20.

Mowatt G, Bower DJ, Brebner JA, Cairns JA, Grant AM, McKee L (1997) When and how to assess fast-changing technologies: a comparative study of medical applications of four generic technologies. Health Technol Assess 1:1–149

21.

Majeed AW, Troy G, Nicholl JP, Smythe A, Reed MW, Stoddard CJ, Peacock J, Johnson AG (1996) Randomised, prospective, single-blind comparison of laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy. Lancet 347:989–994CrossRefPubMed

22.

Reidel MA, Knaebel HP, Seiler CM, Knauer C, Motsch J, Victor N, Buchler MW (2003) Postsurgical pain outcome of vertical and transverse abdominal incision: design of a randomized controlled equivalence trial [ISRCTN 60734227]. BMC Surg 3:9

23.

Dimond EG, Kittle CF, Crockett JE (1958) Evaluation of internal mammary artery ligation and sham procedure in angina pectoris. Circulation 18:712–715

24.

Edwards SJ, Lilford RJ, Hewison J (1998) The ethics of randomised controlled trials from the perspectives of patients, the public, and healthcare professionals. BMJ 317:1209–1212

25.

Coomarasamy A, Khan KS (2004) What is the evidence that postgraduate teaching in evidence based medicine changes anything? A systematic review. BMJ 329:1017

26.

Selbmann HK, Flohl R, Volk HD, Rothmund M, Reinauer H, Konze-Thomas B, Troidl H, Lorenz W (1996) Country profile: Germany. Lancet 348:1631–1639

27.

Lovett B, Sawyer W, Houghton J, Taylor I (2000) Systematic review of the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials of the surgical excision of cancer (abstract). Eur J Surg Oncol 26:840

28.

Canter PH, Ernst E (2004) Clinical trials and tribulations. J R Soc Med 97:101–102

29.

Howes N, Chagla L, Thorpe M, McCulloch P (1997) Surgical practice is evidence based. Br J Surg 84:1220–1223

30.

Rothmund M (2004) Studienzentrum der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Chirurgie. Mitt Dtsch Ges Chir 01:34–35

31.

Schwenk W (2004) The LAPDIV-CAMIC Study. Multicenter prospective randomized study of short-term and intermediate-term outcome of laparoscopic and conventional sigmoid resection in diverticular disease. Chirurg 75:706–707

32.

Pitches D, Burls A, Fry-Smith A (2003) How to make a silk purse from a sow’s ear—a comprehensive review of strategies to optimise data for corrupt managers and incompetent clinicians. BMJ 327:1436–1439

Title: The Study Centre of the German Surgical Society—rationale and current status
Authors: Hanns-Peter Knaebel
Markus K. Diener
Moritz N. Wente
Hartwig Bauer
Markus W. Büchler
Matthias Rothmund
Christoph M. Seiler
Publication date: 01-04-2005
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery / Issue 2/2005
Print ISSN: 1435-2443
Electronic ISSN: 1435-2451
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-005-0547-6

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

The Study Centre of the German Surgical Society—rationale and current status

Abstract

Background

Design

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Design

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2005

Comment on the publication ‘Impact of FDG-PET for staging of oesophageal cancer’ by A. Imdahl et al.

A randomised study on a new cost-effective algorithm of quick intraoperative intact parathyroid hormone assay in secondary hyperparathyroidism

Contrast-enhanced computed tomography in acute pancreatitis: does contrast medium worsen its course due to impaired microcirculation?

A diagnostic score for children with suspected appendicitis

Synbiotics reduce postoperative infectious complications: a randomized controlled trial in biliary cancer patients undergoing hepatectomy

Laparoscopic approach for solitary insulinoma: a multicentre study