Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery 8/2012

01-12-2012 | Review Article

Surgical evaluation and knowledge transfer—methods of clinical research in surgery

Authors: Markus K. Diener, Thomas Simon, Markus W. Büchler, Christoph M. Seiler

Published in: Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery | Issue 8/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

This article aims to outline the framework of surgical evaluation and knowledge transfer. Therefore, special design issues affecting surgical clinical research will be discussed. Moreover, principles and challenges of knowledge transfer from research into practice will be addressed.

Background

The ultimate goal of academic surgery is to improve surgical and perioperative care in order to achieve the best outcomes for patients. Randomized controlled trials and reviews with and without meta-analyses are fundamental requirements for evidence-based decision making.

Discussion

Despite calls for more rigorous research methods in surgery, the frequency of high-quality randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews is low. Specific methodological and design issues have to be implemented for valid evaluation of surgical procedures. Thus, general catchwords of clinical epidemiology such as timing, randomization, registration, and reporting standards demand special appraisal. Moreover, blinding methods, placebo controls, learning curves, standardized outcome assessment, and generalizability are critical design issues in surgical trials. Moreover, systematic reviews and meta-analyses are desirable for answering clinical issues or defining new research questions.

Conclusion

For a rigorous evaluation of surgical procedures, a basic understanding of research methodology is urgently needed, and to improve methodological expertise, collaboration between surgeons and methodologists is encouraged.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Seiler CM, Diener MK, Schuhmacher C (2010) Impact of clinical trials for surgery. Chirurg 81:334–340PubMedCrossRef Seiler CM, Diener MK, Schuhmacher C (2010) Impact of clinical trials for surgery. Chirurg 81:334–340PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Schneider M, Weitz J, Buchler MW (2010) The focus of Langenbeck’s Archives of Surgery in the 21st century. Langenbecks Arch Surg 395(Suppl 1):75–79PubMedCrossRef Schneider M, Weitz J, Buchler MW (2010) The focus of Langenbeck’s Archives of Surgery in the 21st century. Langenbecks Arch Surg 395(Suppl 1):75–79PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Antes G, Sauerland S, Seiler CM (2006) Evidence-based medicine—from best research evidence to a better surgical practice and health care. Langenbecks Arch Surg 391:61–67PubMedCrossRef Antes G, Sauerland S, Seiler CM (2006) Evidence-based medicine—from best research evidence to a better surgical practice and health care. Langenbecks Arch Surg 391:61–67PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Ergina PL, Cook JA, Blazeby JM, Boutron I, Clavien PA et al (2009) Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. Lancet 374:1097–1104PubMedCrossRef Ergina PL, Cook JA, Blazeby JM, Boutron I, Clavien PA et al (2009) Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. Lancet 374:1097–1104PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Diener MK, Seiler CM, Antes G (2007) Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in surgery. Chirurg 78:938–944PubMedCrossRef Diener MK, Seiler CM, Antes G (2007) Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in surgery. Chirurg 78:938–944PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Wente MN, Seiler CM, Uhl W, Buchler MW (2003) Perspectives of evidence-based surgery. Dig Surg 20(4):263–269PubMedCrossRef Wente MN, Seiler CM, Uhl W, Buchler MW (2003) Perspectives of evidence-based surgery. Dig Surg 20(4):263–269PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Solomon MJ, Laxamana A, Devore L, McLeod RS (1994) Randomized controlled trials in surgery. Surgery 115:707–712PubMed Solomon MJ, Laxamana A, Devore L, McLeod RS (1994) Randomized controlled trials in surgery. Surgery 115:707–712PubMed
8.
go back to reference Hall JC, Mills B, Nguyen H, Hall JL (1996) Methodologic standards in surgical trials. Surgery 119:466–472PubMedCrossRef Hall JC, Mills B, Nguyen H, Hall JL (1996) Methodologic standards in surgical trials. Surgery 119:466–472PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Abraham NS (2006) Will the dilemma of evidence-based surgery ever be resolved? ANZ J Surg 76:855–860PubMedCrossRef Abraham NS (2006) Will the dilemma of evidence-based surgery ever be resolved? ANZ J Surg 76:855–860PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD et al (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283:2008–2012PubMedCrossRef Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD et al (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283:2008–2012PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG (2004) Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 291:2457–2465PubMedCrossRef Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG (2004) Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 291:2457–2465PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J et al (2004) Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA 292:1363–1364PubMedCrossRef DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J et al (2004) Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA 292:1363–1364PubMedCrossRef
14.
15.
go back to reference Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Ravaud P (2008) Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 148:295–309PubMed Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Ravaud P (2008) Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 148:295–309PubMed
16.
go back to reference Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 6:e1000100PubMedCrossRef Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 6:e1000100PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Clarke M, Hopewell S, Chalmers I (2010) Clinical trials should begin and end with systematic reviews of relevant evidence: 12 years and waiting. Lancet 376:20–21PubMedCrossRef Clarke M, Hopewell S, Chalmers I (2010) Clinical trials should begin and end with systematic reviews of relevant evidence: 12 years and waiting. Lancet 376:20–21PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Pocock S (1983) Clinical trials: a practical approach. Methods of randomisation. Wiley, New York, pp 66–90 Pocock S (1983) Clinical trials: a practical approach. Methods of randomisation. Wiley, New York, pp 66–90
19.
go back to reference Altman DG, Bland JM (1999) Statistics notes. Treatment allocation in controlled trials: why randomise? BMJ 318:1209PubMedCrossRef Altman DG, Bland JM (1999) Statistics notes. Treatment allocation in controlled trials: why randomise? BMJ 318:1209PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Chalmers TC (1975) Randomization of the first patient. Med Clin North Am 59:1035–1043PubMed Chalmers TC (1975) Randomization of the first patient. Med Clin North Am 59:1035–1043PubMed
21.
22.
go back to reference McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M, Lovett B, Griffin D (2002) Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions. BMJ 324:1448–1451PubMedCrossRef McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M, Lovett B, Griffin D (2002) Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions. BMJ 324:1448–1451PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Cook JA (2009) The challenges faced in the design, conduct and analysis of surgical randomised controlled trials. Trials 10:9PubMedCrossRef Cook JA (2009) The challenges faced in the design, conduct and analysis of surgical randomised controlled trials. Trials 10:9PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Altman DG, Schulz KF (2001) Statistics notes: concealing treatment allocation in randomised trials. BMJ 323:446–453PubMedCrossRef Altman DG, Schulz KF (2001) Statistics notes: concealing treatment allocation in randomised trials. BMJ 323:446–453PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Farrokhyar F, Karanicolas PJ, Thoma A, Simunovic M, Bhandari M et al (2010) Randomized controlled trials of surgical interventions. Ann Surg 251:409–416PubMedCrossRef Farrokhyar F, Karanicolas PJ, Thoma A, Simunovic M, Bhandari M et al (2010) Randomized controlled trials of surgical interventions. Ann Surg 251:409–416PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Seiler CM, Deckert A, Diener MK, Knaebel HP, Weigand MA et al (2009) Midline versus transverse incision in major abdominal surgery: a randomized, double-blind equivalence trial (POVATI: ISRCTN60734227). Ann Surg 249:913–920PubMedCrossRef Seiler CM, Deckert A, Diener MK, Knaebel HP, Weigand MA et al (2009) Midline versus transverse incision in major abdominal surgery: a randomized, double-blind equivalence trial (POVATI: ISRCTN60734227). Ann Surg 249:913–920PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Majeed AW, Troy G, Nicholl JP, Smythe A, Reed MW et al (1996) Randomised, prospective, single-blind comparison of laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy. Lancet 347:989–994PubMedCrossRef Majeed AW, Troy G, Nicholl JP, Smythe A, Reed MW et al (1996) Randomised, prospective, single-blind comparison of laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy. Lancet 347:989–994PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Diener MK, Blumle A, Szakallas V, Antes G, Seiler CM (2006) Randomized and nonrandomized controlled clinical trials in a German surgical journal. Chirurg 77:837–843PubMedCrossRef Diener MK, Blumle A, Szakallas V, Antes G, Seiler CM (2006) Randomized and nonrandomized controlled clinical trials in a German surgical journal. Chirurg 77:837–843PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Karanicolas PJ, Bhandari M, Taromi B, Akl EA, Bassler D et al (2008) Blinding of outcomes in trials of orthopaedic trauma: an opportunity to enhance the validity of clinical trials. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90:1026–1033PubMedCrossRef Karanicolas PJ, Bhandari M, Taromi B, Akl EA, Bassler D et al (2008) Blinding of outcomes in trials of orthopaedic trauma: an opportunity to enhance the validity of clinical trials. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90:1026–1033PubMedCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Moseley JB, O’Malley K, Petersen NJ, Menke TJ, Brody BA et al (2002) A controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. N Engl J Med 347:81–88PubMedCrossRef Moseley JB, O’Malley K, Petersen NJ, Menke TJ, Brody BA et al (2002) A controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. N Engl J Med 347:81–88PubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference Swank DJ, Swank-Bordewijk SC, Hop WC, van Erp WF, Janssen IM et al (2003) Laparoscopic adhesiolysis in patients with chronic abdominal pain: a blinded randomised controlled multi-centre trial. Lancet 361:1247–1251PubMedCrossRef Swank DJ, Swank-Bordewijk SC, Hop WC, van Erp WF, Janssen IM et al (2003) Laparoscopic adhesiolysis in patients with chronic abdominal pain: a blinded randomised controlled multi-centre trial. Lancet 361:1247–1251PubMedCrossRef
33.
go back to reference Cobb LA, Thomas GI, Dillard DH, Merendino KA, Bruce RA (1959) An evaluation of internal-mammary-artery ligation by a double-blind technic. N Engl J Med 260:1115–1118PubMedCrossRef Cobb LA, Thomas GI, Dillard DH, Merendino KA, Bruce RA (1959) An evaluation of internal-mammary-artery ligation by a double-blind technic. N Engl J Med 260:1115–1118PubMedCrossRef
34.
go back to reference Diener MK, Knaebel HP, Witte ST, Rossion I, Kieser M et al (2008) DISPACT trial: a randomized controlled trial to compare two different surgical techniques of DIStal PAnCreaTectomy—study rationale and design. Clin Trials 5:534–545PubMedCrossRef Diener MK, Knaebel HP, Witte ST, Rossion I, Kieser M et al (2008) DISPACT trial: a randomized controlled trial to compare two different surgical techniques of DIStal PAnCreaTectomy—study rationale and design. Clin Trials 5:534–545PubMedCrossRef
35.
go back to reference Wente MN, Bassi C, Dervenis C, Fingerhut A, Gouma DJ et al (2007) Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 142(5):761–768PubMedCrossRef Wente MN, Bassi C, Dervenis C, Fingerhut A, Gouma DJ et al (2007) Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 142(5):761–768PubMedCrossRef
36.
go back to reference Bonenkamp JJ, Songun I, Hermans J, Sasako M, Welvaart K et al (1995) Randomised comparison of morbidity after D1 and D2 dissection for gastric cancer in 996 Dutch patients. Lancet 345:745–748PubMedCrossRef Bonenkamp JJ, Songun I, Hermans J, Sasako M, Welvaart K et al (1995) Randomised comparison of morbidity after D1 and D2 dissection for gastric cancer in 996 Dutch patients. Lancet 345:745–748PubMedCrossRef
37.
go back to reference Bruns H, Rahbari NN, Loffler T, Diener MK, Seiler CM et al (2009) Perioperative management in distal pancreatectomy: results of a survey in 23 European participating centres of the DISPACT trial and a review of literature. Trials 10:58PubMedCrossRef Bruns H, Rahbari NN, Loffler T, Diener MK, Seiler CM et al (2009) Perioperative management in distal pancreatectomy: results of a survey in 23 European participating centres of the DISPACT trial and a review of literature. Trials 10:58PubMedCrossRef
38.
go back to reference Devereaux PJ, Bhandari M, Clarke M, Montori VM, Cook DJ et al (2005) Need for expertise based randomised controlled trials. BMJ 330:88–91PubMedCrossRef Devereaux PJ, Bhandari M, Clarke M, Montori VM, Cook DJ et al (2005) Need for expertise based randomised controlled trials. BMJ 330:88–91PubMedCrossRef
39.
go back to reference Heritier SR, Gebski VJ, Keech AC (2003) Inclusion of patients in clinical trial analysis: the intention-to-treat principle. Med J Aust 179:438–440PubMed Heritier SR, Gebski VJ, Keech AC (2003) Inclusion of patients in clinical trial analysis: the intention-to-treat principle. Med J Aust 179:438–440PubMed
40.
go back to reference Peto R, Collins R, Gray R (1995) Large-scale randomized evidence: large, simple trials and overviews of trials. J Clin Epidemiol 48:23–40PubMedCrossRef Peto R, Collins R, Gray R (1995) Large-scale randomized evidence: large, simple trials and overviews of trials. J Clin Epidemiol 48:23–40PubMedCrossRef
41.
go back to reference McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, Flum DR, Glasziou P et al (2009) No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet 374:1105–1112PubMedCrossRef McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, Flum DR, Glasziou P et al (2009) No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet 374:1105–1112PubMedCrossRef
42.
go back to reference Diener MK, Wolff RF, von Elm E, Rahbari NN, Mavergames C et al (2009) Can decision making in general surgery be based on evidence? An empirical study of Cochrane Reviews. Surgery 146:444–461PubMedCrossRef Diener MK, Wolff RF, von Elm E, Rahbari NN, Mavergames C et al (2009) Can decision making in general surgery be based on evidence? An empirical study of Cochrane Reviews. Surgery 146:444–461PubMedCrossRef
44.
go back to reference Diener MK, Voss S, Jensen K, Buchler MW, Seiler CM (2010) Elective midline laparotomy closure: the INLINE systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 251:843–856PubMedCrossRef Diener MK, Voss S, Jensen K, Buchler MW, Seiler CM (2010) Elective midline laparotomy closure: the INLINE systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 251:843–856PubMedCrossRef
45.
go back to reference Diener MK, Mehr KT, Wente MN, Kieser M, Buchler MW et al (2011) Risk-benefit assessment of closed intra-abdominal drains after pancreatic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the current state of evidence. Langenbecks Arch Surg 396:41–52PubMedCrossRef Diener MK, Mehr KT, Wente MN, Kieser M, Buchler MW et al (2011) Risk-benefit assessment of closed intra-abdominal drains after pancreatic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the current state of evidence. Langenbecks Arch Surg 396:41–52PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Surgical evaluation and knowledge transfer—methods of clinical research in surgery
Authors
Markus K. Diener
Thomas Simon
Markus W. Büchler
Christoph M. Seiler
Publication date
01-12-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery / Issue 8/2012
Print ISSN: 1435-2443
Electronic ISSN: 1435-2451
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-011-0775-x

Other articles of this Issue 8/2012

Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery 8/2012 Go to the issue