Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27462835›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of surgery2016

Standardizing and monitoring the delivery of surgical interventions in randomized clinical trials.

N S Blencowe, N Mills, J A Cook, J L Donovan, C A Rogers, P Whiting, J M Blazeby

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

54 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

N S BlencoweBristol Centre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
N MillsBristol Centre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
J A CookCentre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
J L DonovanBristol Centre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
C A RogersBristol Centre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
P WhitingBristol Centre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
J M BlazebyBristol Centre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2011-04-016Medical Research Council G0800800
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe complexity of surgical interventions has major implications for the design of RCTs. Trials need to consider how and whether to standardize interventions so that, if successful, they can be implemented in practice. Although guidance exists for standardizing non-pharmaceutical interventions in RCTs, their application to surgery is unclear. This study reports new methods for standardizing the delivery of surgical interventions in RCTs.

methodsDescriptions of 160 surgical interventions in existing trial reports and protocols were identified. Initially, ten reports were scrutinized in detail using a modified framework approach for the analysis of qualitative data, which informed the development of a preliminary typology. The typology was amended with iterative sequential application to all interventions. Further testing was undertaken within ongoing multicentre RCTs.

resultsThe typology has three parts. Initially, the overall technical purpose of the intervention is described (exploration, resection and/or reconstruction) in order to establish its constituent components and steps. This detailed description of the intervention is then used to establish whether and how each component and step should be standardized, and the standards documented within the trial protocol. Finally, the typology provides a framework for monitoring the agreed intervention standards during the RCT. Pilot testing within ongoing RCTs enabled standardization of the interventions to be agreed, and case report forms developed to capture deviations from these standards.

conclusionThe typology provides a framework for use during trial design to standardize the delivery of surgical interventions and document these details within protocols. Application of this typology to future RCTs may clarify details of the interventions under evaluation and help successful interventions to be implemented.

Indexed as

HumansQuality Assurance, Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignSurgical Procedures, Operative

Identifiers

PMID27462835
PMCPMC5132147

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.