ArticleThe British journal of surgery2026
Concise stakeholder-informed tool for reporting modifications to innovative surgical procedures and devices: Surgical ModificAtion Reporting Tool (SMART) checklist.
Article in The British journal of surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundModifications to invasive procedures and devices are common during surgical innovation, yet reporting is frequently inconsistent and incomplete. The aim of this study was to develop a concise, stakeholder-informed checklist for reporting modifications in surgical innovation studies.
methodsA provisional checklist was developed from a systematic review of 104 IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, and Long-term study) studies, identifying substantial heterogeneity and deficits in modification reporting. Twenty stakeholders were purposively sampled for semi-structured interviews, including clinicians, methodologists, industry representatives, and governance professionals. Interviews explored views and subsequently optimized the checklist's content, wording, layout, scope, and usability. Data were analysed by thematic analysis and iteratively used to refine the checklist until no further required changes were identified.
resultsStakeholders endorsed the need for a dedicated modification reporting tool, emphasizing pragmatism and usability. Interview findings led to clarification of scope, refinement of terminology, and removal of ambiguous items. Greater emphasis was placed on describing the innovation's starting configuration, specifying the IDEAL stage, explicitly reporting both the presence and absence of modifications, and reflecting on procedural stability. Iterations condensed the checklist to a seven-item tool. The final Surgical ModificAtion Reporting Tool (SMART) specifies describing the starting point of the innovation, reporting modifications, and summarizing stability and shared learning.
conclusionSMART is a concise, stakeholder-informed prepublication tool to guide prospective tracking and consistent reporting of modifications to innovative invasive procedures and devices. Used alongside the IDEAL framework, it has the potential to improve the quality and interpretability of surgical innovation research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.