Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Seiler CM, Diener MK, Schuhmacher C (2010) Impact of clinical trials for surgery. Chirurg 81:334–340

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 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):75–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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 391:61–67

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ergina PL, Cook JA, Blazeby JM, Boutron I, Clavien PA et al (2009) Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. Lancet 374:1097–1104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Diener MK, Seiler CM, Antes G (2007) Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in surgery. Chirurg 78:938–944

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Wente MN, Seiler CM, Uhl W, Buchler MW (2003) Perspectives of evidence-based surgery. Dig Surg 20(4):263–269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Abraham NS (2006) Will the dilemma of evidence-based surgery ever be resolved? ANZ J Surg 76:855–860

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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 283:2008–2012

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Clarke M (2004) Doing new research? Don’t forget the old. PLoS Med 1(2):e35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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 291:2457–2465

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 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 292:1363–1364

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Antes G, Chalmers I (2003) Under-reporting of clinical trials is unethical. Lancet 361:978–979

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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 148:295–309

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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:e1000100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Clarke M, Hopewell S, Chalmers I (2010) Clinical trials should begin and end with systematic reviews of relevant evidence: 12 years and waiting. Lancet 376:20–21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pocock S (1983) Clinical trials: a practical approach. Methods of randomisation. Wiley, New York, pp 66–90

    Google Scholar 

  19. Altman DG, Bland JM (1999) Statistics notes. Treatment allocation in controlled trials: why randomise? BMJ 318:1209

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Chalmers TC (1975) Randomization of the first patient. Med Clin North Am 59:1035–1043

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cook JA (2009) The challenges faced in the design, conduct and analysis of surgical randomised controlled trials. Trials 10:9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Russell I (1995) Evaluating new surgical procedures. BMJ 311:1243–1247

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Altman DG, Schulz KF (2001) Statistics notes: concealing treatment allocation in randomised trials. BMJ 323:446–453

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Farrokhyar F, Karanicolas PJ, Thoma A, Simunovic M, Bhandari M et al (2010) Randomized controlled trials of surgical interventions. Ann Surg 251:409–416

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 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 249:913–920

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 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 347:989–994

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Diener MK, Blumle A, Szakallas V, Antes G, Seiler CM (2006) Randomized and nonrandomized controlled clinical trials in a German surgical journal. Chirurg 77:837–843

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. 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 90:1026–1033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 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 347:81–88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 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 361:1247–1251

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. 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 260:1115–1118

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. 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 5:534–545

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. 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):761–768

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 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 345:745–748

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. 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 10:58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Devereaux PJ, Bhandari M, Clarke M, Montori VM, Cook DJ et al (2005) Need for expertise based randomised controlled trials. BMJ 330:88–91

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Heritier SR, Gebski VJ, Keech AC (2003) Inclusion of patients in clinical trial analysis: the intention-to-treat principle. Med J Aust 179:438–440

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Peto R, Collins R, Gray R (1995) Large-scale randomized evidence: large, simple trials and overviews of trials. J Clin Epidemiol 48:23–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, Flum DR, Glasziou P et al (2009) No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet 374:1105–1112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 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 146:444–461

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Young C, Horton R (2005) Putting clinical trials into context. Lancet 366:107–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Diener MK, Voss S, Jensen K, Buchler MW, Seiler CM (2010) Elective midline laparotomy closure: the INLINE systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 251:843–856

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. 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 396:41–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany

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

  2. Study Centre of the German Surgical Society, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany

    Markus K. Diener & Christoph M. Seiler

Authors
  1. Markus K. Diener
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas Simon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Markus W. Büchler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christoph M. Seiler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Markus K. Diener.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Diener, M.K., Simon, T., Büchler, M.W. et al. Surgical evaluation and knowledge transfer—methods of clinical research in surgery. Langenbecks Arch Surg 397, 1193–1199 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-011-0775-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-011-0775-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation