Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Consensus priority research questions in gastrointestinal and endoscopic surgery in the year 2020: results of a SAGES Delphi study

  • 2021 SAGES Oral
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

The objectives of this study were to identify consensus priority research questions according to members of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES), and to explore differences in priorities according to specific membership subgroups.

Methods

A modified Delphi study was conducted including active members of SAGES. An initial list of research questions was compiled by members of 26 SAGES Committees and Task Forces, and was further refined by the SAGES Delphi Task Force. The questions were divided into five research categories: (1) Surgical Outcomes; (2) Education, Training, and Simulation; (3) Health Services Research; (4) New Technology; and (5) Artificial Intelligence. Delphi respondents were asked to rank each question with regards to its importance in the field of gastrointestinal and endoscopic surgery (1—low; 5—high). “Priority” was defined as a single-round mean score of ≥ 3.5, and “consensus” as a single-round standard deviation < 1.0. Subgroup analyses were performed according to a priori selected respondent characteristics.

Results

The total number of respondents for each round was: Round 1 (n = 407); Round 2 (n = 569); Round 3 (n = 273). In each round, the majority of respondents were male (Round 1: 77.4%; Round 2: 77.1%; Round 3: 76.7%), self-identified as academic (vs. community) surgeons (Round 1: 57.1%; Round 2: 61.1%; Round 3: 60.2%), and practiced in North America (Round 1: 71.8%; Round 2: 70.8%; Round 3: 75.9%). A total of 29 out of 122 research questions met criteria for both “priority” and “consensus”—Surgical Outcomes, n = 6; Education, Training, and Simulation, n = 9; Health Services Research, n = 5; New Technology, n = 5; and Artificial Intelligence, n = 4.

Conclusions

Consensus priority research questions in gastrointestinal and endoscopic surgery were identified across five different research categories. These results can provide direction and areas of interest for funding and investigation for future studies.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Wells CI, Robertson JP, O’Grady G, Bissett IP (2017) Trends in publication of general surgical research in New Zealand, 1996–2015. ANZ J Surg 87:76–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ali UA, van der Sluis PC, Issa Y, Habaga IA, Gooszen HG, Flum DR, Algra A, Besselink MG (2013) Trends in worldwide volume and methodological quality of surgical randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg 258:199–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brooke B, Nathan H, Pawlik TM (2009) Trends in the quality of highly cited surgical research over the past 20 years. Ann Surg 249:162–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Holtestaul T, Jones I, Colburn Z, Nelson D, Vreeland T, Bingham J, Yheulon C (2021) Publication productivity and bibliometric profiling of graduating General Surgery chief residents. JAMA Surg 9:e212073. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2021.2073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Forrester JD, Ansari P, Are C, Auyang E, Galante JM, Jarman BT, Smith BR, Watkins AC, Melcher ML (2017) A multi-institution analysis of general surgery resident peer-reviewed publication trends. J Surg Res 210:92–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Mann M, Tendulkar A, Birger N, Howard C, Ratcliffe MB (2008) National Institutes of Health funding for surgical research. Ann Surg 247:217–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rangel SJ, Efron B, Moss RL (2002) Recent trends in National Institutes of Health funding of surgical research. Ann Surg 236:277–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chapman SJ, Shelton B, Mahmood H, Fitzgerald JE, Harrison EM, Banghu A (2014) Discontinuation and non-publication of surgical randomized controlled trials: observational study. BMJ 349:g6870

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Urbach DR, Horvath KD, Baxter NN, Jobe BA, Madan AK, Pryor AD, Khaitan L, Torquati A, Brower ST, Trus TL, Schwaitzberg S (2007) A research agenda for gastrointestinal and endoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 21:1518–1525

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Stefanidis D, Montero P, Urbach DR, Qureshi A, Perry K, Bachman SL, Madan A, Petersen R, Pryor AD (2014) SAGES research agenda in gastrointestinal and endoscopic surgery: updates results of a Delphi study. Surg Endosc 28:2763–2771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Humphrey-Murto S, Varpio L, Gonsalves C, Wood TJ (2017) Using consensus group methods such as Delphi and Nominal Group in medical education research. Med Teach 39:14–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Robertson CM, Klingensmith ME, Coopersmith CM (2009) Prevalence and cost of full-time research fellowships during general surgery residency: a national survey. Ann Surg 249:155–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ellis MC, Dhungel B, Weerasinghe R, Vetto JT, Deveney K (2011) Trends in research time, fellowship training and practice patterns among general surgery graduates. J Surg Res 68:309–312

    Google Scholar 

  15. Diamond IR, Grant RC, Feldman BM, Pencharz PB, Ling SC, Moore AM, Wales PW (2014) Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies. J Clin Epidemiol 67:401–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Anton NE, Gardner AK, Stefanidis D (2020) Priorities in surgical simulation research: what do the experts say? Am J Surg 220:95–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hashimoto DA, Rosman G, Rus D, Meireles OR (2018) Artificial intelligence in surgery: promises and perils. Ann Surg 268:70–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. SAGES Research Grant Page. Available at: https://www.sages.org/research/research-grants/. Accessed on July 12, 2021.

  19. Chapman SJ, Aldaffaa M, Downey CL, Jayne DG (2019) Research waste in surgical randomized controlled trials. Br J Surg 106:1464–1471

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the many members of SAGES, and in particular the SAGES Research and Career Development Committee, who participated in this study.

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, McGill University, Jewish General Hospital, 3755 Cote Ste Catherine, G-317, Montreal, QC, H3T 1E2, Canada

    Richard Garfinkle

  2. Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Rebecca P. Petersen

  3. Division of Gastrointestinal Surgery, University of South Florida, Tampa Bay, FLA, USA

    Chris DuCoin

  4. Department of Surgery, East Carolina University Brody School of Medicine, Greenville, NC, USA

    Maria S. Altieri

  5. Panda Health Inc, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Rajesh Aggarwal

  6. Department of Surgery, Stony Brook Medicine, New York, NY, USA

    Aurora Pryor

  7. Department of Surgery, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada

    Boris Zevin

Authors
  1. Richard Garfinkle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rebecca P. Petersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chris DuCoin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maria S. Altieri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rajesh Aggarwal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Aurora Pryor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Boris Zevin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Garfinkle.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Dr. DuCoin is a consultant (and helps with research and development) for Boston Scientific, Intuitive Surgical, Medtronic, and Ethicon. Dr. Aggarwal is a current employee at Panda Health Inc., and a current consultant for Ellipsis Health Inc. and Redesign Health, and has undertaken consulting activity in the past three years for Surgical Safety Technologies, BillionToOne Inc., Proximie Limited, and Applied Medical. Dr. Pryor is a speaker for Gore, Medtronic, and Stryker, and is a consultant for Ethicon. Dr. Zevin’s Department receives an educational grant from Ethicon for fellowship support. Dr.’s Garfinkle, Petersen and Altieri have no relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Garfinkle, R., Petersen, R.P., DuCoin, C. et al. Consensus priority research questions in gastrointestinal and endoscopic surgery in the year 2020: results of a SAGES Delphi study. Surg Endosc 36, 6688–6695 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08941-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08941-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation