Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Randomized, controlled trials in surgery

Perceived barriers and attitudes of Australian colorectal surgeons

  • Original Contributions
  • Published:
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

Abstract

PURPOSE: Although the randomized, controlled trial has gained preeminence as the criterion standard for evaluating pharmaceutical treatments, randomized controlled trials in surgery have been perceived as difficult to surmount. Furthermore, attitudes of surgeons toward randomized, controlled trials are not well understood. We determined the views of Australian surgeons about feasibility of and barriers to surgical randomized trials. METHODS: All members of the Section of Colon and Rectal Surgery of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (n=147) and all Australian colorectal subspecialist surgeons (n=72) were mailed a questionnaire that included questions about surgical randomized, controlled trials. RESULTS: A total of 195 surgeons responded (89 percent). Two-thirds (66.7 percent; 95 percent confidence interval 59.5–73.1) of respondents agreed that “Randomized controlled trials should be the study design of choice” to evaluate new surgical procedures. Only 19 percent (95 percent confidence interval 13.9–25.3) endorsed the statement that “too much emphasis is placed on results of randomized controlled trials.” Barriers to conducting surgical randomized, controlled trials identified by the majority included insufficient funding (74.4 percent; 95 percent confidence interval 67.5–80.2), a lack of support from the wider surgical community (55.9 percent; 95 percent confidence interval 48.6–62.9), and difficulties in convincing patients to accept random allocation to treatment (62.6 percent; 95 percent confidence interval 55.3–69.3). CONCLUSION: These results reveal positive attitudes among Australian surgeons toward randomized, controlled trials, although concerns about the feasibility of randomized, controlled trials have been reinforced.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Tugwell P. Clinical epidemiology: a basic science for clinical medicine. Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  2. National Health and Medical Research Council. Guidelines for the prevention, early detection and management of colorectal cancer. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  3. The Steering Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines for the care and treatment of breast cancer. Adjuvant systemic therapy for women with node-positive breast cancer. Can Med Assoc J 1998;158(Suppl 3):S52–64.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Scottish Cancer Therapy Network. Colorectal cancer: a national clinical guideline recommended for use in Scotland. Edingburgh: Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Solomon MJ, McLeod RS. Clinical studies in surgical journals: have we improved? Dis Colon Rectum 1993;36:43–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Solomon MJ, Laxamana A, Devore L, McLeod RS. Randomized controlled trials in surgery. Surgery 1994;115:707–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Solomon MJ, McLeod RS. Should we be performing more randomized controlled trials evaluating surgical operations? Surgery 1995;118:459–67.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Solomon MJ, Mcleod RS. Surgery and the randomised controlled trial: past, present and future. Med J Aust 1998;169:380–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. McLeod RS. Issues in surgical randomized controlled trials. World J Surg 1999;23:1210–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ross S, Grant A, Counsell C, Gillespie W, Russell I, Prescott R. Barriers to participation in randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52:1143–56.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Russell RC. Surgical research [letter]. Lancet 1996;347:1480.

    Google Scholar 

  12. McCulloch P. Surgical research [letter]. Lancet 1996;347:1481.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Charlton BG. Medical practice and the double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Br J Gen Pract 1991;41:355–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gattellari M, Ward JE. Will donations to their learned college increase surgeons' participation in surveys? A randomized controlled trial. J Clin Epidemiol 2001;54:645–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dean AG, Dean JA, Coulombier D,et al. Epi Info, Version 6. A word processing, database and statistics program for public health on IBM-compatible micro-computers. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Norusis JM/SPSS Inc. SPSS for Windows-Based System User's Guide, release 9.0. Chicago, IL: SPSS, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Armitage P, Berry G. Statistical methods in medical research. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Balch CM, Durant JR, Bartolucci AA. The impact of surgical quality control in multi-institutional group trials involving adjuvant cancer treatments. Ann Surg 1983;198:164–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Fielding LP, Stewart-Brown S, Dudley HA. Surgeon related variables and the clinical trial. Lancet 1978;2:778–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Spodick DH. The surgical mystique and the double standard: controlled trials of medical and surgical therapy for cardiac disease: analysis, hypothesis, proposal. Am Heart J 1973;85:579–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ellis PM, Butow PN, Simes RJ, Tattersall MH, Dunn SM. Barriers to participation in randomized controlled trials for early breast cancer among Australian cancer specialists. Aust N Z J Surg 1999;69:486–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. La Puma J, Stocking CB, Rhoades WD, Darling CM. Financial ties as part of informed consent to postmarketing research: attitudes of American doctors and patients. BMJ 1995;310:1660–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Segelov E, Tattersall MH, Coates AS. Redressing the balance: the ethics of not entering an eligible patient on a randomized controlled trial. Ann Oncol 1992;3:103–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Parisi AF, Khuri S, Deupree RH, Sharma GV, Scott SM, Luchi RJ. Medical compared with surgical management of unstable angina: 5-year mortality and morbidity in the Veterans Administration Study. Circulation 1989;80:1176–89.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Fisher B, Bauer M, Margolese R,et al. Five-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy and segmental mastectomy with or without radiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1985;312:665–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pollock AV. Surgical evaluation at the crossroads. Br J Surg 1993;80:964–96.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lilford RJ, Jackson J. Equipoise and the ethics of randomisation. J R Soc Med 1995;88:552–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Taylor KM. The doctor's dilemma: physician participation in randomized clinical trials. Cancer Treat Rep 1985;69:1095–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Taylor KM, Margolese RG, Soskolne CL. Physicians' reasons for not entering eligible patients in a randomized controlled clinical trial of surgery for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1984;310:1363–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Taylor KM. Integrating conflicting professional roles: physician participation in randomized clinical trials. Soc Sci Med 1992;35:217–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Taylor KM, Kelner M. Informed consent: the physicians' perspective. Soc Sci Med 1987;24:135–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Torgerson DJ, Sibbald B. Understanding controlled trials: what is a patient preference trial? BMJ 1998;316:360.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Zelen M. Statistical options in clinical trials. Semin Oncol 1997;4:441–6.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Zelen M. A new design for randomized clinical trials. N Engl J Med 1979;300:1242–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Snowdon C, Elbourne S, Garcia J. Zelen randomization: attitudes of parents participating in a neonatal clinical trial. Control Clin Trials 1998;20:149–71.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Hennekens CH, Buring JE. Epidemiology in medicine. Mayrent SL, ed. Boston: Brown, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Muir Gray JA. Evidence-based health care. Melbourne: Churchill Livingstone, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Sydney, Sydney

    Melina Gattellari M.P.H. (Hons) &  Jeanette E. Ward M.B.B.S., M.H.P.Ed., Ph.D. (F.A.F.P.H.M.)

  2. Department of Colorectal Surgery, The Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    Michael J. Solomon M.B., B.Ch., M.Sc. (Clin Epidemiology) (F.R.A.C.S.)

  3. Division of Population Health, South Western Sydney Area Health Service, P.O. Box 39, 2170, Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia

    Melina Gattellari M.P.H. (Hons)

Authors
  1. Melina Gattellari M.P.H. (Hons)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeanette E. Ward M.B.B.S., M.H.P.Ed., Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael J. Solomon M.B., B.Ch., M.Sc. (Clin Epidemiology)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

About this article

Cite this article

Gattellari, M., Ward, J.E. & Solomon, M.J. Randomized, controlled trials in surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 44, 1413–1420 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02234591

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02234591

Key words

Search

Navigation