Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectivesThe Idea, Development, Evaluation, Assessment and Long-term follow-up (IDEAL) framework was designed to improve the quality of surgical research and evaluation of surgical innovation. It has become a widely cited tool for evaluating innovative devices and procedures, yet challenges remain concerning the definition and reporting of incremental innovative modifications, hindering evolution and evaluation of innovations and potentially risking patient safety. This systematic review examined IDEAL studies to identify such modifications and establish recent practices around modification reporting to inform the development of future guidance to facilitate safe, transparent and efficient surgical innovation.DesignSystematic review and thematic synthesis of studies reporting surgical innovation.Data sourcesWeb of Science and Scopus were searched in July 2023 using citation tools to identify studies following the IDEAL framework (citing any of 13 key IDEAL/IDEAL framework publications and guideline papers).Eligibility criteriaPrimary research studies of any design that involved invasive innovative devices or procedures.Data extraction and synthesisStudy characteristics and verbatim text for all reported modifications, including contextual information, were extracted. Data were analysed and synthesised using thematic synthesis.ResultsOf 1071 records screened, 104 studies published between 2011–2023 were included (n=87 (83.6%) study reports; n=17 (16.3%) protocols). 425 modifications were reported in 76 (73.1%) studies, including modifications to procedures (n=283, 66.6%), devices (n=94, 22.1%) and patient selection (n=48, 11.3%). Procedure/device modifications included technical, non-technical and cessation (conversion to other procedures or abandonment). Modifications were most often reported within IDEAL stage 2a (n=30/44, 68.2%), whereas there was considerable variation across other stages, such as stage 0 (n=2/3, 66%) and stage 2b (n=4/12, 33.3%).ConclusionReporting modifications is imperative for evaluating surgical innovation. However, this review found inconsistent approaches to reporting and describing modifications. Findings will inform the development of a checklist for reporting modifications that aims to complement the IDEAL framework and further promote shared learning, avoiding the repetition of harmful/ineffective modifications and enhancing patient safety.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42023427704.

Background Consistent outcome assessment in surgical research, from early phase studies (during introduction and refinement of new procedures) to late phase studies (to establish comparative effectiveness) needs improvement to ensure efficient and safe surgical care. This study explored the potential continuity of outcome domain assessment throughout the evaluation lifecycle of surgical interventions. Methods Core outcome sets (COS) for late phase studies of surgical interventions were identified through COMET database searches. Core outcomes/outcome domains were extracted and mapped to core domains of a COS developed specifically for evaluating surgical innovation (COHESIVE COS). Outcomes/domains were categorised as “definite match” (clear similarity), “possible match” (potential similarity) and “no match” (no similarity) COHESIVE domain based on similarity in wording or meaning. Results A total of 54 COS studies were included, yielding 573 core outcomes/domains. Most late phase core outcomes/domains ( N  = 519, 91%) showed clear or possible similarity. All late phase COS studies recommended measurement of COHESIVE domains ‘Intended benefits’ and ‘Expected and unexpected disadvantages’. Some late phase outcomes/domains also showed similarity with early phase COHESIVE domains, including ‘Problems with the device working’, ‘Patients’ experience’ and ‘Operators’/surgeons’ experience’. A minority of late phase outcomes/domains showed no similarity with COHESIVE domains ( n  = 54, 9%). Conclusion High similarity between outcome domains recommended in early and late phase evaluations of surgical interventions demonstrates continuity of outcome domain assessment throughout the surgical innovation lifecycle is possible. Harmonising outcome measurement throughout the research pathway can streamline evaluation, enhancing access to beneficial treatment and improving early detection of harms.

Background Methods for developing a core outcome or information set require involvement of key stakeholders to prioritise many items and achieve agreement as to the core set. The Delphi technique requires participants to rate the importance of items in sequential questionnaires (or rounds) with feedback provided in each subsequent round such that participants are able to consider the views of others. This study examines the impact of receiving feedback from different stakeholder groups, on the subsequent rating of items and the level of agreement between stakeholders. Methods Randomized controlled trials were nested within the development of three core sets each including a Delphi process with two rounds of questionnaires, completed by patients and health professionals. Participants rated items from 1 (not essential) to 9 (absolutely essential). For round 2, participants were randomized to receive feedback from their peer stakeholder group only (peer) or both stakeholder groups separately (multiple). Decisions as to which items to retain following each round were determined by pre-specified criteria. Results Whilst type of feedback did not impact on the percentage of items for which a participant subsequently changed their rating, or the magnitude of change, it did impact on items retained at the end of round 2. Each core set contained discordant items retained by one feedback group but not the other (3–22 % discordant items). Consensus between patients and professionals in items to retain was greater amongst those receiving multiple group feedback in each core set (65–82 % agreement for peer-only feedback versus 74–94 % for multiple feedback). In addition, differences in round 2 scores were smaller between stakeholder groups receiving multiple feedback than between those receiving peer group feedback only. Variability in item scores across stakeholders was reduced following any feedback but this reduction was consistently greater amongst the multiple feedback group. Conclusions In the development of a core outcome or information set, providing feedback within Delphi questionnaires from all stakeholder groups separately may influence the final core set and improve consensus between the groups. Further work is needed to better understand how participants rate and re-rate items within a Delphi process. Trial registration The three randomized controlled trials reported here were each nested within the development of a core information or outcome set to investigate processes in core outcome and information set development. Outcomes were not health-related and therefore trial registration was not applicable.

During development of complex surgical innovations, modifications occur to optimize safety and efficacy. Operators' experiences (how professionals feel undertaking the innovation) drive this process but comprehensive overviews of measures of this concept are lacking. This study identified and appraised measures to assess operators’ experience of surgical innovation. There were three phases: (1) Literature reviews identified measures of operators’ experience and concepts measured were extracted and grouped into domains. (2) Quality appraisal was conducted to assess content validity of identified instruments and was supported by COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments methodology. Self-reported measurement instruments that had underdone formal development were eligible. Content validity was assessed using COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments criteria for good content validity (rated sufficient/insufficient/indeterminate/inconsistent), informed by standards for measurement development and domains identified in phase 1. (3) Instruments determined suitable and of sufficient quality underwent supplemental appraisal in interviews with international multidisciplinary professionals and a focus group. Literature reviews identified 16 measurement instruments from 243 studies. Most assessed ‘psychological’ experiences and ‘usability’. No instrument was specifically validated for innovative surgery. Three instruments were rated ‘sufficient’ (Surgery Task Load Index [SURG-TLX]) or ‘indeterminate’ (Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Imperial Stress Assessment Tool). Twenty professionals were interviewed (seven female; 15 specialties; six countries) and the focus group included 10 participants (four professionals, six researchers). The SURG-TLX was considered the most relevant, comprehensive, and comprehensible instrument. The SURG-TLX is preliminarily recommended to measure operators’ experiences of innovation. Further work exploring its role and impact on surgical innovation is required. [Display omitted] •This study identifies, appraises, and recommends a standard measure to assess operators' experience in studies of surgical innovation.•Robust methodology was applied.•Supplemental validation used semistructured interviews with multinational and multidisciplinary professionals.•The SURG-TLX is preliminarily recommended because it was found to be most relevant, comprehensive, and comprehensible.•Routine use of a validated, standard measure to assess operators' experience supports efficient and transparent evaluation of complex interventions involving surgical innovation.

Background Synthesis of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data is hindered by the range of available PRO measures (PROMs) composed of multiple scales and single items with differing terminology and content. The use of core outcome sets, an agreed minimum set of outcomes to be measured and reported in all trials of a specific condition, may improve this issue but methods to select core PRO domains from the many available PROMs are lacking. This study examines existing PROMs and describes methods to identify health domains to inform the development of a core outcome set, illustrated with an example. Methods Systematic literature searches identified validated PROMs from studies evaluating radical treatment for oesophageal cancer. PROM scale/single item names were recorded verbatim and the frequency of similar names/scales documented. PROM contents (scale components/single items) were examined for conceptual meaning by an expert clinician and methodologist and categorised into health domains. A patient advocate independently checked this categorisation. Results Searches identified 21 generic and disease-specific PROMs containing 116 scales and 32 single items with 94 different verbatim names. Identical names for scales were repeatedly used (for example, ‘physical function’ in six different measures) and others were similar (overlapping face validity) although component items were not always comparable. Based on methodological, clinical and patient expertise, 606 individual items were categorised into 32 health domains. Conclusion This study outlines a methodology for identifying candidate PRO domains from existing PROMs to inform a core outcome set to use in clinical trials.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of worldwide morbidity and mortality. Surgical treatment is common, and there is a great need to improve the delivery of such care. The gold standard for evaluating surgery is within well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, the impact of RCTs is diminished by a lack of coordinated outcome measurement and reporting. A solution to these issues is to develop an agreed standard \"core\" set of outcomes to be measured in all trials to facilitate cross-study comparisons, meta-analysis, and minimize outcome reporting bias. This study defines a core outcome set for CRC surgery. The scope of this COS includes clinical effectiveness trials of surgical interventions for colorectal cancer. Excluded were nonsurgical oncological interventions. Potential outcomes of importance to patients and professionals were identified through systematic literature reviews and patient interviews. All outcomes were transcribed verbatim and categorized into domains by two independent researchers. This informed a questionnaire survey that asked stakeholders (patients and professionals) from United Kingdom CRC centers to rate the importance of each domain. Respondents were resurveyed following group feedback (Delphi methods). Outcomes rated as less important were discarded after each survey round according to predefined criteria, and remaining outcomes were considered at three consensus meetings; two involving international professionals and a separate one with patients. A modified nominal group technique was used to gain the final consensus. Data sources identified 1,216 outcomes of CRC surgery that informed a 91 domain questionnaire. First round questionnaires were returned from 63 out of 81 (78%) centers, including 90 professionals, and 97 out of 267 (35%) patients. Second round response rates were high for all stakeholders (>80%). Analysis of responses lead to 45 and 23 outcome domains being retained after the first and second surveys, respectively. Consensus meetings generated agreement on a 12 domain COS. This constituted five perioperative outcome domains (including anastomotic leak), four quality of life outcome domains (including fecal urgency and incontinence), and three oncological outcome domains (including long-term survival). This study used robust consensus methodology to develop a core outcome set for use in colorectal cancer surgical trials. It is now necessary to validate the use of this set in research practice.

ObjectiveTo explore patient and healthcare professional perceptions about the acceptability and impact of a large-scale system for automated, real-time monitoring and feedback of shared decision-making (SDM) that has been integrated into surgical care pathways.DesignQualitative, semistructured interviews were conducted with patients and healthcare professionals between June and November 2021. Data were analysed using deductive and inductive approaches.SettingLarge-scale monitoring of SDM has been integrated in NHS surgical care across two large UK National Health Service Trusts.ParticipantsAdult surgical patients (N=18, 56% female), following use of an SDM real-time monitoring and feedback system, and healthcare professionals (N=14, 36% female) involved in their surgical care. Patient recruitment was conducted through hospital research nurses and professionals by direct approach from the study team to sample individuals purposively from seven surgical specialties (general, vascular, urology, orthopaedics, breast, gynaecology and urgent cardiac).Results10 themes were identified within three areas of exploration that described factors underpinning: (1) the acceptability of large-scale automated, real-time monitoring of SDM experiences, (2) the acceptability of real-time feedback and addressing SDM deficiencies and (3) the impact of real-time monitoring and feedback. There was general support for real-time monitoring and feedback because of its perceived ability to efficiently address deficiencies in surgical patients’ SDM experience at scale, and its perceived benefits to patients, surgeons and the wider organisation. Factors potentially influencing acceptability of large-scale automated, real-time monitoring and feedback were identified for both stakeholder groups, for example, influence of survey timing on patient-reported SDM scores, disease-specific risks, patients’ dissatisfaction with hospital processes. Factors particularly important for patients included concerns over digital exclusion exacerbated by electronic real-time monitoring. Factors unique to professionals included the need for detailed, qualitative feedback of SDM to contextualise patient-reported SDM scores.ConclusionsThis study explored factors influencing the acceptability of automated, real-time monitoring and feedback of patients’ experiences of SDM integrated into surgical practice, at scale among key stakeholders. Findings will be used to guide refinement and implementation of SDM monitoring and feedback prior to formal development, evaluation and implementation of an SDM intervention in the NHS.Trial registration numberISRCTN17951423.The original protocoldoi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079155.

IntroductionHigh-quality shared decision-making (SDM) is a priority of health services, but only achieved in a minority of surgical consultations. Improving SDM for surgical patients may lead to more effective care and moderate the impact of treatment consequences. There is a need to establish effective ways to achieve sustained and large-scale improvements in SDM for all patients whatever their background. The ALPACA Study aims to develop, pilot and evaluate a decision support intervention that uses real-time feedback of patients’ experience of SDM to change patients’ and healthcare professionals’ decision-making processes before adult elective surgery and to improve patient and health service outcomes.Methods and analysisThis protocol outlines a mixed-methods study, involving diverse stakeholders (adult patients, healthcare professionals, members of the community) and three National Health Service (NHS) trusts in England. Detailed methods for the assessment of the feasibility, usability and stakeholder views of implementing a novel system to monitor the SDM process for surgery automatically and in real time are described. The study will measure the SDM process using validated instruments (CollaboRATE, SDM-Q-9, SHARED-Q10) and will conduct semi-structured interviews and focus groups to examine (1) the feasibility of automated data collection, (2) the usability of the novel system and (3) the views of diverse stakeholders to inform the use of the system to improve SDM. Future phases of this work will complete the development and evaluation of the intervention.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was granted by the NHS Health Research Authority North West-Liverpool Central Research Ethics Committee (reference: 21/PR/0345). Approval was also granted by North Bristol NHS Trust to undertake quality improvement work (reference: Q80008) overseen by the Consent and SDM Programme Board and reporting to an Executive Assurance Committee.Trial registration numberISRCTN17951423; Pre-results.

The CONSORT extension for patient reported outcomes (PROs) aims to improve reporting, but guidance on the optimal integration with clinical data is lacking. This study examines in detail the reporting of PROs and clinical data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in gastro-intestinal cancer to inform design and reporting of combined PRO and clinical data from trials to improve the 'take home' message for clinicians to use in practice. The case study was undertaken in gastro-intestinal cancer trials. Well-conducted RCTs reporting PROs with validated instruments were identified and categorized into those combining PRO and clinical data in a single paper, or those separating data into linked primary and supplemental papers. Qualitative methods were developed to examine reporting of the critical interpretation of the trial results (trial exegesis) in the papers in relation of the PRO and clinical outcomes and applied to each publication category. Results were used to inform recommendations for practice. From 1917 screened abstracts, 49 high quality RCTs were identified reported in 36 combined and 15 linked primary and supplemental papers. In-depth analysis of manuscript text identified three categories for understanding trial exegesis: where authors reported a \"detailed\", \"general\", or absent PRO rationale and integrated interpretation of clinical and PRO results. A total of 11 (30%) and 6 (16%) combined papers reported \"detailed\" PRO rationale and integrated interpretation of results although only 2 (14%) and 1 (7%) primary papers achieved the same standard respectively. Supplemental papers provide better information with 11 (73%) and 3 (20%) achieving \"detailed\" rationale and integrated interpretation of results. Supplemental papers, however, were published a median of 20 months after the primary RCT data in lower impact factor journals (median 16.8 versus 5.2). It is recommended that single papers, with detailed PRO rationale and integrated PRO and clinical data are published to optimize trial exegesis. Further work to examine whether this improves the use of PRO data to inform practice is needed.

IntroductionThe application of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies as a diagnostic aid in healthcare is increasing. Benefits include applications to improve health systems, such as rapid and accurate interpretation of medical images. This may improve the performance of diagnostic, prognostic and management decisions. While a large amount of work has been undertaken discussing the role of AI little is understood regarding the performance of such applications in the clinical setting. This systematic review aims to critically appraise the diagnostic performance of AI algorithms to identify disease from cross-sectional radiological images of the abdominopelvic cavity, to identify current limitations and inform future research.Methods and analysisA systematic search will be conducted on Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify relevant studies. Primary studies where AI-based technologies have been used as a diagnostic aid in cross-sectional radiological images of the abdominopelvic cavity will be included. Diagnostic accuracy of AI models, including reported sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve will be examined and compared with standard practice. Risk of bias of included studies will be assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Findings will be reported according to the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis guidelines.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is required as primary data will not be collected. The results will inform further research studies in this field. Findings will be disseminated at relevant conferences, on social media and published in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021237249.