Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Procedural surgical RCTs in daily practice: do surgeons adopt or is it just a waste of time?


Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the adoption of recommendation from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and investigate factors favoring or preventing adoption.
BACKGROUND: RCT are considered to be the cornerstone of evidence-based medicine by representing the highest level of evidence. As such, we expect RCT's recommendations to be followed rigorously in daily surgical practice.
METHODS: We performed a structured search for RCTs published in the medical and surgical literature from 2009 to 2013, allowing a minimum of 5-year follow-up to convincingly test implementation. We focused on comparative technical or procedural RCTs trials addressing the domains of general, colorectal, hepatobiliary, upper gastrointestinal and vascular surgery. In a second step we composed a survey of 29 questions among ESA members as well as collaborators from their institutions to investigate the adoption of surgical RCTs recommendation.
RESULTS: The survey based on 36 RCTs (median 5-yr citation index 85 (24-474), from 21 different countries, published in 15 high-ranked journals with a median impact factor of 3.3 (1.23-7.9) at the time of publication. Overall, less than half of the respondents (47%) appeared to adhere to the recommendations of a specific RCT within their field of expertise, even when included in formal guidelines. Adoption of a new surgical practice was favored by watching videos (46%) as well as assisting live operations (18%), while skepticism regarding the methodology of a surgical RCT (40%) appears to be the major reason to resist adoption.
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, surgical RCTs appear to have moderate impact on daily surgical practice. While RCTs are still accepted to provide the highest level of evidence, alternative methods of evaluating surgical innovations should also be explored.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the adoption of recommendation from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and investigate factors favoring or preventing adoption.
BACKGROUND: RCT are considered to be the cornerstone of evidence-based medicine by representing the highest level of evidence. As such, we expect RCT's recommendations to be followed rigorously in daily surgical practice.
METHODS: We performed a structured search for RCTs published in the medical and surgical literature from 2009 to 2013, allowing a minimum of 5-year follow-up to convincingly test implementation. We focused on comparative technical or procedural RCTs trials addressing the domains of general, colorectal, hepatobiliary, upper gastrointestinal and vascular surgery. In a second step we composed a survey of 29 questions among ESA members as well as collaborators from their institutions to investigate the adoption of surgical RCTs recommendation.
RESULTS: The survey based on 36 RCTs (median 5-yr citation index 85 (24-474), from 21 different countries, published in 15 high-ranked journals with a median impact factor of 3.3 (1.23-7.9) at the time of publication. Overall, less than half of the respondents (47%) appeared to adhere to the recommendations of a specific RCT within their field of expertise, even when included in formal guidelines. Adoption of a new surgical practice was favored by watching videos (46%) as well as assisting live operations (18%), while skepticism regarding the methodology of a surgical RCT (40%) appears to be the major reason to resist adoption.
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, surgical RCTs appear to have moderate impact on daily surgical practice. While RCTs are still accepted to provide the highest level of evidence, alternative methods of evaluating surgical innovations should also be explored.

Statistics

Citations

Altmetrics

Downloads

0 downloads since deposited on 11 Feb 2020
0 downloads since 12 months

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Clinic for Visceral and Transplantation Surgery
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Uncontrolled Keywords:Surgery
Language:English
Date:1 November 2019
Deposited On:11 Feb 2020 16:28
Last Modified:11 Feb 2020 16:29
Publisher:Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
ISSN:0003-4932
OA Status:Closed
Free access at:Publisher DOI. An embargo period may apply.
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000003546
PubMed ID:31634176

Download

Closed Access: Download allowed only for UZH members

Content: Published Version
Language: English
Filetype: PDF - Registered users only until 1 November 2020
Size: 393kB
View at publisher
Embargo till: 2020-11-01