The IDEAL Reporting Guidelines: A Delphi Consensus Statement Stage Specific Recommendations for Reporting the Evaluation of Surgical Innovation.
Journal
Annals of surgery
ISSN: 1528-1140
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372354
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 01 2021
01 01 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
11
7
2020
medline:
12
2
2021
entrez:
11
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to define reporting standards for IDEAL format studies. The IDEAL Framework and Recommendations establish an integrated pathway for evaluation of new surgical techniques and complex therapeutic technologies. However guidance on implementation has been incomplete, and incorrect use is commonly seen. We describe the consensus development of reporting guidelines for the IDEAL stages, and plans for their dissemination and evaluation. Using the EQUATOR Network recommendations, participants with knowledge of IDEAL were surveyed to determine which IDEAL stages needed reporting guidelines. Draft checklists for stages 1, 2a, 2b, and 4 were subsequently developed by 3 researchers (N.B., A.H., P.M.), and revised through a 2-round Delphi consensus process. A final consensus teleconference resolved outstanding disagreements and clarified wording for checklist items. Sixty-one participants completed the initial survey, a clear majority indicating that new reporting guidelines were needed for IDEAL Stage 1 (69.5%), Stage 2a (78%), Stage 2b (74.6%), and Stage 4 (66%). A proposed set of checklists was modified by survey participants in 2 online Delphi rounds (n = 54 and n = 47, respectively), resulting in a penultimate checklist for each stage. Fourteen expert working group members finalized the checklist items and successfully resolved any outstanding areas without agreement on a consensus call. Participants familiar with IDEAL called for reporting guidelines for studies in all IDEAL stages except stage 3. The checklists developed have the potential to improve standards of reporting and thereby advance the quality of research on surgery and complex interventions and technologies, but require further evaluation in use.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to define reporting standards for IDEAL format studies.
BACKGROUND
The IDEAL Framework and Recommendations establish an integrated pathway for evaluation of new surgical techniques and complex therapeutic technologies. However guidance on implementation has been incomplete, and incorrect use is commonly seen. We describe the consensus development of reporting guidelines for the IDEAL stages, and plans for their dissemination and evaluation.
METHODS
Using the EQUATOR Network recommendations, participants with knowledge of IDEAL were surveyed to determine which IDEAL stages needed reporting guidelines. Draft checklists for stages 1, 2a, 2b, and 4 were subsequently developed by 3 researchers (N.B., A.H., P.M.), and revised through a 2-round Delphi consensus process. A final consensus teleconference resolved outstanding disagreements and clarified wording for checklist items.
RESULTS
Sixty-one participants completed the initial survey, a clear majority indicating that new reporting guidelines were needed for IDEAL Stage 1 (69.5%), Stage 2a (78%), Stage 2b (74.6%), and Stage 4 (66%). A proposed set of checklists was modified by survey participants in 2 online Delphi rounds (n = 54 and n = 47, respectively), resulting in a penultimate checklist for each stage. Fourteen expert working group members finalized the checklist items and successfully resolved any outstanding areas without agreement on a consensus call.
CONCLUSIONS
Participants familiar with IDEAL called for reporting guidelines for studies in all IDEAL stages except stage 3. The checklists developed have the potential to improve standards of reporting and thereby advance the quality of research on surgery and complex interventions and technologies, but require further evaluation in use.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32649459
pii: 00000658-202101000-00014
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004180
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
82-85Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interests.
Références
Ergina PL, Cook JA, Blazeby JM, et al. Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. Lancet 2009; 374:1097–1104.
McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet 2009; 374:1105–1112.
Pennell CP, Hirst AD, Campbell WB, et al. Practical guide to the idea, development and exploration stages of the IDEAL framework and recommendations. Br J Surg 2016; 103:607–615.
Hirst A, Philippou Y, Blazeby J, et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: evolution and further development of the IDEAL framework and recommendations. Ann Surg 2019; 269:211–220.
Sedrakyan A, Campbell B, Merino JG, et al. IDEAL-D: A rational framework for evaluating and regulating the use of medical devices. BMJ 2016; 353:i2372.
Hamilton D, Beard D, McCulloch P, et al. Evidence-based evaluation of practice and innovation in rehabilitation using the IDEAL-physio framework. Phys Ther 2018; 98:108–121.
Khachane A, Philippou Y, Hirst A, et al. Appraising the uptake and use of the IDEAL framework and recommendations: a review of the literature. Int J Surg 2018; 57:84–90.
Tradewell MB, Albersheim J, Dahm P. Use of the IDEAL framework in the urological literature: where are we in 2018? BJU Int 2019; 123:1078–1085.
Currie A, Brigic A, Blencowe NS, et al. Systematic review of surgical innovation reporting in laparoendoscopic colonic polyp resection. Br J Surg 2015; 102:e108–e116.
Barkun JS, Dimick JB, Clavien PA. Surgical research in patients: ideal time for an IDEAL checklist. Ann Surg 2019; 269:208–210.
Kirkham EN, Main BG, Jones KJB, et al. Systematic review of the introduction and evaluation of magnetic augmentation of the lower oesophageal sphincter for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Br J Surg 2020; 107:44–55.
EQUATOR Network website. What is a Reporting Guideline? Available at: https://www.equator-network.org/about-us/what-is-a-reporting-guideline/(Accessed March 30, 2020)
Agha RA, Borrelli MR, Farwana R, et al. For the SCARE Group. The SCARE 2018 Statement: Updating Consensus Surgical CAse REport (SCARE) Guidelines. Int J Surg 2018; 60:132–136.
Agha RA, Borrelli MR, Farwana R, et al. For the PROCESS Group. The PROCESS 2018 Statement: Updating Consensus Preferred Reporting of CasE Series in Surgery (PROCESS) Guidelines. Intl J Surg 2018; 60:279–282.
Agha R, Abdall-Razak A, Crossley E, et al. STROCSS 2019 Guideline: strengthening the reporting of cohort studies in surgery. Int J Surg 2019; 72:156–165.
Boutron I, Altman DG, Moher D, et al. CONSORT NPT Group. CONSORT statement for randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatments: a 2017 update and a CONSORT extension for nonpharmacologic trial abstracts. Ann Intern Med 2017; 167:40–47.
Hoffmann T, Glasziou P, Boutron I, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ 2014; 348:g1687.
Avery K, Blazeby J, Wilson N, et al. Development of reporting guidance and core outcome sets for seamless, standardised evaluation of innovative surgical procedures and devices: a study protocol for content generation and a Delphi consensus process (COHESIVE study). BMJ Open 2019; 9:e029574.
Kwakkenbos L, Juszczak E, Hemkens LG, et al. Protocol for the development of a CONSORT extension for RCTs using cohorts and routinely collected health data. Res Integr Peer Rev 2018; 3:1–9.
National Evaluation System for health Technology Coordinating Center (NESTcc) Frameworks Feb 2020. Available at: https://mdic.org/resource/nestcc-data-quality-framework/and https://mdic.org/resource/nestcc-methods-framework/(Accessed March 30, 2020).
Altman DG, Moher D. Guidelines for Reporting Health Research: A User's Manual. In: Moher, D., A: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781118715598.
Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 2009; 374:86–89.
Agha RA, Hirst A, Khachane A, et al. A protocol for the development of reporting guidelines for IDEAL stage studies. Int J Surg Protoc 2018; 9:11–14.
EQUATOR Network - Identifying the need for a new reporting guideline. Available at: http://www.equator-network.org/toolkits/developing-a-reporting-guideline/identifying-the-need-for-a-new-reporting-guideline/(Accessed March 30, 2020).
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336: 924 LP-926.
Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Dellinger P, et al. Use of GRADE grid to reach decisions on clinical practice guidelines when consensus is elusive. BMJ 2008; 337.
EQUATOR Network – Developing and disseminating your reporting guideline. Available at: https://www.equator-network.org/toolkits/developing-a-reporting-guideline/disseminating-your-reporting-guideline/(Accessed March 30, 2020).