Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2015 Sep 4:16:392.
doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-0918-4.

Interventions in randomised controlled trials in surgery: issues to consider during trial design

Collaborators, Affiliations
Review

Interventions in randomised controlled trials in surgery: issues to consider during trial design

Natalie S Blencowe et al. Trials. .

Abstract

Until recently, insufficient attention has been paid to the fact that surgical interventions are complex. This complexity has several implications, including the way in which surgical interventions are described and delivered in trials. In order for surgeons to adopt trial findings, interventions need to be described in sufficient detail to enable accurate replication; however, it may be permissible to allow some aspects to be delivered according to local practice. Accumulating work in this area has identified the need for general guidance on the design of surgical interventions in trial protocols and reports. Key issues to consider when designing surgical interventions include the identification of each surgical intervention and their components, who will deliver the interventions, and where and how the interventions will be standardised and monitored during the trial. The trial design (pragmatic and explanatory), comparator and stage of innovation may also influence the extent of detail required. Thoughtful consideration of surgical interventions in this way may help with the interpretation of trial results and the adoption of successful interventions into clinical practice.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Barkun JS, Aronson JK, Feldman LS, Maddern GJ, Strasberg SM, Altman DG, et al. Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations. Lancet. 2009;374:1089–96. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61083-7. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ergina PL, Cook JA, Blazeby JM, Boutron I, Clavien PA, Reeves BC, et al. Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. Lancet. 2009;374:1097–104. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61086-2. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Marshall JC, et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet. 2009;374:1105–12. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61116-8. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Walwyn R, Roberts C. Therapist variation within randomised trials of psychotherapy: implications for precision, internal and external validity. Stat Methods Med Res. 2010;19:291–315. doi: 10.1177/0962280209105017. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wells M, Williams B, Treweek S, Coyle J, Taylor J. Intervention description is not enough: evidence from an in-depth multiple case study on the untold role and impact of context in randomised controlled trials of seven complex interventions. Trials. 2012;13:95. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-95. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms