CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 50Health and Medical Research ImpactsHealth Policy Implementation ScienceSurgical Simulation and Training

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How can we improve surgical research and innovation?: The IDEAL framework for action

Open access
Hirst, Allison, Agha, Riaz A., Rosin, David, McCulloch, Peter·2013·International Journal of Surgery
DOI 10.1016/j.ijsu.2013.09.016
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

IDEAL is a framework for helping to test and introduce new techniques and treatments in a staged way, allowing for accrual

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijsu.2013.09.016

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Scientific evidence in favor of surgery is generally less robust than for pharmacological approaches.

    “Scientific evidence in favor of surgery is generally less robust than for pharmacological approaches (owing to the difficulty in reducing variability in the technique or evaluating outcome with double control groups).”

    From Position Paper on Nasal Obstruction: Evaluation and Treatment (2018) · cites this paper as [187]

    Section 1, “Challenges in modern surgical research” (page unavailable), says surgeons have had more difficulty than pharmaceutical innovators building research toward definitive randomized trials, and describes variation in surgical techniques as one reason. This supports the broad comparison, but the cited passages do not substantiate the specific explanation about evaluating outcomes with double control groups. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. 2003, vol. 589, 22
  2. McCulloch, 2002, Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions, BMJ, 324, 1448, 10.1136/bmj.324.7351.1448 · DOI
  3. Ellis, 1995, Inpatient general medicine is evidence based, Lancet, 364, 407
  4. Howes, 1997, Surgical practice is evidence based, Br J Surg, 84, 1220, 10.1002/bjs.1800840907 · DOI
  5. Wente, 2003, Perspectives of evidence-based surgery, Dig Surg, 20, 263, 10.1159/000071183 · DOI
  6. Hanzlik, 2009, Levels of evidence in research published in the journal of bone and joint surgery (American Volume) over the last thirty years, J Bone Jt Surg Am, 91, 425, 10.2106/JBJS.H.00108 · DOI
  7. Agha, 2013, The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery needs improvement: a systematic review, J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg, 66, 447, 10.1016/j.bjps.2012.11.005 · DOI
  8. Edison, 2012, Poor quality reporting and surgical RCTs: a wake up call for the international surgical community, Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 37, 628, 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318247f3f9 · DOI
  9. Agha, 2007, The reporting quality of randomised controlled trials in surgery: a systematic review, Int J Surg, 5, 413, 10.1016/j.ijsu.2007.06.002 · DOI
  10. Cairo, 2012, Quality of reporting of randomized clinical trials in implant dentistry. A systematic review on critical aspects in design, outcome assessment and clinical relevance, J Clin Periodontol, 39, 81, 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01839.x · DOI
  11. Sinha, 2009, Quality of reporting in randomized trials published in high-quality surgical journals, J Am Coll Surg, 209, 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.07.019 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Chalmers, 2009, Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence, Lancet, 374, 86, 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Barkun, 2009, Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations, Lancet, 374, 1089, 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61083-7 · DOI
  14. Ergina, 2009, Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation, Lancet, 374, 1097, 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61086-2 · DOI
  15. McCulloch, 2009, No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations, Lancet, 374, 1105, 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61116-8 · DOI
  16. McCulloch, 2013, IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 1: the idea and development stages, BMJ, 346, f3012, 10.1136/bmj.f3012 · DOI
  17. Ergina, 2013, IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 2: observational studies in the exploration and assessment stages, BMJ, 346, f3011, 10.1136/bmj.f3011 · DOI
  18. Cook, 2013, IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 3: randomised controlled trials in the assessment stage and evaluations in the long term study stage, BMJ, 346, f2820, 10.1136/bmj.f2820 · DOI
  19. Macchiarini, 2008, Clinical transplantation of a tissue-engineered airway, Lancet, 372, 2023, 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61598-6 · DOI
  20. Blazeby, 2011, Demonstration of the IDEAL recommendations for evaluating and reporting surgical innovation in minimally invasive oesophagectomy, Br J Surg, 98, 544, 10.1002/bjs.7387 · DOI
  21. Ahmed, 2012, Focal therapy for localised unifocal and multifocal prostate cancer: a prospective development study, Lancet Oncol, 13, 622, 10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70121-3 · DOI
  22. Degiuli, 2004, Survival results of a multicentre phase II study to evaluate D2 gastrectomy for gastric cancer, Br J Cancer, 90, 1727, 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601761 · DOI
  23. Tsai, 2009, Acute aortic dissection: perspectives from the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD), Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg, 37, 149, 10.1016/j.ejvs.2008.11.032 · DOI
  24. Hall, 2009, New approaches to the National surgical quality improvement program: the American College of surgeons experience, Am J Surg, 198, S56, 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.07.026 · DOI
  25. van de Velde, 2012, Quality assurance in rectal cancer treatment, Dig Dis, 30, 126, 10.1159/000342041 · DOI
  26. Sedrakyan, 2010, A framework for evidence evaluation and methodological issues in implantable device studies, Med Care, 48, S121, 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181d991c4 · DOI
  27. Smith, 2012, Failure rates of stemmed metal-on-metal hip replacements: analysis of data from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales, Lancet, 379, 1199, 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60353-5 · DOI
  28. Paul, 2013, Robotic surgery: revisiting “no innovation without evaluation”, BMJ, 346, f1573, 10.1136/bmj.f1573 · DOI
  29. Dickinson, 2013, A multi-centre prospective development study evaluating focal therapy using high intensity focused ultrasound for localised prostate cancer: the INDEX study, Contemp Clin Trial, 36, 68, 10.1016/j.cct.2013.06.005 · DOI
  30. Ahmed, 2011, Focal therapy for localized prostate cancer: a phase I/II trial, J Urol, 185, 1246, 10.1016/j.juro.2010.11.079 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Hirst, A., Agha, R. A., Rosin, D., & McCulloch, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Stoke Mandeville Hospital (GB)
  • University of the West Indies (BB)
Corresponding author
Hirst, Allison
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Surgery
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2013-12
Volume
11
Issue
10
Pages
1038-1042
ISSN
  • 1743-9159 (ISSN-L)
  • 1743-9191
DOI
10.1016/j.ijsu.2013.09.016
OpenAlex
W2111367525
Cited by
50
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health and Medical Research Impacts
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical Simulation and Training
Keywords
IDEAL framework, surgical research, surgical innovation, staged implementation, clinical trial design, patient accrual, new surgical techniques
MeSH terms
Cooperative Behavior, Humans, Societies, Scientific, Surgical Procedures, Operative, Therapies, Investigational, Biomedical Research, Inventions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review