The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation
Open accessAbstract
Research on surgical interventions is associated with several methodological and practical challenges of which few, if any, apply only to surgery. However, surgical evaluation is especially demanding because many of these challenges coincide. In this report, the second of three on surgical innovation and evaluation, we discuss obstacles related to the study design of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies assessing surgical interventions. We also describe the issues related to the nature of surgical procedures—for example, their complexity, surgeon-related factors, and the range of outcomes. Although difficult, surgical evaluation is achievable and necessary. Solutions tailored to surgical research and a framework for generating evidence on which to base surgical practice are essential.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance
Craig, P., Dieppe, P., Macintyre, S., Michie, S., Nazareth, I., & Petticrew, M. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.a1655 · Cited by 10,995
Beneficial Effect of Carotid Endarterectomy in Symptomatic Patients with High-Grade Carotid Stenosis
(1991) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199108153250701 · Cited by 8,368
Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health
Campbell, M. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7262.694 · Cited by 3,474
Boutron, I., Moher, D., Altman, D. G., Schulz, K. F., Ravaud, P., & for the CONSORT Group* (2008) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-148-4-200802190-00008 · Cited by 2,292
Self-citationImproving the reporting of pragmatic trials: An extension of the CONSORT statement
Zwarenstein, M., Treweek, S., Gagnier, J. J., Altman, D. G., Tunis, S., Haynes, B., Oxman, A. D., Moher, D., & groups, F. T. C. A. P. T. I. H. (. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.a2390 · Cited by 1,813
Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care
Black, N. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7040.1215 · Cited by 1,598
Need for expertise based randomised controlled trials
Devereaux, P. J., Bhandari, M., Clarke, M., Montori, V. M., Cook, D. J., Yusuf, S., Sackett, D. L., Cinà, C. S., Walter, S. D., Haynes, B., et al. (2005) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7482.88 · Cited by 427
Observational research, randomised trials, and two views of medical science
Vandenbroucke, J. P. (2008) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050067 · Cited by 416
Reporting methods of blinding in randomized trials assessing nonpharmacological treatments
Boutron, I., Guittet, L., Estellat, C., Moher, D., Hróbjartsson, A., & Ravaud, P. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040061 · Cited by 389
Self-citationMills, N., Donovan, J. L., Smith, M., Jacoby, A., Neal, D. E., & Hamdy, F. C. (2003) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/s0197-2456(03)00020-5 · Cited by 142
Cited by
Boutron, I., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., Ravaud, P., & for the CONSORT NPT Group* (2017) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m17-0046 · Cited by 1,538
Self-citationEvaluation and stages of surgical innovations
Barkun, J. S., Aronson, J. K., Feldman, L. S., Maddern, G. J., & Strasberg, S. M. (2009) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(09)61083-7 · Cited by 573
Relationship between surgeon volume and outcomes: a systematic review of systematic reviews
Morche, J., Mathes, T., & Pieper, D. (2016) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0376-4 · Cited by 359
How can we improve surgical research and innovation?: The IDEAL framework for action
Hirst, A., Agha, R. A., Rosin, D., & McCulloch, P. (2013) · International Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2013.09.016 · Cited by 50
Davies, L., Beard, D., Cook, J. A., Price, A., Osbeck, I., & Toye, F. (2021) · Trials · doi:10.1186/s13063-021-05403-5 · Cited by 41
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Ergina, P. L., Cook, J. A., Blazeby, J. M., Boutron, I., Clavien, P.-A., Reeves, B. C., & Seiler, C. M.
- Venue
- The Lancet
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-09
- Volume
- 374
- Issue
- 9695
- Pages
- 1097-1104
- ISSN
- 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
- 0140-6736
- OpenAlex
- W2073694979
- Cited by
- 653
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 42.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(09)61086-2
- The paper
- Ergina, P. L., Cook, J. A., Blazeby, J. M., Boutron, I., Clavien, P.-A., Reeves, B. C., & Seiler, C. M. (2009). Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(09)61086-2
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
