Examining the application of the IDEAL framework in the reporting and evaluation of innovative invasive procedures: secondary qualitative analysis of a systematic review

被引:0
|
作者
Richards, Hollie Sarah [1 ]
Cousins, Sian [1 ]
Scroggie, Darren L. [1 ]
Elliott, Daisy [1 ]
Macefield, Rhiannon [1 ]
Hudson, Elizabeth [1 ]
Mutanga, Ian Rodney [1 ]
Shah, Maximilian [1 ]
Alford, Natasha [1 ]
Blencowe, Natalie S. [1 ]
Blazeby, Jane [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Bristol, Natl Inst Hlth Res Bristol Biomed Res Ctr Surg & O, Bristol Ctr Surg Res, Bristol Med Sch,Med Sch, Bristol, England
来源
BMJ OPEN | 2024年 / 14卷 / 05期
关键词
surgery; qualitative research; systematic review; ROBOTIC KIDNEY-TRANSPLANTATION; LOCALIZED PROSTATE-CANCER; SURGICAL INNOVATION; PHASE-II; STEP; TRIAL; RECOMMENDATIONS; SAFETY; REPAIR; TECHNOLOGIES;
D O I
10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079654
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objectives The development of new surgical procedures is fundamental to advancing patient care. The Idea, Developments, Exploration, Assessment and Long-term (IDEAL) framework describes study designs for stages of innovation. It can be difficult to apply due to challenges in defining and identifying innovative procedures. This study examined how the IDEAL framework is operationalised in real-world settings; specifically, the types of innovations evaluated using the framework and how authors justify their choice of IDEAL study design.Design Secondary qualitative analysis of a systematic review.Data sources Citation searches (Web of Science and Scopus) identified studies following the IDEAL framework and citing any of the ten key IDEAL/IDEAL_D papers.Eligibility criteria Studies of invasive procedures/devices of any design citing any of the ten key IDEAL/IDEAL_D papers.Data extraction and synthesis All relevant text was extracted. Three frameworks were developed, namely: (1) type of innovation under evaluation; (2) terminology used to describe stage of innovation and (3) reported rationale for IDEAL stage.Results 48 articles were included. 19/48 described entirely new procedures, including those used for the first time in a different clinical context (n=15/48), reported as IDEAL stage 2a (n=8, 53%). Terminology describing stage of innovation was varied, inconsistent and ambiguous and was not defined. Authors justified their choice of IDEAL study design based on limitations in published evidence (n=36) and unknown feasibility and safety (n=32) outcomes.Conclusion Identifying stage of innovation is crucial to inform appropriate study design and governance decisions. Authors' rationale for choice of IDEAL stage related to the existing evidence base or lack of sufficient outcome data for procedures. Stage of innovation was poorly defined with inconsistent descriptions. Further work is needed to develop methods to identify innovation to inform practical application of the IDEAL framework. Defining the concept of innovation in terms of uncertainty, risk and degree of evidence may help to inform decision-making.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Peer evaluation and feedback for invasive medical procedures: a systematic review
    Theresa Thai
    Diana K. N. Louden
    Rosemary Adamson
    Jason A. Dominitz
    Jacob A. Doll
    [J]. BMC Medical Education, 22
  • [2] Peer evaluation and feedback for invasive medical procedures: a systematic review
    Thai, Theresa
    Louden, Diana K. N.
    Adamson, Rosemary
    Dominitz, Jason A.
    Doll, Jacob A.
    [J]. BMC MEDICAL EDUCATION, 2022, 22 (01)
  • [3] Exploring the reporting standards of RCTs involving invasive procedures for assisted vaginal birth: A systematic review
    Hotton, Emily J.
    Renwick, Sophie
    Lenguerrand, Erik
    Wade, Julia
    Draycott, Tim J.
    Crofts, Joanna F.
    Blencowe, Natalie S.
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY, 2021, 262 : 166 - 173
  • [4] Learning Curves in Pediatric Minimally Invasive Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Literature and a Framework for Reporting
    Macdonald, Alexander L.
    Haddad, Munther
    Clarke, Simon A.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC & ADVANCED SURGICAL TECHNIQUES, 2016, 26 (08): : 652 - 659
  • [5] Comparison of Minimally Invasive Procedures to Treat Knee Pain Secondary to Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Sajan, Abin
    Mehta, Tej
    Griepp, Daniel W.
    Chait, Alexander R.
    Isaacson, Ari
    Bagla, Sandeep
    [J]. JOURNAL OF VASCULAR AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY, 2022, 33 (03) : 238 - +
  • [6] Systematic review of the method and quality of reporting of complications from studies evaluating innovative glaucoma surgical procedures
    Bonnar, Jonathan
    Azuara-Blanco, Augusto
    [J]. EYE, 2023, 37 (09) : 1774 - 1777
  • [7] Systematic review of the method and quality of reporting of complications from studies evaluating innovative glaucoma surgical procedures
    Jonathan Bonnar
    Augusto Azuara-Blanco
    [J]. Eye, 2023, 37 : 1774 - 1777
  • [8] Outcome selection and reporting for innovative surgical procedures and devices: a review of current ;practice in IDEAL/IDEAL-D studies to inform the development of a core outcome set
    Macefield, Rhiannon Claire
    Wilson, Nicholas
    Avery, Kerry N. L.
    Potter, Shelley
    [J]. TRIALS, 2019, 20
  • [9] Outcome selection, measurement and reporting for innovative surgical procedures and devices: a review of current practice in IDEAL/IDEAL-D studies to inform the development of a core outcome set
    Macefield, Rhiannon
    Wilson, Nicholas
    Hoffman, Christin
    McNair, Angus
    Avery, Kerry
    Potter, Shelley
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2020, 107 : 68 - 68
  • [10] Understanding stage of innovation of invasive procedures and devices: protocol for a systematic review and thematic analysis
    Scroggie, Darren L.
    Elliott, Daisy
    Cousins, Sian
    Avery, Kerry N. L.
    Blazeby, Jane M.
    Blencowe, Natalie S.
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2022, 12 (02):