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

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.

Randomized controlled trials comparing gastric bypass, gastric band, and sleeve gastrectomy: A systematic review examining validity and applicability to wider clinical practice.

Consideration of how applicable the results of surgical trials are to clinical practice is important to inform decision-making. Randomized controlled trials comparing at least two surgical interventions (of gastric bypass, gastric band, and sleeve gastrectomy) for severe and complex obesity were examined using the PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 tool, to consider how applicable the trial results are to clinical practice, and the Risk of Bias 2 tool, to examine validity. MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched for studies published between November 2013 and June 2021, and 15 were identified. Using the PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 tool, three were classified as pragmatic, with good applicability to clinical practice. Ten had more explanatory domains but did include some pragmatic characteristics, and two were predominantly explanatory. This was due to some trial design features that would not be considered applicable to the wider clinical setting, including being single-centered, having prescribed intervention delivery methods, and intensive follow-up regimens. Only two trials had low risk of bias, of which one was considered pragmatic. Three had high risk of bias. Overall, few trials in bariatric surgery are pragmatic with low risk of bias. Well-designed pragmatic trials are needed to inform practice and reduce research waste.

Development and pilot testing of a patient-reported outcome measure to assess symptoms of parastomal hernia.

AIM: The aim was to develop and pilot a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) to assess symptoms of parastomal hernia (PSH). METHODS: Standard questionnaire development was undertaken (phases 1-3). An initial list of questionnaire domains was identified from validated colorectal cancer PROMs and from semi-structured interviews with patients with a PSH and health professionals (phase 1). Domains were operationalized into items in a provisional questionnaire, and 'think-aloud' patient interviews explored face validity and acceptability (phase 2). The updated questionnaire was piloted in patients with a stoma who had undergone colorectal surgery and had a computed tomography scan available for review. Patient-reported symptoms were examined in relation to PSH (phase 3). Three sources determined PSH presence: (i) data about PSH presence recorded in hospital notes, (ii) independent expert review of the computed tomography scan and (iii) patient report of being informed of a PSH by a health professional. RESULTS: For phase 1, 169 and 127 domains were identified from 70 PROMs and 29 interviews respectively. In phase 2, 14 domains specific to PSH were identified and operationalized into questionnaire items. Think-aloud interviews led to three minor modifications. In phase 3, 44 completed questionnaires were obtained. Missing data were few: 5/660 items. PSH symptom scores associated with PSH presence varied between different data sources. The scale with the most consistent differences between PSH presence and absence and all data sources was the stoma appearance scale. CONCLUSION: A PROM to examine the symptoms of PSH has been developed from the literature and views of key informants. Although preliminary testing shows it to be understandable and acceptable it is uncertain if it is sensitive to PSH-specific symptoms and further psychometric testing is needed.

How do pilot and feasibility studies inform randomised placebo-controlled trials in surgery? A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a placebo comparator are considered the gold standard study design when evaluating healthcare interventions. These are challenging to design and deliver in surgery. Guidance recommends pilot and feasibility work to optimise main trial design and conduct; however, the extent to which this occurs in surgery is unknown. METHOD: A systematic review identified randomised placebo-controlled surgical trials. Articles published from database inception to 31 December 2020 were retrieved from Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-EMBASE and CENTRAL electronic databases, hand-searching and expert knowledge. Pilot/feasibility work conducted prior to the RCTs was then identified from examining citations and reference lists. Where studies explicitly stated their intent to inform the design and/or conduct of the future main placebo-controlled surgical trial, they were included. Publication type, clinical area, treatment intervention, number of centres, sample size, comparators, aims and text about the invasive placebo intervention were extracted. RESULTS: From 131 placebo surgical RCTs included in the systematic review, 47 potentially eligible pilot/feasibility studies were identified. Of these, four were included as true pilot/feasibility work. Three were original articles, one a conference abstract; three were conducted in orthopaedic surgery and one in oral and maxillofacial surgery. All four included pilot RCTs, with an invasive surgical placebo intervention, randomising 9-49 participants in 1 or 2 centres. They explored the acceptability of recruitment and the invasive placebo intervention to patients and trial personnel, and whether blinding was possible. One study examined the characteristics of the proposed invasive placebo intervention using in-depth interviews. CONCLUSION: Published studies reporting feasibility/pilot work undertaken to inform main placebo surgical trials are scarce. In view of the difficulties of undertaking placebo surgical trials, it is recommended that pilot/feasibility studies are conducted, and more are reported to share key findings and optimise the design of main RCTs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021287371.

Further considerations for placebo controls in surgical trials.

The use of invasive placebo controls in surgical trials can be challenging. The ASPIRE guidance, published in the Lancet in 2020, provided advice for the design and conduct of surgical trials with an invasive placebo control. Based on a more recent international expert workshop in June 2022, we now provide further insights into this topic. These include the purpose and design of invasive placebo controls, patient information provision and how findings from these trials may be used to inform decision-making.

Development of a conceptual framework for reporting modifications in surgical innovation: scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Innovative surgical procedures and devices are often modified throughout their development and introduction into clinical practice. A systematic approach to reporting modifications may support shared learning and foster safe and transparent innovation. Definitions of 'modifications', and how they are conceptualized and classified so they can be reported and shared effectively, however, are lacking. This study aimed to explore and summarize existing definitions, perceptions, classifications and views on modification reporting to develop a conceptual framework for understanding and reporting modifications. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Targeted searches and two database searches were performed to identify relevant opinion pieces and review articles. Included were articles relating to modifications to surgical procedures/devices. Data regarding definitions, perceptions and classifications of modifications, and views on modification reporting were extracted verbatim. Thematic analysis was undertaken to identify themes, which informed development of the conceptual framework. RESULTS: Forty-nine articles were included. Eight articles included systems for classifying modifications, but no articles reported an explicit definition of modifications. Some 13 themes relating to perception of modifications were identified. The derived conceptual framework comprises three overarching components: baseline data about modifications, details about modifications and impact/consequences of modifications. CONCLUSION: A conceptual framework for understanding and reporting modifications that occur during surgical innovation has been developed. This is a first necessary step to support consistent and transparent reporting of modifications, to facilitate shared learning and incremental innovation of surgical procedures/devices. Testing and operationalization is now needed to realize the value of this framework.

What Are Patients Told About Innovative Surgical Procedures? A Qualitative Synthesis of 7 Case Studies in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate how information about innovative surgical procedures is communicated to patients. BACKGROUND: Despite the national and international guidance that patients should be informed whether a procedure is innovative and has uncertain outcomes, little is known about current practice. METHODS: This qualitative study followed 7 "case studies" of surgical innovation in hospitals across the United Kingdom. Preoperative interviews were conducted with clinician innovators (n=9), preoperative real-time consultations between clinicians and patients were audio-recorded (n=37). Patients were interviewed postoperatively (n=30). Data were synthesized using thematic analytical methods. RESULTS: Interviews with clinicians demonstrated strong intentions to inform patients about the innovative nature of the procedure in a neutral manner, although tensions between fully informing patients and not distressing them were raised. In the consultations, only a minority of clinicians actually made explicit statements about, (1) the procedure being innovative, (2) their limited clinical experience with it, (3) the paucity of evidence, and (4) uncertainty/unknown outcomes. Discussions about risks were generalized and often did not relate to the innovative component. Instead, all clinicians optimistically presented potential benefits and many disclosed their own positive beliefs. Postoperative patient interviews revealed that many believed that the procedure was more established than it was and were unaware of the unknown risks. CONCLUSIONS: There were contradictions between clinicians' intentions to inform patients about the uncertain outcomes of innovative and their actual discussions with patients. There is a need for communication interventions and training to support clinicians to provide transparent data and shared decision-making for innovative procedures.

Qualitative documentary analysis of guidance on information provision and consent for the introduction of innovative invasive procedures including surgeries within NHS organisations' policies in England and Wales.

OBJECTIVE: To review guidance, included in written local UK National Health Service (NHS) organisation policies, on information provision and consent for the introduction of new invasive procedures- including surgeries, and devices (IPs/Ds). DESIGN: A qualitative documentary analysis of data on patient information provision and consent extracted from policies for the introduction of IP/Ds from NHS organisations in England and Wales. SETTING: NHS trusts in England and health boards in Wales, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Between December 2017 and July 2018, 150 acute trusts in England and 7 health boards in Wales were approached for their policies for the introduction of new IP/Ds. In total, 123 policies were received, 11 did not fit the inclusion criteria and a further policy was included from a trust website resulting in 113 policies included for review. RESULTS: From the 113 policies, 22 did not include any statements on informed consent/information provision or lacked guidance on the information to be provided to patients and were hence excluded. Consequently, 91 written local NHS policies were included in the final dataset. Within the guidance obtained, variation existed on disclosure of the procedure's novelty, potential risks, benefits, uncertainties, alternative treatments and surgeon's experience. Few policies stated that clinicians should discuss the existing evidence associated with a procedure. Additionally, while the majority of policies referred to patients needing written information, this was often not mandated and few policies specified the information to be included. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly a fifth of all the policies lacked guidance on information to be provided to patients. There was variability in the policy documents regarding what patients should be told about innovative procedures. Further research is needed to ascertain the information and level of detail appropriate for patients when considering innovative procedures. A core information set including patients' and clinicians' views is required to address variability around information provision/consent for innovative procedures.

Healthcare organization policy recommendations for the governance of surgical innovation: review of NHS policies.

BACKGROUND: The governance for introducing innovative surgical procedures/devices differs from the research requirements needed for new drugs. New invasive procedures/devices may be offered to patients outside of research protocols with local organization oversight alone. Such institutional arrangements exist in many countries and written policies provide guidance for their use, but little is known about their scope or standards. METHODS: One hundred and fifty acute NHS trusts in England and seven health boards in Wales were systematically approached for information about their policies. A modified framework approach was used to analyse when policies considered new procedures/devices to be within local organization remit and/or requiring research ethics committee (REC) approval. RESULTS: Of 113 policies obtained, 109 and 34 described when local organization and REC approval was required, respectively. Procedures/devices being used for the first time in the organization (n = 69) or by a clinician (n = 67) were commonly within local remit, and only 36 stated that evidence was required. Others stated limited evidence as a rationale for needing REC approval (n = 13). External guidance categorizing procedures as 'research only' was the most common reason for gaining REC approval (n = 15). Procedures/devices with uncertain outcomes (n = 28), requiring additional training (n = 26), and not previously used (n = 6) were within the remit of policies, while others recommended REC application in these situations (n = 5, 2 and 7, respectively). CONCLUSION: This study on NHS policies for surgical innovation shows variability in the introduction of procedures/devices in terms of local oversight and/or need for REC approval. Current NHS standards allow untested innovations to occur without the safety of research oversight and thus a standard approach is urgently needed.

Safety and transparency in surgical innovation.

Advances in healthcare require safe and transparent innovation. Currently in surgery it can be difficult to identify when innovation is occurring because of inconsistent oversight and reporting. New ways of identifying, monitoring and reporting surgical innovation are called for in order to optimise the process.

Understanding stage of innovation of invasive procedures and devices: protocol for a systematic review and thematic analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical innovation has generally occurred in an unstandardised manner. This has led to unnecessary exposure of patients to harm, research waste and inadequate evidence. The IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term follow-up) Collaboration provided a set of recommendations for evaluating surgical innovations based on their stage of innovation. Despite further refinements and guidance, adoption of the IDEAL recommendations has been slow; an important reason may be that determining the stage of innovation is often difficult. To facilitate evaluation of surgical innovations, there is a need for a detailed insight into what stage of innovation means, and how it can be determined. The aim of this study is to understand the concept of stage of innovation as reported in the literature. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review is being conducted. Ovid MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from their inception until July 2021 using an iteratively developed strategy based on the concepts of stage of innovation, invasive procedures or devices and guidance. Articles were included if they described an approach to evaluating surgical innovations in stages, described a method for determining stage of innovation, described indicators of stage of innovation, defined stages or described potential sources of stage-related information. Conference abstracts and non-English language articles were excluded. Other articles were detected from citations within included articles and suggestions from experts in surgical innovation. Data will be extracted regarding approaches to evaluating surgical innovations, methods for determining stage of innovation, indicators of stage of innovation, definitions of stages and potential sources of stage-related information. A thematic analysis will be conducted, and findings summarised in a narrative report. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval will not be required. This systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at appropriate conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021270812.

Using qualitative research methods to understand how surgical procedures and devices are introduced into NHS hospitals: the Lotus study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The development of innovative invasive procedures and devices are essential to improving outcomes in healthcare. However, how these are introduced into practice has not been studied in detail. The Lotus study will follow a wide range of 'case studies' of new procedures and/or devices being introduced into NHS trusts to explore what information is communicated to patients, how procedures are modified over time and how outcomes are selected and reported. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This qualitative study will use ethnographic approaches to investigate how new invasive procedures and/or devices are introduced. Consultations in which the innovation is discussed will be audio-recorded to understand information provision practice. To understand if and how procedures evolve, they will be video recorded and non-participant observations will be conducted. Post-operative interviews will be conducted with the innovating team and patients who are eligible for the intervention. Audio-recordings will be audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using constant comparison techniques. Video-recordings will be reviewed to deconstruct procedures into key components and document how the procedure evolves. Comparisons will be made between the different data sources. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol has Health Research Authority (HRA) and Health and Care Research Wales approval (Ref 18/SW/0277). Results will be disseminated at appropriate conferences and will be published in peer-reviewed journals. The findings of this study will provide a better understanding of how innovative invasive procedures and/or devices are introduced into practice.

Reporting Modifications in Surgical Innovation: A Systematic Scoping Review Protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Innovation in surgery drives improvements to patient care. New surgical procedures and devices typically undergo a series of modifications as they are developed and refined during their introduction into clinical practice. These changes should ideally be reported and shared between surgeon-innovators to promote efficient, safe and transparent innovation. Currently, agreement on how modifications should be defined, conceptualised and classified, so they can be reported and shared efficiently and transparently, is lacking. The aim of this review is to examine and summarise existing literature on definitions, perceptions and classifications of modifications to surgical procedures/devices, including views on how to measure and report them. The findings will inform future work to standardise reporting and sharing of modifications in surgical innovation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic scoping review will be conducted adhering to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Included articles will focus on review articles and opinion pieces relevant to modifications to new surgical procedures or devices introduced to clinical practice. Methods to identify relevant literature will include systematic searches in MEDLINE (Ovid version), targeted internet searches (Google Scholar) and snowball searches. A two-stage screening process (titles/abstracts/keywords and full-texts) will use specified exclusion/inclusion criteria to identify eligible articles. Data on how modifications are i) defined, ii) perceived, and iii) classified, and iv) views on how modifications should be measured and reported, will be extracted verbatim. Inductive thematic analysis will be applied to extracted data where appropriate. Results will be presented as a narrative summary including descriptive characteristics of included articles. Findings will inform a preliminary conceptual framework to facilitate the systematic reporting and sharing of modifications to novel procedures and devices. HIGHLIGHTS: This work will generate an in-depth understanding of how modifications are currently defined, perceived and classified, and views on how they may be reported, in the context of surgical innovation.Rigorous and comprehensive search methods will be applied to identify a wide range of diverse data sources for inclusion in the review.A summary of existing relevant literature on modifications is a necessary step to inform development of a framework for transparent, real-time reporting and sharing of modifications in future studies of innovative invasive procedures/devices.

Placebo comparator group selection and use in surgical trials: the ASPIRE project including expert workshop.

BACKGROUND: The use of placebo comparisons for randomised trials assessing the efficacy of surgical interventions is increasingly being considered. However, a placebo control is a complex type of comparison group in the surgical setting and, although powerful, presents many challenges. OBJECTIVES: To provide a summary of knowledge on placebo controls in surgical trials and to summarise any recommendations for designers, evaluators and funders of placebo-controlled surgical trials. DESIGN: To carry out a state-of-the-art workshop and produce a corresponding report involving key stakeholders throughout. SETTING: A workshop to discuss and summarise the existing knowledge and to develop the new guidelines. RESULTS: To assess what a placebo control entails and to assess the understanding of this tool in the context of surgery is considered, along with when placebo controls in surgery are acceptable (and when they are desirable). We have considered ethics arguments and regulatory requirements, how a placebo control should be designed, how to identify and mitigate risk for participants in these trials, and how such trials should be carried out and interpreted. The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Surgical placebos might be most appropriate when there is poor evidence for the efficacy of the procedure and a justified concern that results of a trial would be associated with a high risk of bias, particularly because of the placebo effect. CONCLUSIONS: The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Feasibility work is recommended to optimise the design and implementation of randomised controlled trials. An outline for best practice was produced in the form of the Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations (ASPIRE) guidelines for those considering the use of a placebo control in a surgical randomised controlled trial. LIMITATIONS: Although the workshop participants involved international members, the majority of participants were from the UK. Therefore, although every attempt was made to make the recommendations applicable to all health systems, the guidelines may, unconsciously, be particularly applicable to clinical practice in the UK NHS. FUTURE WORK: Future work should evaluate the use of the ASPIRE guidelines in making decisions about the use of a placebo-controlled surgical trial. In addition, further work is required on the appropriate nomenclature to adopt in this space. FUNDING: Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health Research as part of the Medical Research Council-National Institute for Health Research Methodology Research programme.

WHAT WAS THE RESEARCH ABOUT?: One of the best ways to prove that a new medicine really works is to use a scientific test called a 'placebo-controlled trial'. In this type of test, half of the participants are given a new pill and the other half are given a 'placebo', which is a dummy pill (usually a sugar pill) that is made to taste and look the same as the active pill, but has no active ingredients. The results are then compared. Just like medicines, new surgical procedures need to be tested to show that they are safe and benefit patients. Ideally, they would also be tested using the 'placebo-controlled trial' approach, but asking patients to have 'dummy' surgery is not the same as asking people to take a dummy pill. Placebo surgery raises lots of ethics questions and is controversial. As it is controversial, guidelines are needed to recommend when placebo surgery studies can be used (if at all) and what special considerations need to be taken into account. Our research team was commissioned to develop these guidelines. WHAT DID WE DO?: We summarised, to the best of our knowledge, all previous research that had used placebo surgery and reviewed all the ethics literature on this topic. We also looked at the latest scientific understanding of how placebos work. We then held a workshop to discuss and summarise the existing knowledge and to develop the new guidelines. This involved an international team of patients, surgeons, researchers, ethicists, psychologists, physiologists and funders. We published the guidelines [i.e. the ASPIRE (Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations) guidelines] in an influential medical journal and also wrote several other publications. This report provides a slightly more detailed version of our findings and recommendations. WHO WILL THIS HELP?: The guidelines will help researchers and doctors know when, and how, to best design placebo surgery studies in the future.

'Overnight, things changed. Suddenly, we were in it': a qualitative study exploring how surgical teams mitigated risks of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 presents a risk of infection and transmission for operating theatre teams. Guidelines to protect patients and staff emerged and changed rapidly based on expert opinion and limited evidence. This paper presents the experiences and innovations developed by international surgical teams during the early stages of the pandemic to attempt to mitigate risk. DESIGN: In-depth, semistructured interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically using methods of constant comparison. PARTICIPANTS: 43 participants, including surgeons from a range of specialties (primarily general surgery, otolaryngology, neurosurgery, cardiothoracic and ophthalmology), anaesthetists and those in nursing roles. SETTING: The UK, Italy, Spain, the USA, China and New Zealand between March and May 2020. RESULTS: Surgical teams sought to mitigate COVID-19 risks by modifying their current practice with an abundance of strategies and innovations. Communication and teamwork played an integral role in how teams adapted, although participants reflected on the challenges of having to improvise in real time. Uncertainties remained about optimal surgical practice and there were significant tensions where teams were forced to balance what was best for patients while contemplating their own safety. CONCLUSIONS: The perceptions of risks during a pandemic such as COVID-19 can be complex and context dependent. Management of these risks in surgery must be driven by evidence-based practice resulting from a pragmatic and novel approach to collation of global evidence. The context of surgery has changed dramatically, and surgical teams have developed a plethora of innovations. There is an urgent need for high-quality evidence to inform surgical practice that optimises the safety of both patients and healthcare professionals as the COVID-19 pandemic unfolds.

Discussing surgical innovation with patients: a qualitative study of surgeons' and governance representatives' views.

OBJECTIVES: Little is known about how innovative surgical procedures are introduced and discussed with patients. This qualitative study aimed to explore perspectives on information provision and consent prior to innovative surgical procedures. DESIGN: Qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. PARTICIPANTS: 42 interviews were conducted (26 surgeons and 16 governance representatives). SETTING: Surgeons and governance representatives recruited from various surgical specialties and National Health Service (NHS) Trusts across England, UK. RESULTS: Participants stated that if a procedure was innovative, patients should be provided with additional information extending beyond that given during routine surgical consultations. However, difficulty defining innovation had implications for whether patients were informed about novel components of surgery and how the procedure was introduced (ie, as part of a research study, trust approval or in routine clinical practice). Furthermore, data suggest surgeons found it difficult to establish what information is essential and how much detail is sufficient, and governance surrounding written and verbal information provision differed between NHS Trusts. Generally, surgeons believed patients held a view that 'new' was best and reported that managing these expectations could be difficult, particularly if patient views aligned with their own. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the challenges of information provision and obtaining informed consent in the context of innovative surgery, including establishing if and how a procedure is truly innovative, determining the key information to discuss with patients, ensuring information provision is objective and balanced, and managing patient expectations and preferences. This suggests that surgeons may require support and training to discuss novel procedures with patients. Further work should capture consultations where new procedures are discussed with patients and patients' views of these information exchanges.

Considerations and methods for placebo controls in surgical trials (ASPIRE guidelines).

Placebo comparisons are increasingly being considered for randomised trials assessing the efficacy of surgical interventions. The aim of this Review is to provide a summary of knowledge on placebo controls in surgical trials. A placebo control is a complex type of comparison group in the surgical setting and, although powerful, presents many challenges. This Review outlines what a placebo control entails and present understanding of this tool in the context of surgery. We consider when placebo controls in surgery are acceptable (and when they are desirable) in terms of ethical arguments and regulatory requirements, how a placebo control should be designed, how to identify and mitigate risk for participants in these trials, and how such trials should be done and interpreted. Use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided there is a strong scientific and ethical rationale. Surgical placebos might be most appropriate when there is poor evidence for the efficacy of the procedure and a justified concern that results of a trial would be associated with high risk of bias, particularly because of the placebo effect. Feasibility work is recommended to optimise the design and implementation of randomised controlled trials. This Review forms an outline for best practice and provides guidance, in the form of the Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations (known as ASPIRE) checklist, for those considering the use of a placebo control in a surgical randomised controlled trial.

Reporting of key methodological issues in placebo-controlled trials of surgery needs improvement: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To examine key methodological considerations for using a placebo intervention in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating invasive procedures, including surgery. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: RCTs comparing an invasive procedure with a placebo were included in this systematic review. Articles published from database inception to December 31, 2017, were retrieved from Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE and CENTRAL electronic databases, by handsearching references and expert knowledge. Data on trial characteristics (clinical area, nature of invasive procedure, number of patients and centers) and key methodological (rationale for using placebos, minimization of risk, information provision, offering the treatment intervention to patients randomized to placebo, delivery of cointerventions, and intervention standardization and fidelity) were extracted and summarized descriptively. RESULTS: One hundred thirteen articles reporting 96 RCTs were identified. Most were conducted in gastrointestinal surgery (n = 40, 42%) and evaluated minimally invasive procedures (n = 44, 46%). Over two-thirds randomized fewer than 100 patients (n = 65, 68%) and a third were single center (n = 31, 32%). A third (n = 33, 34%) did not report a rationale for using a placebo. Most common strategies to minimize patient risk were operator skill (n = 22, 23%) and independent data monitoring (n = 28, 29%). Provision of patient information regarding placebo use was infrequently reported (n = 11, 11%). Treatment interventions were offered to patients randomized to placebo in 43 trials (45%). Cointerventions were inconsistently reported, but 64 trials (67%) stated that anesthesia was matched between groups. Attempts to standardize interventions and monitor their delivery were reported in n = 7, (7%) and n = 4, (4%) trials, respectively. CONCLUSION: Most placebo-controlled trials in surgery evaluate minor surgical procedures and currently there is inconsistent reporting of key trial methods. There is a need for guidance to optimize the transparency of trial reporting in this area.

Laparoscopically assisted versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer-the Randomised Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open (ROMIO) study: protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT).

INTRODUCTION: Surgery (oesophagectomy), with neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy, is the main curative treatment for patients with oesophageal cancer. Several surgical approaches can be used to remove an oesophageal tumour. The Ivor Lewis (two-phase procedure) is usually used in the UK. This can be performed as an open oesophagectomy (OO), a laparoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (LAO) or a totally minimally invasive oesophagectomy (TMIO). All three are performed in the National Health Service, with LAO and OO the most common. However, there is limited evidence about which surgical approach is best for patients in terms of survival and postoperative health-related quality of life. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will undertake a UK multicentre randomised controlled trial to compare LAO with OO in adult patients with oesophageal cancer. The primary outcome is patient-reported physical function at 3 and 6 weeks postoperatively and 3 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include: postoperative complications, survival, disease recurrence, other measures of quality of life, spirometry, success of patient blinding and quality assurance measures. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed comparing LAO with OO. We will embed a randomised substudy to evaluate the safety and evolution of the TMIO procedure and a qualitative recruitment intervention to optimise patient recruitment. We will analyse the primary outcome using a multi-level regression model. Patients will be monitored for up to 3 years after their surgery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study received ethical approval from the South-West Franchay Research Ethics Committee. We will submit the results for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10386621.

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).

INTRODUCTION: Rigorous evaluation of innovative invasive procedures and medical devices is uncommon and lacks reporting standardisation. Devices may therefore enter routine practice without thorough evaluation, resulting in patient harm. Detailed guidance on how to select and report outcomes at each stage of evaluation is lacking. Development of reporting guidance and core outcome sets (COS) is one strategy to promote safe and transparent evaluation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A COS, comprising outcome domains applicable to all phases of evaluation of procedure/device introduction and modification and, if necessary, supplementary domains relevant to specific phases or types of innovation (procedure or device), will be developed according to principles outlined by Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) and Core Outcome Set-Standards for Development (COS-STAD) guidelines. Reporting guidance will be developed concurrently. The study will have the following three phases:1. Generation of a list of relevant outcome domains and reporting items identified from (a) published studies, (b) hospital policy documentation, (c) regulatory body documentation and (d) stakeholder qualitative interviews. Identified items/domains will be categorised using a conceptual framework and formatted into Delphi consensus survey questionnaire items.2. Key stakeholders, including 50 patients and 150 professionals (surgeons, researchers, device manufacturers, regulatory representatives, journal editors) sampled from multinational sources, will complete a Delphi survey to score the importance of each reporting item and outcome.3. A consensus meeting with key stakeholders will discuss and agree the final content of the reporting guidance and COS(s). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by North East-Newcastle and North Tyneside 1 Health Research Authority Research Ethics Committee (18/NE/0378). Dissemination strategies include scientific meeting presentations, peer-reviewed journal publications, development of plain English summaries/materials, patient engagement events, development of a social media identity, workshops and other events.