Promoting research and audit at medical school: evaluating the educational impact of participation in a student-led national collaborative study.

BACKGROUND: Medical students often struggle to engage in extra-curricular research and audit. The Student Audit and Research in Surgery (STARSurg) network is a novel student-led, national research collaborative. Student collaborators contribute data to national, clinical studies while gaining an understanding of audit and research methodology and ethical principles. This study aimed to evaluate the educational impact of participation. METHODS: Participation in the national, clinical project was supported with training interventions, including an academic training day, an online e-learning module, weekly discussion forums and YouTube® educational videos. A non-mandatory, online questionnaire assessed collaborators' self-reported confidence in performing key academic skills and their perceptions of audit and research prior to and following participation. RESULTS: The group completed its first national clinical study ("STARSurgUK") with 273 student collaborators across 109 hospital centres. Ninety-seven paired pre- and post-study participation responses (35.5%) were received (male = 51.5%; median age = 23). Participation led to increased confidence in key academic domains including: communication with local research governance bodies (p < 0.001), approaching clinical staff to initiate local collaboration (p < 0.001), data collection in a clinical setting (p < 0.001) and presentation of scientific results (p < 0.013). Collaborators also reported an increased appreciation of research, audit and study design (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Engagement with the STARSurg network empowered students to participate in a national clinical study, which increased their confidence and appreciation of academic principles and skills. Encouraging active participation in collaborative, student-led, national studies offers a novel approach for delivering essential academic training.

Systematic Review and Meta-Regression of Factors Affecting Midline Incisional Hernia Rates: Analysis of 14,618 Patients.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of incisional hernias (IHs) following midline abdominal incisions is difficult to estimate. Furthermore recent analyses have reported inconsistent findings on the superiority of absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the mean IH rate following midline laparotomy from the published literature, to identify variables that predict IH rates and to analyse whether the type of suture (absorbable versus non-absorbable) affects IH rates. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines. We sought randomised trials and observational studies including patients undergoing midline incisions with standard suture closure. Papers describing two or more arms suitable for inclusion had data abstracted independently for each arm. RESULTS: Fifty-six papers, describing 83 separate groups comprising 14,618 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The prevalence of IHs after midline incision was 12.8% (range: 0 to 35.6%) at a weighted mean of 23.7 months. The estimated risk of undergoing IH repair after midline laparotomy was 5.2%. Two meta-regression analyses (A and B) each identified seven characteristics associated with increased IH rate: one patient variable (higher age), two surgical variables (surgery for AAA and either surgery for obesity surgery (model A) or using an upper midline incision (model B)), two inclusion criteria (including patients with previous laparotomies and those with previous IHs), and two circumstantial variables (later year of publication and specifying an exact significance level). There was no significant difference in IH rate between absorbable and non-absorbable sutures either alone or in conjunction with either regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The IH rate estimated by pooling the published literature is 12.8% after about two years. Seven factors account for the large variation in IH rates across groups. However there is no evidence that suture type has an intrinsic effect on IH rates.

Multicentre observational cohort study of NSAIDs as risk factors for postoperative adverse events in gastrointestinal surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are recommended as postoperative analgesia by the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Society. Recent studies have raised concerns that NSAID administration following colorectal anastomosis may be associated with increased risk of anastomotic leak. This multicentre study aims to determine NSAIDs' safety profile following gastrointestinal resection. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This prospective, multicentre cohort study will be performed over a 2-week period utilising a collaborative methodology. Consecutive adults undergoing open or laparoscopic, elective or emergency gastrointestinal resection will be included. The primary end point will be the 30-day morbidity, assessed using the Clavien-Dindo classification. This study will be disseminated through medical student networks, with an anticipated recruitment of at least 900 patients. The study will be powered to detect a 10% increase in complication rates with NSAID use. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Following the Research Ethics Committee Chairperson's review, a formal waiver was received. This study will be registered as a clinical audit or service evaluation at each participating hospital. Dissemination will take place through previously described novel research collaborative networks.