ABSTRACT
Background: Existing reporting guidelines pay insufficient attention to the detail and comprehensiveness reporting of surgical technique. The Surgical techniqUe rePorting chEcklist and standaRds (SUPER) aims to address this gap by defining reporting standards for surgical technique. The SUPER guideline intends to apply to articles that encompass surgical technique in any study design, surgical discipline, and stage of surgical innovation. Methods: Following the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network approach, 16 surgeons, journal editors, and methodologists reviewed existing reporting guidelines relating to surgical technique, reviewed papers from 15 top journals, and brainstormed to draft initial items for the SUPER. The initial items were revised through a three-round Delphi survey from 21 multidisciplinary Delphi panel experts from 13 countries and regions. The final SUPER items were formed after an online consensus meeting to resolve disagreements and a three-round wording refinement by all 16 SUPER working group members and five SUPER consultants. Results: The SUPER reporting guideline includes 22 items that are considered essential for good and informative surgical technique reporting. The items are divided into six sections: background, rationale, and objectives (items 1 to 5); preoperative preparations and requirements (items 6 to 9); surgical technique details (items 10 to 15); postoperative considerations and tasks (items 16 to 19); summary and prospect (items 20 and 21); and other information (item 22). Conclusions: The SUPER reporting guideline has the potential to guide detailed, comprehensive, and transparent surgical technique reporting for surgeons. It may also assist journal editors, peer reviewers, systematic reviewers, and guideline developers in the evaluation of surgical technique papers and help practitioners to better understand and reproduce surgical technique. Trial Registration: https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-other-study-designs/#SUPER.
ABSTRACT
Background: Surgical technique plays an essential role in achieving good health outcomes. However, the quality of surgical technique reporting remains heterogeneous. Reporting checklists could help authors to describe the surgical technique more transparently and effectively, as well as to assist reviewers and editors evaluate it more informatively, and promote readers to better understand the technique. We previously developed SUPER (surgical technique reporting checklist and standards) to assist authors in reporting their research that contains surgical technique more transparently. However, further explanation and elaboration of each item are needed for better understanding and reporting practice. Methods: We searched surgical literature in PubMed, Google Scholar and journal websites published up to January 2023 to find multidiscipline examples in various article types for each SUPER item. Results: We explain the 22 items of the SUPER and provide rationales item by item alongside. We provide 69 examples from 53 literature that present optimal reporting of the 22 items. Article types of examples include pure surgical technique, and case reports, observational studies and clinical trials that contain surgical technique. Examples are multidisciplinary, including general surgery, orthopaedical surgery, cardiac surgery, thoracic surgery, gastrointestinal surgery, neurological surgery, oncogenic surgery, and emergency surgery etc. Conclusions: Along with SUPER article, this explanation and elaboration file can promote deeper understanding on the SUPER items. We hope that the article could further guide surgeons and researchers in reporting, and assist editors and peer reviewers in reviewing manuscripts related to surgical technique.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To identify reporting guidelines related to surgical technique and propose recommendations for areas that require improvement. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A protocol-guided scoping review was conducted. A literature search of MEDLINE, the EQUATOR Network Library, Google Scholar, and Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations was conducted to identify surgical technique reporting guidelines published up to December 31, 2021. RESULTS: We finally included 55 surgical technique reporting guidelines, vascular surgery (n = 18, 32.7%) was the most common among the clinical specialties covered. The included guidelines generally showed a low degree of international and multidisciplinary cooperation. Few guidelines provided a detailed development process (n = 14, 25.5%), conducted a systematic literature review (n = 13, 23.6%), used the Delphi method (n = 4, 7.3%), or described post-publication strategy (n = 6, 10.9%). The vast majority guidelines focused on the reporting of intraoperative period (n = 50, 90.9%). However, of the guidelines requiring detailed descriptions of surgical technique methodology (n = 43, 78.2%), most failed to provide guidance on what constitutes an adequate description. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates significant deficiencies in the development methodology and practicality of reporting guidelines for surgical technique. A standardized reporting guideline that is developed rigorously and focuses on details of surgical technique may serve as a necessary impetus for change.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Standardized and transparent reporting of surgical technique is the cornerstone of effective dissemination, implementation and improvement. However, current reporting of surgical techniques is inadequate. The existing guidelines potentially applied to guide surgical technique reporting are with a minimal highlight of the surgical technique, lack requirements explaining what extent and dimensions need to be described in detail, or are unlikely to extrapolate to a wide range of surgical techniques. This study aims to formulate a rigorous protocol to develop a surgical technique reporting checklist and standards (SUPER) that defines what a clear, comprehensive and detailed surgical technique report should be contained. METHODS: This protocol is designed following the classic guidance for developing reporting guidelines recommended by the EQUATOR network. RESULTS: The development team will consist of surgeons (~80%), methodologists, and journal editors. The draft checklist sources will include a scoping review of existing reporting guidelines related to surgical technique, surgical technique articles from 15 top journals published in the last year, and brainstorming by the multidisciplinary development team. The final SUPER checklist will be formed after three rounds of Delphi surveys, one round of face-to-face meeting, and a month-long pilot test. The SUPER checklist will be published as open-access and be used in combination with existing reporting guidelines related to surgical techniques (e.g., IDEAL). This protocol will steer the SUPER checklist's development, allowing us to further elaborate surgical technique reporting for all surgical specialties, and enabling a more favorable experience for surgeons, nurses, medical students, residents, editors, and reviewers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered at the EQUATOR network on December 18th, 2020. Available at: https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-other-study-designs/.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The reporting of surgical techniques is of mixed quality, with most at a very minimal level. Reporting guidelines that could be applied to guide surgical technique reporting vary in methodology for development, discipline coverage, dimension coverage and detail requested. However, a scoping review that could indicate the gaps and efforts needed in surgical technique reporting guidelines is lacking and warranted. This study aims to design a methodological rigour protocol to guide the development of a scoping review of surgical technique reporting guidelines. METHODS: This protocol is designed following the 2020 manual proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. To further ensure the soundness of the protocol, we also included multidisciplinary professionals (including methodologists, clinicians, and journal editors) to refine the protocol. DISCUSSION: Seven key steps for developing the scoping review are identified and presented in detail, including (I) identifying the research questions; (II) inclusion criteria; (III) search strategy; (IV) source of evidence selection; (V) data extraction; (VI) analysis of the evidence; and (VII) presentation of the results. Guided by this protocol, the subsequent scoping review will inform us the overview of surgical technique reporting guidelines and precisely guide our direction and next steps in improving surgical technique reporting guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This protocol is not registered as the PROSPERO database only accepts registration of systematic review protocols while does not accept registration of scoping review protocols.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Editorials and commentaries (E/C) are common article categories and usually solicited by editors in many journals. However, not all experts accept invitation for an E/C essay for a variety of reasons. We conducted this study to explore the potential influence factors contributing whether an invitation to write E/C is accepted by a specialist. METHODS: Data of invited E/C from all journals of AME Publishing Company between January 1st, 2018 and December 31st, 2018 were retrospectively identified and consecutively collected. Acceptance of writing E/C from experts was recorded as "positive", while acceptance without submission, refusal, or no response, were all recorded as "negative". Factors that could potentially affect invitation acceptance were generally categorized as being related to three areas: original studies, inviting journals, and experts. RESULTS: A total of 5,091 invitations were sent to 4,788 experts from 79 different countries or areas to write E/C on 695 research papers from 43 journals, with a total positive acceptance rate of 18.88%. Greece (40.54%), India (36.8%), and Brazil (35.42%) were the top three countries for acceptance rate. Surgeons (surgeons 23.80% vs. non-surgeons 17.05%; P<0.001) and oncologists (oncologists 22.57% vs. non-oncologists 17.58%; P=0.029) were more likely to accept the E/C invitations. The acceptance rate decreased with the increasing number of published articles of an expert (P=0.005). The acceptance rate was the highest (28.03%) when an inviting journal was indexed in both SCIE and PubMed. ABS, VATS and JTD ranked as the top three journals with the highest invitation acceptance rate. The impact factor of journals on which original papers were published had a negative correlation with the invitation acceptance rate (P=0.015). Database-related studies had the highest acceptance rate (21.66%), while translational (16.49%) and basic studies (16.56%) had a significantly lower acceptance rate among all study types. CONCLUSION: Original studies, inviting journals, and expert-related factors were all influence factors on the acceptance rate/willingness to write of E/C from invitations.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The past decade has witnessed a rapid increase in the number of contributors per article, which has made explicitly defining the roles of each contributor even more challenging. The Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) was developed to explicitly define author roles, but there is a lack of empirical data on how CRediT is used in clinical trials. This study aimed to provide empirical data on the use of CRediT in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and discuss some limitations of CRediT. A new taxonomy (CRediT-RCT) is proposed to explicitly define the author roles in RCTs. METHODS: The electronic database of PubMed was searched from July 2017 to October 2019 to identify component trials with a randomized controlled design. Publications from the Public Library of Science (PLoS) were included because they embed the CRediT roles within the authors' metadata rather than solely as a separate paragraph of text. RESULTS: A total of 446 articles involving 4,185 authors were included in the study. Most authors participated in the study's conceptualization (44.9%) and investigation (48.8%), but only a fraction of the authors participated in software management (7.4%). Many CRediT roles were correlated with each other: the strongest correlation was the one between funding acquisition and conceptualization (correlation metric =0.39), followed by the one between conceptualization and methodology (0.37). The authors who acquired funding (OR: 2.06; 95% CI: 1.54-2.76; P<0.001), did project administration (OR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.17-2.03; P=0.002), performed supervision (OR: 2. 60; 95% CI: 1.93-3.52; P<0.001), wrote the original draft (OR: 4.83; 95% CI: 3.54-6.60; P<0.001), or were the first author (OR: 7.85; 95% CI: 5.71-10.87; P<0.001), were more likely to be the corresponding author. Also, while the original draft writing was significantly associated with the designation of the first author (OR: 37.49; 95% CI: 25.29-57.57; P<0.001), the first author did not perform review and editing (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.40-0.75; P<0.001), supervision (OR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.36-0.67; P<0.001), or resource management (OR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.50-1.00; P=0.053). We further propose a novel Contributor Roles Taxonomy for Randomized Controlled Trials (CRediT-RCT) which includes 10 roles. CONCLUSIONS: The present study provides empirical data on the use of CRediT for RCTs, and some limitations of the taxonomy are discussed. We further propose a new CRediT-RCT which includes 10 roles.
