BS SO02 - A systematic review to summarise and appraise the reporting of surgical innovation: A case study in robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RRYGB) is an innovative alternative to the laparoscopic approach, however its clinical benefits are uncertain. The Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment and Long-term follow-up (IDEAL) framework was developed to improve the evaluation of surgical innovations alongside their adoption into clinical practice. Studies investigating the benefits of RRYGB have been published, however the reporting quality and robustness of literature has not been assessed. The aim of this systematic review was to summarise and appraise the reporting of RRYGB as a case study of a surgical innovation in relation to the IDEAL framework. Method Systematic searches for primary studies evaluating totally RRYGB were undertaken. Their IDEAL stages were determined using a standardised algorithm. Information pertaining to study characteristics, governance/ethical factors, patient selection, demographics, surgeon expertise/training, technique description and outcomes were extracted. A narrative summary was formulated, with descriptive statistics and data arranged chronologically. All methodology was done in accordance with PRISMA guidance. Results Fourty-seven studies published between 2005-2024 were included: case report (n=1), case series (n=11), non-randomised comparative (n=28) and retrospective analysis of registry databases (n=7). IDEAL stages were assigned as follows: stage 1 (n=1), stage 2a (n=6), stage 2b (n=40), stage 3 (n=0), stage 4 (n=0). There was a lack of sequential progression through IDEAL stages as time progressed since the inception of RRYGB. There was incomplete and inconsistent reporting of governance, ethics, patient selection criteria, surgeon expertise/training and technique description. Outcomes were heterogenous and rarely corresponded to progress through the IDEAL model of surgical innovation. Conclusion Reporting of RRYGB literature correlated poorly with IDEAL recommendations. This indicates poor reporting quality of available literature, impeding the ability for surgeons to draw meaningful conclusions from available evidence. This also complicates patients’ ability to take part in shared decision-making and give informed consent. Future studies should report findings in a structured way using IDEAL guidance or a similar reporting standard. This will ensure future research is transparent, robustly designed, prospective, uses COSs and follows an ethos of incremental learning. This may reduce research waste and the premature adoption of surgical innovations, ensuring their safe introduction into clinical practice.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,020 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».