MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409556598 · doi:10.1093/bjs/znaf020

Endovascular treatment of peripheral arterial disease: Endo-STAR framework for the design, conduct, and reporting of trials

2025· article· en· W4409556598 on OpenAlexaff
Ewa M. Zywicka, Andrew Moore, Christopher P. Twine, Christian‐Alexander Behrendt, Michel Bosiers, Marianne Brodmann, Edward Choke, Gert J. deBorst, Αθανάσιος Διαμαντόπουλος, Florian Enzmann, Alik Farber, Gary M. Ansel, Dario Gattuso, Gerard S. Goh, Goueffic Yann, Shirley Jansen, Mario Landini, Anne Lejay, Michael Lichtenberg, Matthew T. Menard, Peter Mezes, Joseph L. Mills, J. W. Nixon, Joakim Nordanstig, Kelly A. O’Connell, Baris Ata Ozdemir, Lorenzo Patrone, Sapna Puppala, Athanasios Saratzis, Eric A. Secemsky, Sigrid Nikol, Konstantinos Stavroulakis, Sabine Steiner, Martin Teraa, Isabelle Van Herzeele, Maarit Venermo, Ronélle Mouton, Robert J. Hinchliffe

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish journal of surgery · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Artery Disease Management
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
FundersNorth Bristol NHS TrustUniversity of BristolNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionDelphi methodRandomized controlled trialArterial diseaseIntervention (counseling)Clinical trialPhysical therapySurgeryVascular diseaseNursingPathologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Endovascular technologies continue to evolve to meet the large and growing burden of peripheral arterial disease. The overall quality of published RCTs in endovascular treatments for peripheral arterial disease is low, resulting in uncertainty over treatment effectiveness. The aim of this study was to develop a framework to improve the design, conduct, and reporting of future clinical trials for infrainguinal endovascular treatments of peripheral arterial disease. METHODS: The authors undertook the design, development, and pilot testing of a novel framework. The study comprised four distinct phases. Phase 1 represented the development of a preliminary framework using content analysis of endovascular interventions described in previously published RCTs. Phase 2 consisted of focus groups with key stakeholders to further develop, revise, and achieve initial consensus on the framework. Phase 3 corresponded to the creation of a modified Delphi questionnaire to achieve final consensus on the framework. Phase 4 included cognitive interviews with professionals designing or undertaking endovascular lower limb trials to pilot test the framework. RESULTS: Content analysis of 228 endovascular interventions from 112 RCTs identified six key themes, relevant to endovascular peripheral arterial disease interventions, for the framework: expertise; setting; anaesthesia; imaging; intervention components (access; crossing lesion; treating lesion (lesion preparation; intervention; intervention optimization; bailout intervention; and treatment of non-target lesions); and closure of artery); and pharmacological interventions. Further refinements were made to the framework as a result of feedback from three focus groups and a Delphi questionnaire. The framework deconstructs an endovascular intervention into its component parts. The final framework can be accessed at www.endo-star.com. Pilot testing evaluated comprehension, clarity, and completeness of interpretation. CONCLUSION: The Endo-STAR framework deconstructs endovascular interventions into their key component parts and has been designed and pilot tested to enhance the quality of RCTs of endovascular interventions in peripheral arterial disease. It may be used to assist in developing future trial protocols, the standardization of infrainguinal endovascular interventions, the monitoring of adherence to the trial protocol, and as a standardized reporting guideline.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.178
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish journal of surgerySame topicPeripheral Artery Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207