Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 17, 2025
Intraoperative Assessment of Resection Margins in Oral Cavity Cancer: This is the Way
Published on: May 10, 2021
Identifying and reporting modifications to surgical innovation: a systematic review of IDEAL/IDEAL-D studies
James Olivier1, Daisy Elliott2, Kerry Avery2
1NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol, Bristol, Bristol, UK james.olivier@nhs.net.
Objectives:
The Idea, Development, Evaluation, Assessment and Long-term follow-up (IDEAL) framework was designed to improve the quality of surgical research and evaluation of surgical innovation. It has become a widely cited tool for evaluating innovative devices and procedures, yet challenges remain concerning the definition and reporting of incremental innovative modifications, hindering evolution and evaluation of innovations and potentially risking patient safety. This systematic review examined IDEAL studies to identify such modifications and establish recent practices around modification reporting to inform the development of future guidance to facilitate safe, transparent and efficient surgical innovation.
Design:
Systematic review and thematic synthesis of studies reporting surgical innovation.
Data Sources:
Web of Science and Scopus were searched in July 2023 using citation tools to identify studies following the IDEAL framework (citing any of 13 key IDEAL/IDEAL framework publications and guideline papers).
Eligibility Criteria:
Primary research studies of any design that involved invasive innovative devices or procedures.
Data Extraction And Synthesis:
Study characteristics and verbatim text for all reported modifications, including contextual information, were extracted. Data were analysed and synthesised using thematic synthesis.
Results:
Of 1071 records screened, 104 studies published between 2011-2023 were included (n=87 (83.6%) study reports; n=17 (16.3%) protocols). 425 modifications were reported in 76 (73.1%) studies, including modifications to procedures (n=283, 66.6%), devices (n=94, 22.1%) and patient selection (n=48, 11.3%). Procedure/device modifications included technical, non-technical and cessation (conversion to other procedures or abandonment). Modifications were most often reported within IDEAL stage 2a (n=30/44, 68.2%), whereas there was considerable variation across other stages, such as stage 0 (n=2/3, 66%) and stage 2b (n=4/12, 33.3%).
Conclusion:
Reporting modifications is imperative for evaluating surgical innovation. However, this review found inconsistent approaches to reporting and describing modifications. Findings will inform the development of a checklist for reporting modifications that aims to complement the IDEAL framework and further promote shared learning, avoiding the repetition of harmful/ineffective modifications and enhancing patient safety.
Prospero Registration Number:
CRD42023427704.
More Related Videos
06:05The Participant-Reported Implementation Update and Score PRIUS: A Novel Method for Capturing Implementation-Related Data Over Time
Published on: February 19, 2021
05:41Left Anterior Descending Coronary Artery Ligation for Ischemia-Reperfusion Research: Model Improvement via Technical Modifications and Quality Control
Published on: December 16, 2022
Related Concept Videos
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
01:19Pharmacovigilance
This process, termed pharmacovigilance, aims to detect, evaluate, and minimize harmful effects related to medication use. The data collection for pharmacovigilance depends on spontaneous reporting systems, where healthcare professionals or patients voluntarily report suspected ADRs.
In some cases, there...