Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

PURPOSE: Like other branches of surgery, Urology has encountered major challenges in aligning the research processes by which new interventions are assessed with the principles of Evidence-Based Medicine. This article explains the IDEAL framework and recommendations and illustrates how they might affect the evaluation of current controversial urological procedures. METHODS: From an inside perspective, we provide an overview of the efforts of the IDEAL Working Group to date with special emphasis on the field of Urology. RESULTS: There are clear differences between drugs and interventions in the natural history of innovations. Since the conventional framework for conducting trials of new treatments is largely based on the former, the evaluation of surgical innovations using the same template can encounter significant problems. Difficulties in performing randomized controlled trials of surgical techniques and the persistence of the case series as an important feature of the scientific literature have been the two most controversial aspects of this mismatch between the subject of research and the methodology used. The IDEAL framework provides a description of the process of innovation and development for surgical trials, and the associated recommendations provide a suggested alternative approach to developing study designs, which are appropriate for the specific problems of new techniques. CONCLUSIONS: IDEAL provides a new framework for surgical innovation that was developed with broad stakeholder input from the surgical community and is expected to have a transformative impact on the way that urologists perform clinical research.

Original publication

DOI

10.1007/s00345-011-0647-6

Type

Journal article

Journal

World J Urol

Publication Date

06/2011

Volume

29

Pages

331 - 336

Keywords

Evidence-Based Medicine, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Quality Control, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Urologic Surgical Procedures