Scleral buckling versus primary vitrectomy in rhegmatogenous retinal detachment study (SPR Study): recruitment list evaluation. Study report no. 2

BACKGROUND: Accompanying the patient recruitment within the "Scleral buckling versus primary vitrectomy in rhegmatogenous retinal detachment multicentre trial (SPR)", all patients with primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) had to be documented in a detailed recruitment list. The main goal of this analysis was to estimate the prevalence of "medium-severe" RRD (SPR Study eligible) as defined by the SPR Study inclusion criteria. In addition, the detailed anatomical situation of medium-severe RRD is investigated. METHODS: SPR Study recruitment was evaluated via a standardised questionnaire, which contained a coloured fundus drawing and information regarding possible reasons for exclusion from the SPR Study in each case. A team of three experienced vitreoretinal surgeons evaluated all fundus drawings from a 1-year period. The review led to a decision on SPR Study eligibility on the pure basis of anatomical assessment. The main outcome measures were assessment of feasible inclusion into the SPR Study by the evaluation team based on the fundus drawing and anatomical details. RESULTS: A total of 1,115 patients with RRD from 13 European centres were prospectively enrolled in the year 2000. The quality of the drawings sufficed for assessment in 1,107 cases (99.3%). Three hundred and twelve fundus drawings (28.2%) met the anatomic inclusion criteria of the SPR Study. RRD of medium severity is characterised by an average number of 2.6 (SD 2.4) retinal breaks, 5.8 (SD 2.8) clock hours of detached retina, unclear hole situation in 15.1% of cases (n=47), attached macula in 42.9% (n=134), bullous detachment in 15.1% (n=47) and vitreous haemorrhage/opacity in 7.7% (n=24). CONCLUSIONS: In the recruitment lists of the SPR Study of the year 2000, RRD of medium severity was present in nearly one third of the patients with primary RRD. These findings emphasise the clinical relevance of the SPR Study.

No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations

Surgery and other invasive therapies are complex interventions, the assessment of which is challenged by factors that depend on operator, team, and setting, such as learning curves, quality variations, and perception of equipoise. We propose recommendations for the assessment of surgery based on a five-stage description of the surgical development process. We also encourage the widespread use of prospective databases and registries. Reports of new techniques should be registered as a professional duty, anonymously if necessary when outcomes are adverse. Case series studies should be replaced by prospective development studies for early technical modifications and by prospective research databases for later pre-trial evaluation. Protocols for these studies should be registered publicly. Statistical process control techniques can be useful in both early and late assessment. Randomised trials should be used whenever possible to investigate efficacy, but adequate pre-trial data are essential to allow power calculations, clarify the definition and indications of the intervention, and develop quality measures. Difficulties in doing randomised clinical trials should be addressed by measures to evaluate learning curves and alleviate equipoise problems. Alternative prospective designs, such as interrupted time series studies, should be used when randomised trials are not feasible. Established procedures should be monitored with prospective databases to analyse outcome variations and to identify late and rare events. Achievement of improved design, conduct, and reporting of surgical research will need concerted action by editors, funders of health care and research, regulatory bodies, and professional societies.

Evaluation of leaders – does gender still matter?

Purpose: Leadership positions are still stereotyped as male, especially in male-dominated fields such as STEM. Therefore, women in such positions run the risk of being evaluated less favorably than men. Our study investigates how female and male leaders in existing teams (engineering project) are evaluated, and how these evaluations change over time. Design/Methodology: Participants worked in 45 teams to develop specific engineering projects. Evaluations of 45 leaders (33% women) by 258 team members (39% women) were analyzed, that is, leaders’ self-evaluation and their evaluation by team members. Results: Although female and male leaders did not differ in their self-evaluations at the beginning of the project, female leaders evaluated themselves better within time. However, team members evaluated female leaders better than male leaders at the beginning of the project. These gender differences disappeared over the time. Limitations: It should be replicated in a non-student sample. Implications: The results show that female leaders entering a male-dominated field (engineering) are evaluated better by team members than male leaders at the beginning of the team work, in line with the ‘shifting standard model’ (Biernat & Fuegen, 2001). While the initial impression formation of female and male leaders is influenced by category membership, its impact decreases over time as a consequence of individualization (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990); this results in similar evaluations over time. Originality: To our knowledge this is the first study to systematically test perceptions of change in the evaluation over time of female and male leaders in natural setting.