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.

Interpretation of primary care physicians' attitude regarding rotavirus immunisation using diffusion of innovation theories

To evaluate primary care physicians' attitude towards implementation of rotavirus (RV) immunisation into the Swiss immunisation schedule, an eight-question internet-based questionnaire was sent to the 3799 subscribers of InfoVac, a nationwide web-based expert network on immunisation issues, which reaches >95% of paediatricians and smaller proportions of other primary care physicians. Five demographic variables were also inquired. Descriptive statistics and multivariate analyses for the main outcome "acceptance of routine RV immunisation" and other variables were performed. Diffusion of innovation theory was used for data assessment. Nine-hundred seventy-seven questionnaires were returned (26%). Fifty percent of participants were paediatricians. Routine RV immunisation was supported by 146 participants (15%; so called early adopters), dismissed by 620 (64%), leaving 211 (21%) undecided. However, when asked whether they would recommend RV vaccination to parents if it were officially recommended by the federal authorities and reimbursed, 467 (48.5%; so called early majority) agreed to recommend RV immunisation. Multivariate analysis revealed that physicians who would immunise their own child (OR: 5.1; 95% CI: 4.1-6.3), hospital-based physicians (OR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.1-2.3) and physicians from the French (OR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.2-2.3) and Italian speaking areas of Switzerland (OR: 2.5; 95% CI: 1.1-5.8) were more likely to support RV immunisation. Diffusion of innovation theory predicts a >80% implementation if approximately 50% of a given population support an innovation. Introduction of RV immunisation in Switzerland is likely to be successful, if (i) the federal authorities issue an official recommendation and (ii) costs are covered by basic health care insurance.