Innovation in neurosurgery response to: “Ideal”, the operating microscope, and the parachute

Ammirati, Mario

doi:10.1007/s00701-017-3427-2

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the secondary publications, 21 (57%) explicitly mentioned the IDEAL framework [ 1 , 3 , 5 , 10 – 12 , 14 , 15 , 29 , 32 , 38 , 43 , 47 – 50 , 52 , 53 , 57 , 60 , 65 ], while the rest cited the IDEAL publications, but did not discuss them. Of the 21 papers that discussed the IDEAL framework, 18 (86%) were supportive of the use of the IDEAL framework [ 3 , 5 , 10 – 12 , 14 , 15 , 29 , 32 , 38 , 43 , 47 , 49 , 50 , 52 , 53 , 57 , 60 ], while 1 paper was not [ 1 ], and 2 were neutral [ 48 , 65 ]. Six of these publications evaluated the applicability of the IDEAL framework in neurosurgical innovation [ 38 , 47 , 48 , 50 , 64 , 65 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The IDEAL framework in neurosurgery: a bibliometric analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment and Long-term study (IDEAL) framework was created to provide a structured way for assessing and evaluating novel surgical techniques and devices. Objectives The aim of this paper was to investigate the utilization of the IDEAL framework within neurosurgery, and to identify factors influencing implementation. Methods A bibliometric analysis of the 7 key IDEAL papers on Scopus, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases (2009–2019) was performed. A second journal-specific search then identified additional papers citing the IDEAL framework. Publications identified were screened by two independent reviewers to select neurosurgery-specific articles. Results The citation search identified 1336 articles. The journal search identified another 16 articles. Following deduplication and review, 51 relevant articles remained; 14 primary papers (27%) and 37 secondary papers (73%). Of the primary papers, 5 (36%) papers applied the IDEAL framework to their research correctly; two were aligned to the pre-IDEAL stage, one to the Idea and Development stages, and two to the Exploration stage. Of the secondary papers, 21 (57%) explicitly discussed the IDEAL framework. Eighteen (86%) of these were supportive of implementing the framework, while one was not, and two were neutral. Conclusion The adoption of the IDEAL framework in neurosurgery has been slow, particularly for early-stage neurosurgical techniques and inventions. However, the largely positive reviews in secondary literature suggest potential for increased use that may be achieved with education and publicity.

show abstract