Abstract:ObjectivesTo assess uptake and application of the IDEAL principles in original surgical procedure-or device-related clinical research studies, as well as its reported relevance as characterized by secondary publications, editorials and reviews.
ConclusionsThe IDEAL framework has found widespread adoption in the urology literature as witnessed by a large number of original manuscripts and secondary publications citing IDEAL; however, its application is largely limited to the early stages of surgical innovation,… Show more
“…The remaining papers identified are consist of 10 letters to the editor (27%) [ 2 – 4 , 12 , 23 , 32 , 36 , 47 , 50 , 54 ], 2 questionnaire-based analyses (one exploring views on the use of evidence-based medicine principles in neurosurgery, the other seeking to understand the neurosurgical definition of “innovation”) [ 62 , 65 ], and 1 article outlining the work of the British Neurosurgical Trainee Collaborative [ 57 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…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%
“…Non-English papers and non-journal text (such as book chapters) were excluded. This methodology was first used by Tradewell et al, investigating the use of the IDEAL framework in urological research [ 57 ].…”
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.
“…The remaining papers identified are consist of 10 letters to the editor (27%) [ 2 – 4 , 12 , 23 , 32 , 36 , 47 , 50 , 54 ], 2 questionnaire-based analyses (one exploring views on the use of evidence-based medicine principles in neurosurgery, the other seeking to understand the neurosurgical definition of “innovation”) [ 62 , 65 ], and 1 article outlining the work of the British Neurosurgical Trainee Collaborative [ 57 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…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%
“…Non-English papers and non-journal text (such as book chapters) were excluded. This methodology was first used by Tradewell et al, investigating the use of the IDEAL framework in urological research [ 57 ].…”
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.
“…Although widely accepted in principle, the use of the IDEAL recommendations in practice to date has been limited and in many cases sub-optimal. Surveys of publications using IDEAL have shown that reporting of the stages was often inaccurate and the key features which define each stage were frequently omitted 7,8,9 . The IDEAL Recommendations introduce several novel ideas into clinical study design, and following other published guidelines alone is therefore unlikely to enable authors to report them accurately.…”
Objective: To define reporting standards for IDEAL format studies.
Background:The IDEAL Framework and Recommendations establish an integrated pathway for evaluation of new surgical techniques and complex therapeutic technologies. However guidance on implementation has been incomplete, and incorrect use is commonly seen. We Conclusions: Participants familiar with IDEAL called for reporting guidelines for studies in all IDEAL stages except stage 3. The checklists developed have the potential to improve standards of reporting and thereby advance the quality of research on surgery and complex interventions and technologies, but require further evaluation in use.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
