What Evidence Underlies Clinical Practice in Paediatric Surgery? A Systematic Review Assessing Choice of Study Design

Abstract

ObjectiveIdentify every paediatric surgical article published in 1998 and every paediatric surgical article published in 2013, and determine which study designs were used and whether they were appropriate for robustly assessing interventions in surgical conditions.MethodsA systematic review was conducted according to a pre-specified protocol (CRD42014007629), using EMBASE and Medline. Non-English language studies were excluded. Studies were included if meeting population criteria and either condition or intervention criteria. Population: Children under the age of 18, or adults who underwent intervention for a condition managed by paediatric surgeons when they were under 18 years of age. Condition: One managed by general paediatric surgeons. Intervention: Used for treatment of a condition managed by general paediatric surgeons.Main Outcome MeasureStudies were classified according to whether the IDEAL collaboration recommended their design for assessing surgical interventions or not. Change in proportions between 1998 and 2013 was calculated.Results1581 paediatric surgical articles were published in 1998, and 3453 in 2013. The most commonly used design, accounting for 45% of studies in 1998 and 46.8% in 2013, was the retrospective case series. Only 1.8% of studies were RCTs in 1998, and 1.9% in 2013. Overall, in 1998, 9.8% of studies used a recommended design. In 2013, 11.9% used a recommended design (proportion increase 2.3%, 95% confidence interval 0.5% increase to 4% increase, p = 0.017).Conclusions and RelevanceA low proportion of published paediatric surgical manuscripts utilise a design that is recommended for assessing surgical interventions. RCTs represent fewer than 1 in 50 studies. In 2013, 88.1% of studies used a less robust design, suggesting the need for a new way of approaching paediatric surgical research.

A systematic review of the quality of conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric surgery

“…Potentially as a consequence of such difficulties, retrospective case series account for almost half of the paediatric surgical literature. Despite their suitability, multicentre trials are uncommon [9]. Therefore, cumulative tools have become useful adjuncts in the paediatric surgical literature to draw conclusions on a multitude of smaller studies [10–11].…”

NETS1HD: study protocol for development of a core outcome set for use in determining the overall success of Hirschsprung’s disease treatment

“…We have kept the scope of the COS broad for two reasons. First, although HD research currently covers multiple different areas of treatment, there are only a limited number of studies being conducted that use robust methodology [11]. Any intervention that is aimed at improving the overall robustness of research taking place therefore needs to be as broadly applicable as possible.…”

‘They don't know themselves, so how can they tell us?’: parents navigating uncertainty at the frontiers of neonatal surgery

“…Because these conditions are rare and still under‐researched, understanding of them is poor and surgical interventions are rarely based on robust evidence (Allin et al . ). While outcomes for babies with these rare anomalies are improving, sources of information for parents are limited.…”

“…A recent systematic reviewed reported just 1 in 50 studies of paediatric surgical interventions are randomised controlled trials, the design recommended for assessing surgical interventions (Allin et al . ). There is currently uncertainty about how to best manage these babies and consequently variations in the approaches that surgeons and wider teams take.…”