Search

Background: The Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument was developed to evaluate the quality of clinical practice guidelines. Evidence suggests that development, reporting, and appraisal of guidelines on surgical interventions may be better informed by modification of the instrument. Objective: We aimed to develop an AGREE II extension specifically designed for appraisal of guidelines of surgical interventions. Methods: In a three-part project funded by the United European Gastroenterology and the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, (i) we identified factors that were associated with higher quality of surgical guidelines, (ii) we statistically calibrated the AGREE II instrument in the context of surgical guidelines using correlation, reliability, and factor analysis, and (iii) we undertook a Delphi consensus process of stakeholders to inform the development of an AGREE II extension instrument for surgical interventions. Results: Several features were prioritized by stakeholders as of particular importance for guidelines of surgical interventions, including development of a guideline protocol, consideration of practice variability and surgical expertise in different settings, and specification of infrastructures required to implement the recommendations. The AGREE-S—AGREE II extension instrument for surgical interventions has 25 items, compared to the 23 items of the original AGREE II instrument, organized into the following 6 domains: Scope and purpose, Stakeholders, Evidence synthesis, Development of recommendations, Editorial independence, and Implementation and update. As the original instrument, it concludes with an overall appraisal of the quality of the guideline and a judgement on whether the guideline is recommended for use. Several items were amended and rearranged among domains, and an item was deleted. The Rigor of Development domain of the original AGREE II was divided into Evidence Synthesis and Development of Recommendations. Items of the AGREE II domain Clarity of Presentation were incorporated in the new domain Development of Recommendations. Three new items were introduced, addressing the development of a guideline protocol, support by a guideline methodologist, and consideration of surgical experience/expertise. Conclusion: The AGREE-S appraisal instrument has been developed to be used for assessment of the methodological and reporting quality of guidelines on surgical interventions.

Evidence; Guidelines; Quality Evidencia; Pautas; Calidad Evidència; Pautes; Qualitat Background The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument has been developed to inform the methodology, reporting and appraisal of clinical practice guidelines. Evidence suggests that the quality of surgical guidelines can be improved, and the structure and content of AGREE II can be modified to help enhance the quality of guidelines of surgical interventions. Objective To develop an extension of AGREE II specifically designed for guidelines of surgical interventions. Methods In the tripartite Guideline Assessment Project (GAP) funded by United European Gastroenterology and the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, (i) we assessed the quality of surgical guidelines and we identified factors associated with higher quality (GAP I); (ii) we applied correlation analysis, factor analysis and the item response theory to inform an adaption of AGREE II for the purposes of surgical guidelines (GAP II); and (iii) we developed an AGREE II extension for surgical interventions, informed by the results of GAP I, GAP II, and a Delphi process of stakeholders, including representation from interventional and surgical disciplines; the Guideline International Network (GIN); the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group; the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) initiative; and representation of surgical journal editors and patient/public. Results We developed AGREE-S, an AGREE II extension for surgical interventions, which comprises 24 items organized in 6 domains; Scope and purpose, Stakeholders, Evidence synthesis, Development of recommendations, Editorial independence, and Implementation and update. The panel of stakeholders proposed 3 additional items: development of a guideline protocol, consideration of practice variability and surgical/interventional expertise in different settings, and specification of infrastructures required to implement the recommendations. Three of the existing items were amended, 7 items were rearranged among the domains, and one item was removed. The domain Rigour of Development was divided into domains on Evidence Synthesis and Development of Recommendations. The new domain Development of Recommendations incorporates items from the original AGREE II domain Clarity of Presentation. Conclusion AGREE-S is an evidence-based and stakeholder-informed extension of the AGREE II instrument, that can be used as a guide for the development and adaption of guidelines on surgical interventions. The Guideline Assessment Project (GAP) III received financial support from the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) and the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery and Other Interventional Techniques (EAES), both non-profit organizations. The funders had no role in the design or development of this project.

Objective: To demonstrate the noninferiority of the fundamentals of robotic surgery (FRS) skills curriculum over current training paradigms and identify an ideal training platform. Summary Background Data: There is currently no validated, uniformly accepted curriculum for training in robotic surgery skills. Methods: Single-blinded parallel-group randomized trial at 12 international American College of Surgeons (ACS) Accredited Education Institutes (AEI). Thirty-three robotic surgery experts and 123 inexperienced surgical trainees were enrolled between April 2015 and November 2016. Benchmarks (proficiency levels) on the 7 FRS Dome tasks were established based on expert performance. Participants were then randomly assigned to 4 training groups: Dome (n ¼ 29), dV-Trainer (n ¼ 30), and DVSS (n ¼ 32) that trained to benchmarks and control (n ¼ 32) that trained using locally available robotic skills curricula. The primary outcome was participant performance after training based on task errors and duration on 5 basic robotic tasks (knot tying, continuous suturing, cutting, dissection, and vessel coagulation) using an avian tissue model (transfer-test). Secondary outcomes included cognitive test scores, GEARS ratings, and robot familiarity checklist scores. Results: All groups demonstrated significant performance improvement after skills training (P < 0.01). Participating residents and fellows performed tasks faster (DOME and DVSS groups) and with fewer errors than controls (DOME group; P < 0.01). Inter-rater reliability was high for the checklist scores (0.82-0.97) but moderate for GEARS ratings (0.40-0.67). Conclusions: We provide evidence of effectiveness for the FRS curriculum by demonstrating better performance of those trained following FRS compared with controls on a transfer test. We therefore argue for its implementation across training programs before surgeons apply these skills clinically. Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Background: Although it is known that differences in paediatric primary care (PPC) are found throughout Europe, little information exists as to where, how and who delivers this care. The aim of this study was to collect information on the current existing situation of PPC in Europe. Methods: A survey, in the form of a questionnaire, was distributed to the primary or secondary care delegates of 31 European countries asking for information concerning their primary paediatric care system, demographic data, professionals involved in primary care and details of their training. All of them were active paediatricians with a broad knowledge on how PPC is organised in their countries. Results: Responses were received from 29 countries. Twelve countries (41%) have a family doctor/general practitioner (GP/FD) system, seven (24%) a paediatrician-based system and 10 (35%) a combined system. The total number of paediatricians in the 29 countries is 82 078 with 33 195 (40.4%) working in primary care. In only 15 countries (51.7%), paediatric age at the primary care level is defined as 0-18 years. Training in paediatrics is 5 years or more in 20 of the 29 countries. In nine countries, training is less than 5 years. The median training time of GPs/FDs in paediatrics is 4 months (IQR 3-6), with some countries having no formal paediatric training at all. The care of adolescents and involvement in school health programmes is undertaken by different health professionals (school doctors, GPs/FDs, nurses and paediatricians) depending on the country. Conclusions: Systems and organisations of PPC in Europe are heterogeneous. The same is true for paediatric training, school healthcare involvement and adolescent care. More research is needed to study specific healthcare indicators in order to evaluate the efficacy of different systems of PPC.