A research agenda for gastrointestinal and endoscopic surgery

被引:25
作者
Urbach, D. R.
Horvath, K. D.
Baxter, N. N.
Jobe, B. A.
Madan, A. K.
Pryor, A. D.
Khaitan, L.
Torquati, A.
Brower, S. T.
Trus, T. L.
Schwaitzberg, S.
机构
[1] Univ Toronto, Dept Surg & Hlth Policy Management & Evaluat, Toronto, ON M5G 2C4, Canada
[2] Univ Washington, Dept Surg, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[3] Oregon Hlth & Sci Univ, Dept Surg, Portland, OR 97239 USA
[4] Univ Tennessee, Ctr Hlth Sci, Dept Surg, Memphis, TN 38163 USA
[5] Duke Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Surg, Durham, NC 27704 USA
[6] Emory Univ, Sch Med, Dept Gen & GI Surg, Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
[7] Vanderbilt Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Surg, Nashville, TN 37205 USA
[8] Mercer Univ, Sch Med, Dept Surg, Savannah, GA 31404 USA
[9] Univ Rochester, Med Ctr, Dept Surg, Rochester, NY 14642 USA
[10] Cambridge Hlth Alliance, Dept Surg, Cambridge, MA 02139 USA
来源
SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES | 2007年 / 21卷 / 09期
关键词
Delphi process; endoscopic surgery; gastrointestinal surgery; priority setting; research agenda; survey research;
D O I
10.1007/s00464-006-9141-4
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Development of a research agenda may help to inform researchers and research-granting agencies about the key research gaps in an area of research and clinical care. The authors sought to develop a list of research questions for which further research was likely to have a major impact on clinical care in the area of gastrointestinal and endoscopic surgery. Methods: A formal group process was used to conduct an iterative, anonymous Web-based survey of an expert panel including the general membership of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). In round 1, research questions were solicited, which were categorized, collapsed, and rewritten in a common format. In round 2, the expert panel rated all the questions using a priority scale ranging from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest). In round 3, the panel re-rated the 40 questions with the highest mean priority score in round 2. Results: A total of 241 respondents to round 1 submitted 382 questions, which were reduced by a review panel to 106 unique questions encompassing 33 topics in gastrointestinal and endoscopic surgery. In the two successive rounds, respectively, 397 and 385 respondents ranked the questions by priority, then re-ranked the 40 questions with the highest mean priority score. High-priority questions related to antireflux surgery, the oncologic and immune effects of minimally invasive surgery, and morbid obesity. The question with the highest mean priority ranking was: "What is the best treatment (antireflux surgery, endoluminal therapy, or medication) for GERD?'' The second highest-ranked question was: "Does minimally invasive surgery improve oncologic outcomes as compared with open surgery?'' Other questions covered a broad range of research areas including clinical research, basic science research, education and evaluation, outcomes measurement, and health technology assessment. Conclusions: An iterative, anonymous group survey process was used to develop a research agenda for gastrointestinal and endoscopic surgery consisting of the 40 most important research questions in the field. This research agenda can be used by researchers and research-granting agencies to focus research activity in the areas most likely to have an impact on clinical care, and to appraise the relevance of scientific contributions.
引用
收藏
页码:1518 / 1525
页数:8
相关论文
共 10 条
[1]  
Adler M., 1996, Gazing into the oracle
[2]   Top ten biotechnologies for improving health in developing countries [J].
Daar, AS ;
Thorsteinsdóttir, H ;
Martin, DK ;
Smith, AC ;
Nast, S ;
Singer, PA .
NATURE GENETICS, 2002, 32 (02) :229-232
[3]   CONSENSUS METHODS - CHARACTERISTICS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE [J].
FINK, A ;
KOSECOFF, J ;
CHASSIN, M ;
BROOK, RH .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 1984, 74 (09) :979-983
[4]   Research Priorities Project, year 2000: Establishing a direction for infection control and hospital epidemiology [J].
Lynch, P ;
Jackson, M ;
Saint, S .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INFECTION CONTROL, 2001, 29 (02) :73-78
[5]  
Monterosso L, 2001, Contemp Nurse, V11, P142
[6]   Management of the injured patient: Identification of research topics for systematic review using the Delphi technique [J].
Nathens, AB ;
Rivara, FP ;
Jurkovich, GJ ;
Maier, RV ;
Johansen, JM ;
Thompson, DC .
JOURNAL OF TRAUMA-INJURY INFECTION AND CRITICAL CARE, 2003, 54 (03) :595-601
[7]   PHYSICIAN RATINGS OF APPROPRIATE INDICATIONS FOR 6 MEDICAL AND SURGICAL-PROCEDURES [J].
PARK, RE ;
FINK, A ;
BROOK, RH ;
CHASSIN, MR ;
KAHN, KL ;
MERRICK, NJ ;
KOSECOFF, J ;
SOLOMON, DH .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 1986, 76 (07) :766-772
[8]  
Sayre Michael R, 2005, Prehosp Emerg Care, V9, P255, DOI 10.1080/10903120590962238
[9]   Overuse and underuse of diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in various clinical settings [J].
Seematter-Bagnoud, L ;
Vader, JP ;
Wietlisbach, V ;
Froehlich, F ;
Gonvers, JJ ;
Burnand, B .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR QUALITY IN HEALTH CARE, 1999, 11 (04) :301-308
[10]   THE DELPHI TECHNIQUE - A METHODOLOGICAL DISCUSSION [J].
WILLIAMS, PL ;
WEBB, C .
JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING, 1994, 19 (01) :180-186