The IDEAL Reporting Guidelines

Nicole Bilbro · Allison Hirst · Arsenio Páez · Baptiste Vasey · Maria Pufulete · Art Sedrakyan +1 more

111 citations0/0 files storedAnnals of Surgery

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Clinical practice guidelines implementation Delphi Technique in Research

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was 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 describe the consensus development of reporting guidelines for the IDEAL stages, and plans for their dissemination and evaluation. METHODS: Using the EQUATOR Network recommendations, participants with knowledge of IDEAL were surveyed to determine which IDEAL stages needed reporting guidelines. Draft checklists for stages 1, 2a, 2b, and 4 were subsequently developed by 3 researchers (N.B., A.H., P.M.), and revised through a 2-round Delphi consensus process. A final consensus teleconference resolved outstanding disagreements and clarified wording for checklist items. RESULTS: Sixty-one participants completed the initial survey, a clear majority indicating that new reporting guidelines were needed for IDEAL Stage 1 (69.5%), Stage 2a (78%), Stage 2b (74.6%), and Stage 4 (66%). A proposed set of checklists was modified by survey participants in 2 online Delphi rounds (n = 54 and n = 47, respectively), resulting in a penultimate checklist for each stage. Fourteen expert working group members finalized the checklist items and successfully resolved any outstanding areas without agreement on a consensus call. 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.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 111 citations exist upstream.

References

2014Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide 2018The SCARE 2018 statement: Updating consensus Surgical CAse REport (SCARE) guidelines 2009Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence 2019STROCSS 2019 Guideline: Strengthening the reporting of cohort studies in surgery 2017CONSORT Statement for Randomized Trials of Nonpharmacologic Treatments: A 2017 Update and a CONSORT Extension for Nonpharmacologic Trial Abstracts 2018The PROCESS 2018 statement: Updating Consensus Preferred Reporting Of CasE Series in Surgery (PROCESS) guidelines 2009Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation 2014Guidelines for reporting health research a user's manual

Cited by

2023Checklists, risk of bias tools, and reporting guidelines for research in orthopedics, sports medicine, and rehabilitation 2023Improving the Reporting of Primary Care Research: Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care—the CRISP Statement 2023The SUPER reporting guideline suggested for reporting of surgical technique 2022Quality of reporting of robot-assisted cholecystectomy in relation to the IDEAL recommendations: systematic review

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.