Need for expertise based randomised controlled trials

Surgical procedures are less likely to be rigorously evidence based than drug treatments because of difficulties with randomisation. Expertise based trials could be the way forward Although conventional randomised controlled trials are widely recognised as the most reliable method to evaluate pharmacological interventions,1 2 scepticism about their role in nonpharmacological interventions (such as surgery) remains.3–6 Conventional randomised controlled trials typically randomise participants to one of two intervenions (A or B) and individual clinicians give intervention A to some participants and B to others. An alternative trial design, the expertise based randomised controlled trial, randomises participants to clinicians with expertise in intervention A or clinicians with expertise in intervention B, and the clinicians perform only the procedure they are expert in. We present evidence to support our argument that increased use of the expertise based design will enhance the validity, applicability, feasibility, and ethical integrity of randomised controlled trials in surgery, as well as in other areas. We focus on established surgical interventions rather than new surgical procedures in which clinicians have not established expertise. Investigators have used the expertise based design when conventional randomised controlled trials were impossible because different specialty groups provided the interventions under evaluation—for example, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery.7–9 In 1980, Van der Linden suggested randomising participants to clinicians committed to performing different interventions in an area in which a conventional randomised controlled trial was possible.10 Since that time, however, the expertise based design has been little used, even in areas where it has high potential (such as, surgery, physiotherapy, and chiropractic). ### Differential expertise between procedures Because it takes training and experience to develop expertise in surgical interventions, individual surgeons tend to solely or primarily use a single surgical approach to treat a specific problem.10 11 …

[1]  I. Chalmers.  Unbiased, relevant, and reliable assessments in health care , 1998, BMJ.

[2]  R. Cacchione,et al.  Laparoscopic herniorrhaphy: beyond the learning curve1 , 2002 .

[3]  RITA-2 trial participants.  Coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass surgery: the Randomised Intervention Treatment of Angina (RITA) trial , 1993, The Lancet.

[4]  N. Black.  Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care , 1996, BMJ.

[5]  J. Baxter,et al.  Laparoscopic fundoplication: learning curve and patient satisfaction. , 2003, Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

[6]  A. Grant,et al.  SURGICAL RESEARCH , 1937, Lancet.

[7]  J. Feinglass,et al.  Patient outcomes for segmental colon resection according to surgeon's training, certification, and experience. , 2002, Surgery.

[8]  W. van der Linden.  Pitfalls in randomized surgical trials. , 1980, Surgery.

[9]  D. Moher,et al.  The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration , 2001, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[10]  G. Murray.  Surgical evaluation at the crossroads , 1993, The British journal of surgery.

[11]  E. Diethrich,et al.  Learning Curve for Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: Evaluation of a 277-Patient Single-Center Experience , 2002, Journal of endovascular therapy : an official journal of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists.

[12]  Robert L. Frye,et al.  Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with angioplasty in patients with multivessel disease. , 1996, The New England journal of medicine.

[13]  B. Bridgewater,et al.  Improving mortality of coronary surgery over first four years of independent practice: retrospective examination of prospectively collected data from 15 surgeons , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[14]  O. Wihlborg.  Fixation of femoral neck fractures. A four-flanged nail versus threaded pins in 200 cases. , 1990, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[15]  A. Molyneux.  International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) of neurosurgical clipping versus endovascular coiling in 2143 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a randomised trial , 2002, The Lancet.

[16]  T. Limbird,et al.  Operative Treatment of Fractures of the Tibial Plafond. A Randomized, Prospective Study* , 1996, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[17]  G. Guyatt,et al.  “Double blind, you are the weakest link — goodbye!” , 2002, ACP journal club.

[18]  M. Bhandari,et al.  The Quality of Reporting of Randomized Trials in The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery from 1988 through 2000 , 2002, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[19]  A. Schmidt,et al.  A prospective, randomized study of intramedullary nails inserted with and without reaming for the treatment of open and closed fractures of the tibial shaft. , 2000, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.

[20]  James T. Willerson,et al.  Appointment of New Associate Editor for Circulation , 1996 .

[21]  “Double blind, you are the weakest link — goodbye!” , 2002 .

[22]  M. Wehbé.  The prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial in orthopaedic surgery. , 1998, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American volume.

[23]  H. Schwartz,et al.  A prospective, randomized study of the management of severe ankle fractures. , 1985, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[24]  R. McLeod,et al.  Clinical studies in surgical journals—have we improved? , 1993, Diseases of the colon and rectum.

[25]  R. Cacchione,et al.  Laparoscopic herniorrhaphy: beyond the learning curve. , 2002, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[26]  P. Rehak,et al.  Minimally invasive versus conventional aortic valve operations: a prospective study in 120 patients. , 1999, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[27]  CABRI Trial Participants,et al.  First-year results of CABRI (Coronary Angioplasty versus Bypass Revascularisation Investigation) , 1995, The Lancet.

[28]  D. Sackett,et al.  Inpatient general medicine is evidence based , 1995, The Lancet.

[29]  D. Sackett,et al.  Inpatient general medicine is evidence based. A-Team, Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine. , 1995, Lancet.

[30]  W vanderLinden,et al.  Pitfalls in randomized surgical trials. , 1980 .

[31]  J. Esdaile,et al.  The randomized clinical trial in orthopaedics: obligation or option? , 1986, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[32]  Joy,et al.  Coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass surgery: the Randomized Intervention Treatment of Angina (RITA) trial. , 1993, Lancet.