K. Slim

BACKGROUND: Because of specific methodological difficulties in conducting randomized trials, surgical research remains dependent predominantly on observational or non-randomized studies. Few validated instruments are available to determine the methodological quality of such studies either from the reader's perspective or for the purpose of meta-analysis. The aim of the present study was to develop and validate such an instrument. METHODS: After an initial conceptualization phase of a methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS), a list of 12 potential items was sent to 100 experts from different surgical specialties for evaluation and was also assessed by 10 clinical methodologists. Subsequent testing involved the assessment of inter-reviewer agreement, test-retest reliability at 2 months, internal consistency reliability and external validity. RESULTS: The final version of MINORS contained 12 items, the first eight being specifically for non-comparative studies. Reliability was established on the basis of good inter-reviewer agreement, high test-retest reliability by the kappa-coefficient and good internal consistency by a high Cronbach's alpha-coefficient. External validity was established in terms of the ability of MINORS to identify excellent trials. CONCLUSIONS: MINORS is a valid instrument designed to assess the methodological quality of non-randomized surgical studies, whether comparative or non-comparative. The next step will be to determine its external validity when used in a large number of studies and to compare it with other existing instruments.

BACKGROUND: Application of evidence-based perioperative care protocols reduces complication rates, accelerates recovery and shortens hospital stay. Presently, there are no comprehensive guidelines for perioperative care for gastrectomy. METHODS: An international working group within the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society assembled an evidence-based comprehensive framework for optimal perioperative care for patients undergoing gastrectomy. Data were retrieved from standard databases and personal archives. Evidence and recommendations were classified according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system and were discussed until consensus was reached within the group. The quality of evidence was rated 'high', 'moderate', 'low' or 'very low'. Recommendations were graded as 'strong' or 'weak'. RESULTS: The available evidence has been summarized and recommendations are given for 25 items, eight of which contain procedure-specific evidence. The quality of evidence varies substantially and further research is needed for many issues to improve the strength of evidence and grade of recommendations. CONCLUSION: The present evidence-based framework provides comprehensive advice on optimal perioperative care for the patient undergoing gastrectomy and facilitates multi-institutional prospective cohort registries and adequately powered randomized trials for further research.

Abstract Background Protocols for enhanced recovery provide comprehensive and evidence‐based guidelines for best perioperative care. Protocol implementation may reduce complication rates and enhance functional recovery and, as a result of this, also reduce length‐of‐stay in hospital. There is no comprehensive framework available for pancreaticoduodenectomy. Methods An international working group constructed within the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS ® ) Society constructed a comprehensive and evidence‐based framework for best perioperative care for pancreaticoduodenectomy patients. Data were retrieved from standard databases and personal archives. Evidence and recommendations were classified according to the GRADE system and reached through consensus in the group. The quality of evidence was rated “high”, “moderate”, “low” or “very low”. Recommendations were graded as “strong” or “weak”. Results Comprehensive guidelines are presented. Available evidence is summarised and recommendations given for 27 care items. The quality of evidence varies substantially and further research is needed for many issues to improve the strength of evidence and grade of recommendations. Conclusions The present evidence‐based guidelines provide the necessary platform upon which to base a unified protocol for perioperative care for pancreaticoduodenectomy. A unified protocol allows for comparison between centres and across national borders. It facilitates multi‐institutional prospective cohort registries and adequately powered randomised trials.