Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Study Centre of the German Surgical Society—rationale and current status

  • New Surgical Horizons
  • Published:
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The concept of evidence-based medicine was introduced into surgery in the mid-1990s, initially focussing on the integration of best research evidence, surgeons’ expertise and patients’ value. The lack of relevant external evidence [randomised controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews] in favour of surgical procedures has led to the need for a new approach in clinical research.

Design

Development and implementation of the Study Centre of the German Surgical Society (SDGC) in order to design, perform and analyse multicentre randomised controlled trials in surgery.

Results

The German Surgical Society has recently initiated four surgical RCTs within the SDGC in order to improve the national infrastructure for clinical research and its international scientific standing. All surgical trials focus on procedures in various fields (thyroid and parathyroid diseases, pancreatic surgery, abdominal wall closure) and are designed to fit the specific needs of each study (blinding of patients and assessors, ranking of endpoints, patients’ perspective). Additionally, in a nationwide survey of 1,274 surgical departments in Germany, 307 replied, of which 237 (19%) were willing to participate in multicentre projects.

Conclusion

Evidence-based medicine has changed surgical practice, leading to an increase in demand for RCTs and requiring a new infrastructure in surgical departments and scientific societies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Uhl W, Wente MN, Buchler MW (2000) Surgical clinical studies and their practical realization. Chirurg 71:615–625

    Google Scholar 

  2. Goligher JC, Pulvertaft CN, Watkinson G (1964) Controlled trial of vagotomy and gastro-enterostomy, vagotomy and antrectomy, and subtotal gastrectomy in elective treatment of duodenal ulcer. BMJ 5381:455–460

    Google Scholar 

  3. Pollock AV (1989) The rise and fall of the random controlled trial in surgery. Theor Surg 4:163–170

    Google Scholar 

  4. Solomon MJ, McLeod RS (1993) Clinical studies in surgical journals—have we improved? Dis Colon Rectum 36:43–48

    Google Scholar 

  5. Horton R (1996) Surgical research or comic opera: questions, but few answers. Lancet 347:984–985

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hall JC, Mills B, Nguyen H, Hall JL (1996) Methodologic standards in surgical trials. Surgery 119:466–472

    Google Scholar 

  7. Solomon MJ, Laxamana A, Devore L, McLeod RS (1994) Randomized controlled trials in surgery. Surgery 115:707–712

    Google Scholar 

  8. Meakins JL (2002) Innovation in surgery: the rules of evidence. Am J Surg 183:399–405

    Google Scholar 

  9. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG (2001) The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 357:1191–1194

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Stirrat GM, Farrow SC, Farndon J, Dwyer N (1992) The challenge of evaluating surgical procedures. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 74:80–84

    Google Scholar 

  11. McLeod RS, Wright JG, Solomon MJ, Hu X, Walters BC, Lossing A (1996) Randomized controlled trials in surgery: issues and problems. Surgery 119:483–486

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. McLeod RS (1999) Issues in surgical randomized controlled trials. World J Surg 23:1210–1214

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. van der Linden W (1980) Pitfalls in randomized surgical trials. Surgery 87:258–262

    Google Scholar 

  14. Wente MN, Seiler CM, Uhl W, Buchler MW (2003) Perspectives of evidence-based surgery. Dig Surg 20:263–269

    Google Scholar 

  15. McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M, Lovett B, Griffin D (2002) Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions. BMJ 324:1448–1451

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lilford R, Braunholtz D, Harris J, Gill T (2004) Trials in surgery. Br J Surg 91:6–16

    Google Scholar 

  17. Treasure T, MacRae KD (1998) Minimisation: the platinum standard for trials? Randomisation doesn’t guarantee similarity of groups; minimisation does. BMJ 317:362–363

    Google Scholar 

  18. Taylor KM, Margolese RG, Soskolne CL (1984) Physicians’ reasons for not entering eligible patients in a randomized clinical trial of surgery for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 310:1363–1367

    Google Scholar 

  19. Chalmers TC (1975) Randomization of the first patient. Med Clin North Am 59:1035–1038

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mowatt G, Bower DJ, Brebner JA, Cairns JA, Grant AM, McKee L (1997) When and how to assess fast-changing technologies: a comparative study of medical applications of four generic technologies. Health Technol Assess 1:1–149

    Google Scholar 

  21. Majeed AW, Troy G, Nicholl JP, Smythe A, Reed MW, Stoddard CJ, Peacock J, Johnson AG (1996) Randomised, prospective, single-blind comparison of laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy. Lancet 347:989–994

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Reidel MA, Knaebel HP, Seiler CM, Knauer C, Motsch J, Victor N, Buchler MW (2003) Postsurgical pain outcome of vertical and transverse abdominal incision: design of a randomized controlled equivalence trial [ISRCTN 60734227]. BMC Surg 3:9

    Google Scholar 

  23. Dimond EG, Kittle CF, Crockett JE (1958) Evaluation of internal mammary artery ligation and sham procedure in angina pectoris. Circulation 18:712–715

    Google Scholar 

  24. Edwards SJ, Lilford RJ, Hewison J (1998) The ethics of randomised controlled trials from the perspectives of patients, the public, and healthcare professionals. BMJ 317:1209–1212

    Google Scholar 

  25. Coomarasamy A, Khan KS (2004) What is the evidence that postgraduate teaching in evidence based medicine changes anything? A systematic review. BMJ 329:1017

    Google Scholar 

  26. Selbmann HK, Flohl R, Volk HD, Rothmund M, Reinauer H, Konze-Thomas B, Troidl H, Lorenz W (1996) Country profile: Germany. Lancet 348:1631–1639

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lovett B, Sawyer W, Houghton J, Taylor I (2000) Systematic review of the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials of the surgical excision of cancer (abstract). Eur J Surg Oncol 26:840

    Google Scholar 

  28. Canter PH, Ernst E (2004) Clinical trials and tribulations. J R Soc Med 97:101–102

    Google Scholar 

  29. Howes N, Chagla L, Thorpe M, McCulloch P (1997) Surgical practice is evidence based. Br J Surg 84:1220–1223

    Google Scholar 

  30. Rothmund M (2004) Studienzentrum der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Chirurgie. Mitt Dtsch Ges Chir 01:34–35

    Google Scholar 

  31. Schwenk W (2004) The LAPDIV-CAMIC Study. Multicenter prospective randomized study of short-term and intermediate-term outcome of laparoscopic and conventional sigmoid resection in diverticular disease. Chirurg 75:706–707

    Google Scholar 

  32. Pitches D, Burls A, Fry-Smith A (2003) How to make a silk purse from a sow’s ear—a comprehensive review of strategies to optimise data for corrupt managers and incompetent clinicians. BMJ 327:1436–1439

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Study Centre of the German Surgical Society, Department of Surgery, University of Heidelberg Medical School, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany

    Hanns-Peter Knaebel, Markus K. Diener, Moritz N. Wente, Markus W. Büchler & Christoph M. Seiler

  2. German Surgical Society, Berlin, Germany

    Hartwig Bauer

  3. Department of Surgery, University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany

    Matthias Rothmund

Authors
  1. Hanns-Peter Knaebel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Markus K. Diener
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Moritz N. Wente
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hartwig Bauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Markus W. Büchler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Matthias Rothmund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Christoph M. Seiler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christoph M. Seiler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Knaebel, HP., Diener, M.K., Wente, M.N. et al. The Study Centre of the German Surgical Society—rationale and current status. Langenbecks Arch Surg 390, 171–177 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-005-0547-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-005-0547-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation