La standardisation des critères d’évaluation en recherche périopératoire

Translated title of the contribution: Standardizing endpoints in perioperative research

Oliver Boney, Suneetha R. Moonesinghe, Paul S. Myles, Michael P. W. Grocott

Research output: Contribution to journalReview ArticleOtherpeer-review

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Measuring patient-relevant, clinically important, and valid outcomes is fundamental to the delivery of high-quality clinical care and to the innovation and development of such care through research. As surgical innovations become more complex and the burden of age and comorbidities in the surgical patient population continues to increase, understanding the benefits and harms of surgical interventions becomes ever more important. Nevertheless, we can understand only what we can adequately describe. Truly collaborative decision-making, delivery of safe effective care, and on-going quality improvement are also critically dependent on reliable valid measurement of patient-relevant and clinically important data. Attempts to describe the full spectrum of outcomes following surgery necessarily entail moving beyond the traditional endpoints of mortality and resource use towards more complex measures of morbidity, patient-reported outcomes, and functional status. Without standardization and consensus to guide the use of increasingly complex and nuanced endpoints, there is a real risk that perioperative research will become embroiled in a mire of inconsistent heterogeneous outcome measures that cannot be meaningfully compared and contrasted between trials or combined within meta-analyses. This would result in limiting the value of the research effort and depriving patients and clinicians of definitive answers. Collaboration in perioperative medicine—whether between institutions or across continents—has enormous potential to improve the value of research output. Standardizing endpoints for outcome measurement is fundamental to maximizing the quality of such collaboration and ensuring the impact of future perioperative research.

Original languageFrench
Pages (from-to)159-168
Number of pages10
JournalCanadian Journal of Anaesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie
Volume63
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Feb 2016

Cite this

Boney, Oliver ; Moonesinghe, Suneetha R. ; Myles, Paul S. ; Grocott, Michael P. W. / La standardisation des critères d’évaluation en recherche périopératoire. In: Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie. 2016 ; Vol. 63, No. 2. pp. 159-168.
@article{e3d096b07cd84af39f818a660354c915,
title = "La standardisation des crit{\`e}res d’{\'e}valuation en recherche p{\'e}riop{\'e}ratoire",
abstract = "Measuring patient-relevant, clinically important, and valid outcomes is fundamental to the delivery of high-quality clinical care and to the innovation and development of such care through research. As surgical innovations become more complex and the burden of age and comorbidities in the surgical patient population continues to increase, understanding the benefits and harms of surgical interventions becomes ever more important. Nevertheless, we can understand only what we can adequately describe. Truly collaborative decision-making, delivery of safe effective care, and on-going quality improvement are also critically dependent on reliable valid measurement of patient-relevant and clinically important data. Attempts to describe the full spectrum of outcomes following surgery necessarily entail moving beyond the traditional endpoints of mortality and resource use towards more complex measures of morbidity, patient-reported outcomes, and functional status. Without standardization and consensus to guide the use of increasingly complex and nuanced endpoints, there is a real risk that perioperative research will become embroiled in a mire of inconsistent heterogeneous outcome measures that cannot be meaningfully compared and contrasted between trials or combined within meta-analyses. This would result in limiting the value of the research effort and depriving patients and clinicians of definitive answers. Collaboration in perioperative medicine—whether between institutions or across continents—has enormous potential to improve the value of research output. Standardizing endpoints for outcome measurement is fundamental to maximizing the quality of such collaboration and ensuring the impact of future perioperative research.",
author = "Oliver Boney and Moonesinghe, {Suneetha R.} and Myles, {Paul S.} and Grocott, {Michael P. W.}",
year = "2016",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s12630-015-0565-y",
language = "French",
volume = "63",
pages = "159--168",
journal = "Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie",
issn = "0832-610X",
publisher = "Springer-Verlag London Ltd.",
number = "2",

}

La standardisation des critères d’évaluation en recherche périopératoire. / Boney, Oliver; Moonesinghe, Suneetha R.; Myles, Paul S.; Grocott, Michael P. W.

In: Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie, Vol. 63, No. 2, 01.02.2016, p. 159-168.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview ArticleOtherpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - La standardisation des critères d’évaluation en recherche périopératoire

AU - Boney, Oliver

AU - Moonesinghe, Suneetha R.

AU - Myles, Paul S.

AU - Grocott, Michael P. W.

PY - 2016/2/1

Y1 - 2016/2/1

N2 - Measuring patient-relevant, clinically important, and valid outcomes is fundamental to the delivery of high-quality clinical care and to the innovation and development of such care through research. As surgical innovations become more complex and the burden of age and comorbidities in the surgical patient population continues to increase, understanding the benefits and harms of surgical interventions becomes ever more important. Nevertheless, we can understand only what we can adequately describe. Truly collaborative decision-making, delivery of safe effective care, and on-going quality improvement are also critically dependent on reliable valid measurement of patient-relevant and clinically important data. Attempts to describe the full spectrum of outcomes following surgery necessarily entail moving beyond the traditional endpoints of mortality and resource use towards more complex measures of morbidity, patient-reported outcomes, and functional status. Without standardization and consensus to guide the use of increasingly complex and nuanced endpoints, there is a real risk that perioperative research will become embroiled in a mire of inconsistent heterogeneous outcome measures that cannot be meaningfully compared and contrasted between trials or combined within meta-analyses. This would result in limiting the value of the research effort and depriving patients and clinicians of definitive answers. Collaboration in perioperative medicine—whether between institutions or across continents—has enormous potential to improve the value of research output. Standardizing endpoints for outcome measurement is fundamental to maximizing the quality of such collaboration and ensuring the impact of future perioperative research.

AB - Measuring patient-relevant, clinically important, and valid outcomes is fundamental to the delivery of high-quality clinical care and to the innovation and development of such care through research. As surgical innovations become more complex and the burden of age and comorbidities in the surgical patient population continues to increase, understanding the benefits and harms of surgical interventions becomes ever more important. Nevertheless, we can understand only what we can adequately describe. Truly collaborative decision-making, delivery of safe effective care, and on-going quality improvement are also critically dependent on reliable valid measurement of patient-relevant and clinically important data. Attempts to describe the full spectrum of outcomes following surgery necessarily entail moving beyond the traditional endpoints of mortality and resource use towards more complex measures of morbidity, patient-reported outcomes, and functional status. Without standardization and consensus to guide the use of increasingly complex and nuanced endpoints, there is a real risk that perioperative research will become embroiled in a mire of inconsistent heterogeneous outcome measures that cannot be meaningfully compared and contrasted between trials or combined within meta-analyses. This would result in limiting the value of the research effort and depriving patients and clinicians of definitive answers. Collaboration in perioperative medicine—whether between institutions or across continents—has enormous potential to improve the value of research output. Standardizing endpoints for outcome measurement is fundamental to maximizing the quality of such collaboration and ensuring the impact of future perioperative research.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84958171671&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s12630-015-0565-y

DO - 10.1007/s12630-015-0565-y

M3 - Review Article

VL - 63

SP - 159

EP - 168

JO - Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie

JF - Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie

SN - 0832-610X

IS - 2

ER -