What is the Greatest Need for the Future of Research in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery? An Evaluation of Research Gaps and Research Excesses

Micah R. Wright, Kaleb Fuller, Crystal Goree, Heath Spencer, Gloria Perez, Sarah Bradley, Ashlin Paz, Lance Frye, Carlos Guevara, Michelle Farabough, Joshua Gordon, Matt Vassar

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objectives: The objectives for this study were to identify research gaps and research excesses in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS) using Levels A- and C-rated clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations and to determine the extent to which new and ongoing studies are adhering to guideline recommendations. Materials and Methods: This was a cross-sectional study of ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trial Registry Platform Methods. Level A and Level C recommendations from the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists' CPGs were used to constructed research questions using the Participants, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) format. Keywords were used to develop search strings for the questions and to search public trial registries for ongoing studies in the related topics. Results: This study identified a large portion of registered MIGS research currently addresses Level C recommendations, thus these studies were deemed as having low levels of evidence. The majority of these Level C-focused trials looked at abnormal uterine bleeding in patients with submucosal leiomyomas, with a large portion of the research seeking to evaluate pharmaceutical therapies. Recommendations receiving a Level A rating were shown to have a large majority of trials despite already having high quality evidence for support, such as studies on endometrial ablation. The remaining topics for consideration were addressed less frequently, if at all. Many studies identified were listed as randomized trials, and this finding was encouraging given their potential to advance patient care. Conclusions: These findings indicate an unequal representation in active research among topics considered for the study. Establishing priorities for MIGS research along with continued support for areas needing advancement will be an important step forward for evaluating the safety and efficacy of new technologies. The current authors advocate for a systematic research prioritization process that can assist in establishing research priorities for areas with the greatest potential to improve patient care.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)65-84
Number of pages20
JournalJournal of Gynecologic Surgery
Volume35
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Apr 2019

Fingerprint

Gynecologic Surgical Procedures
Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures
Research
Registries
Patient Care
Endometrial Ablation Techniques
Uterine Hemorrhage
Leiomyoma
Practice Guidelines
Cross-Sectional Studies
Clinical Trials
Guidelines
Technology
Safety

Keywords

  • Minimally invasive surgery
  • clinical trials
  • evidence
  • guidelines
  • gynecology
  • research

Cite this

@article{0c34dbe94543422f89e0d57e0ff4bc89,
title = "What is the Greatest Need for the Future of Research in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery? An Evaluation of Research Gaps and Research Excesses",
abstract = "Objectives: The objectives for this study were to identify research gaps and research excesses in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS) using Levels A- and C-rated clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations and to determine the extent to which new and ongoing studies are adhering to guideline recommendations. Materials and Methods: This was a cross-sectional study of ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trial Registry Platform Methods. Level A and Level C recommendations from the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists' CPGs were used to constructed research questions using the Participants, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) format. Keywords were used to develop search strings for the questions and to search public trial registries for ongoing studies in the related topics. Results: This study identified a large portion of registered MIGS research currently addresses Level C recommendations, thus these studies were deemed as having low levels of evidence. The majority of these Level C-focused trials looked at abnormal uterine bleeding in patients with submucosal leiomyomas, with a large portion of the research seeking to evaluate pharmaceutical therapies. Recommendations receiving a Level A rating were shown to have a large majority of trials despite already having high quality evidence for support, such as studies on endometrial ablation. The remaining topics for consideration were addressed less frequently, if at all. Many studies identified were listed as randomized trials, and this finding was encouraging given their potential to advance patient care. Conclusions: These findings indicate an unequal representation in active research among topics considered for the study. Establishing priorities for MIGS research along with continued support for areas needing advancement will be an important step forward for evaluating the safety and efficacy of new technologies. The current authors advocate for a systematic research prioritization process that can assist in establishing research priorities for areas with the greatest potential to improve patient care.",
keywords = "Minimally invasive surgery, clinical trials, evidence, guidelines, gynecology, research",
author = "Wright, {Micah R.} and Kaleb Fuller and Crystal Goree and Heath Spencer and Gloria Perez and Sarah Bradley and Ashlin Paz and Lance Frye and Carlos Guevara and Michelle Farabough and Joshua Gordon and Matt Vassar",
year = "2019",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1089/gyn.2017.0142",
language = "English",
volume = "35",
pages = "65--84",
journal = "Journal of Gynecologic Surgery",
issn = "1042-4067",
publisher = "Mary Ann Liebert Inc.",
number = "2",

}

What is the Greatest Need for the Future of Research in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery? An Evaluation of Research Gaps and Research Excesses. / Wright, Micah R.; Fuller, Kaleb; Goree, Crystal; Spencer, Heath; Perez, Gloria; Bradley, Sarah; Paz, Ashlin; Frye, Lance; Guevara, Carlos; Farabough, Michelle; Gordon, Joshua; Vassar, Matt.

In: Journal of Gynecologic Surgery, Vol. 35, No. 2, 01.04.2019, p. 65-84.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - What is the Greatest Need for the Future of Research in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery? An Evaluation of Research Gaps and Research Excesses

AU - Wright, Micah R.

AU - Fuller, Kaleb

AU - Goree, Crystal

AU - Spencer, Heath

AU - Perez, Gloria

AU - Bradley, Sarah

AU - Paz, Ashlin

AU - Frye, Lance

AU - Guevara, Carlos

AU - Farabough, Michelle

AU - Gordon, Joshua

AU - Vassar, Matt

PY - 2019/4/1

Y1 - 2019/4/1

N2 - Objectives: The objectives for this study were to identify research gaps and research excesses in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS) using Levels A- and C-rated clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations and to determine the extent to which new and ongoing studies are adhering to guideline recommendations. Materials and Methods: This was a cross-sectional study of ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trial Registry Platform Methods. Level A and Level C recommendations from the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists' CPGs were used to constructed research questions using the Participants, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) format. Keywords were used to develop search strings for the questions and to search public trial registries for ongoing studies in the related topics. Results: This study identified a large portion of registered MIGS research currently addresses Level C recommendations, thus these studies were deemed as having low levels of evidence. The majority of these Level C-focused trials looked at abnormal uterine bleeding in patients with submucosal leiomyomas, with a large portion of the research seeking to evaluate pharmaceutical therapies. Recommendations receiving a Level A rating were shown to have a large majority of trials despite already having high quality evidence for support, such as studies on endometrial ablation. The remaining topics for consideration were addressed less frequently, if at all. Many studies identified were listed as randomized trials, and this finding was encouraging given their potential to advance patient care. Conclusions: These findings indicate an unequal representation in active research among topics considered for the study. Establishing priorities for MIGS research along with continued support for areas needing advancement will be an important step forward for evaluating the safety and efficacy of new technologies. The current authors advocate for a systematic research prioritization process that can assist in establishing research priorities for areas with the greatest potential to improve patient care.

AB - Objectives: The objectives for this study were to identify research gaps and research excesses in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS) using Levels A- and C-rated clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations and to determine the extent to which new and ongoing studies are adhering to guideline recommendations. Materials and Methods: This was a cross-sectional study of ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trial Registry Platform Methods. Level A and Level C recommendations from the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists' CPGs were used to constructed research questions using the Participants, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) format. Keywords were used to develop search strings for the questions and to search public trial registries for ongoing studies in the related topics. Results: This study identified a large portion of registered MIGS research currently addresses Level C recommendations, thus these studies were deemed as having low levels of evidence. The majority of these Level C-focused trials looked at abnormal uterine bleeding in patients with submucosal leiomyomas, with a large portion of the research seeking to evaluate pharmaceutical therapies. Recommendations receiving a Level A rating were shown to have a large majority of trials despite already having high quality evidence for support, such as studies on endometrial ablation. The remaining topics for consideration were addressed less frequently, if at all. Many studies identified were listed as randomized trials, and this finding was encouraging given their potential to advance patient care. Conclusions: These findings indicate an unequal representation in active research among topics considered for the study. Establishing priorities for MIGS research along with continued support for areas needing advancement will be an important step forward for evaluating the safety and efficacy of new technologies. The current authors advocate for a systematic research prioritization process that can assist in establishing research priorities for areas with the greatest potential to improve patient care.

KW - Minimally invasive surgery

KW - clinical trials

KW - evidence

KW - guidelines

KW - gynecology

KW - research

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85063639867&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1089/gyn.2017.0142

DO - 10.1089/gyn.2017.0142

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85063639867

VL - 35

SP - 65

EP - 84

JO - Journal of Gynecologic Surgery

JF - Journal of Gynecologic Surgery

SN - 1042-4067

IS - 2

ER -