Research considerations in the evaluation of minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR)

the Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection Organizing Committee

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The IHPBA/AHPBA-sponsored 2016 minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR) conference held on April 20th, 2016 included a session designed to evaluate what would be the most appropriate scientific contribution to help define the increasing role of MIPR internationally. Participants in the conference reviewed the assessment of numerous pertinent scientific designs including randomized controlled trial (RCT), pragmatic international RCT, registry-RCT, non-RCT with propensity matching, and various types of clinical registries including those aiming to create a quality improvement data system or a learning health care system. The strengths and weaknesses of each of these designs, the status of trials which are currently recruiting patients, and pragmatic considerations were evaluated. A recommendation was made to establish a clinical registry to collect data prospectively from around the world to assess current practices and provide a framework for future studies in MIPR.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)246-253
Number of pages8
JournalHPB
Volume19
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2017
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Registries
Randomized Controlled Trials
Research
Quality Improvement
Information Systems
Learning
Delivery of Health Care
Non-Randomized Controlled Trials

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Hepatology
  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

the Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection Organizing Committee (2017). Research considerations in the evaluation of minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR). HPB, 19(3), 246-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2017.01.005

Research considerations in the evaluation of minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR). / the Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection Organizing Committee.

In: HPB, Vol. 19, No. 3, 01.03.2017, p. 246-253.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

the Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection Organizing Committee 2017, 'Research considerations in the evaluation of minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR)', HPB, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 246-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2017.01.005
the Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection Organizing Committee. Research considerations in the evaluation of minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR). HPB. 2017 Mar 1;19(3):246-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2017.01.005
the Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection Organizing Committee. / Research considerations in the evaluation of minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR). In: HPB. 2017 ; Vol. 19, No. 3. pp. 246-253.
@article{6f2a81ed527d4d3aa9f3fdb8554e38d1,
title = "Research considerations in the evaluation of minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR)",
abstract = "The IHPBA/AHPBA-sponsored 2016 minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR) conference held on April 20th, 2016 included a session designed to evaluate what would be the most appropriate scientific contribution to help define the increasing role of MIPR internationally. Participants in the conference reviewed the assessment of numerous pertinent scientific designs including randomized controlled trial (RCT), pragmatic international RCT, registry-RCT, non-RCT with propensity matching, and various types of clinical registries including those aiming to create a quality improvement data system or a learning health care system. The strengths and weaknesses of each of these designs, the status of trials which are currently recruiting patients, and pragmatic considerations were evaluated. A recommendation was made to establish a clinical registry to collect data prospectively from around the world to assess current practices and provide a framework for future studies in MIPR.",
author = "{the Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection Organizing Committee} and Jeffrey Barkun and William Fisher and Giana Davidson and Go Wakabayashi and Marc Besselink and Henry Pitt and Jane Holt and Steve Strasberg and Charles Vollmer and David Kooby and Asbun, {Horacio J.} and Jeffrey Barkun and Besselink, {Marc G.H.} and Ugo Boggi and Conlon, {Kevin C.P.} and Han, {Ho Seong} and Hansen, {Paul D.} and Kendrick, {Michael L.} and Kooby, {David A.} and Montagnini, {Andre L.} and C. Palanivelu and R{\o}sok, {B{\aa}rd I.} and Shrikhande, {Shailesh V.} and Go Wakabayashi and Herbert Zeh and Vollmer, {Charles M.}",
year = "2017",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.hpb.2017.01.005",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "246--253",
journal = "HPB",
issn = "1365-182X",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Research considerations in the evaluation of minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR)

AU - the Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection Organizing Committee

AU - Barkun, Jeffrey

AU - Fisher, William

AU - Davidson, Giana

AU - Wakabayashi, Go

AU - Besselink, Marc

AU - Pitt, Henry

AU - Holt, Jane

AU - Strasberg, Steve

AU - Vollmer, Charles

AU - Kooby, David

AU - Asbun, Horacio J.

AU - Barkun, Jeffrey

AU - Besselink, Marc G.H.

AU - Boggi, Ugo

AU - Conlon, Kevin C.P.

AU - Han, Ho Seong

AU - Hansen, Paul D.

AU - Kendrick, Michael L.

AU - Kooby, David A.

AU - Montagnini, Andre L.

AU - Palanivelu, C.

AU - Røsok, Bård I.

AU - Shrikhande, Shailesh V.

AU - Wakabayashi, Go

AU - Zeh, Herbert

AU - Vollmer, Charles M.

PY - 2017/3/1

Y1 - 2017/3/1

N2 - The IHPBA/AHPBA-sponsored 2016 minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR) conference held on April 20th, 2016 included a session designed to evaluate what would be the most appropriate scientific contribution to help define the increasing role of MIPR internationally. Participants in the conference reviewed the assessment of numerous pertinent scientific designs including randomized controlled trial (RCT), pragmatic international RCT, registry-RCT, non-RCT with propensity matching, and various types of clinical registries including those aiming to create a quality improvement data system or a learning health care system. The strengths and weaknesses of each of these designs, the status of trials which are currently recruiting patients, and pragmatic considerations were evaluated. A recommendation was made to establish a clinical registry to collect data prospectively from around the world to assess current practices and provide a framework for future studies in MIPR.

AB - The IHPBA/AHPBA-sponsored 2016 minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR) conference held on April 20th, 2016 included a session designed to evaluate what would be the most appropriate scientific contribution to help define the increasing role of MIPR internationally. Participants in the conference reviewed the assessment of numerous pertinent scientific designs including randomized controlled trial (RCT), pragmatic international RCT, registry-RCT, non-RCT with propensity matching, and various types of clinical registries including those aiming to create a quality improvement data system or a learning health care system. The strengths and weaknesses of each of these designs, the status of trials which are currently recruiting patients, and pragmatic considerations were evaluated. A recommendation was made to establish a clinical registry to collect data prospectively from around the world to assess current practices and provide a framework for future studies in MIPR.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85014326471&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85014326471&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.hpb.2017.01.005

DO - 10.1016/j.hpb.2017.01.005

M3 - Review article

C2 - 28274661

AN - SCOPUS:85014326471

VL - 19

SP - 246

EP - 253

JO - HPB

JF - HPB

SN - 1365-182X

IS - 3

ER -