Professor of Surgical Science and PracticeChair, IDEAL Collaboration; Chair, QRSTU Research Group
Peter is an Upper GI surgeon and pursues a research interest in patient safety in surgery alongside his work on IDEAL.
Peter graduated from Aberdeen University and underwent surgical and academic training in Glasgow, before becoming Senior Lecturer at Liverpool University in 1992, and being appointed in Oxford in 2004.
He developed an interest in Evidence-Based Medicine in the 1990s, and his interest in the difficulty of applying this to surgery led to the Balliol Conferences of 2007-9 where the concept of IDEAL was developed. He founded the IDEAL Collaboration in 2010 and remains the Chair.
Current IDEAL Projects:
DECIDE-AI: new reporting guidelines to bridge the development-to-implementation gap in clinical artificial intelligence (2021), Nature Medicine
The IDEAL Reporting Guidelines: A Delphi Consensus Statement Stage-specific recommendations for reporting the evaluation of surgical innovation. Bilbro NA. et al, (2020), Ann Surg
The IDEAL Framework for Evaluating Surgical Innovation: How It Can Be Used to Improve the Quality of Evidence. Dimick JB. et al, (2019), JAMA Surg
No Surgical Innovation Without Evaluation: Evolution and Further Development of the IDEAL Framework and Recommendations. Hirst A. et al, (2019), Ann Surg, 269, 211 – 220
Beyond IDEAL: the importance of surgical innovation metrics – Authors’ reply. McCulloch P. et al, (2019), Lancet, 393
Evolution of the surgical technique of minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy: description according to the IDEAL framework-but which IDEAL stage? Hirst A. and McCulloch P., (2018), Dis Esophagus
Appraising the uptake and use of the IDEAL Framework and Recommendations: A review of the literature. Khachane A. et al, (2018), Int J Surg, 57, 84 – 90
Evaluation of high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation for uterine fibroids: an IDEAL prospective exploration study. Chen J. et al, (2018), BJOG, 125, 354 – 364
Evidence-Based Evaluation of Practice and Innovation in Physical Therapy Using the IDEAL-Physio Framework. Beard D. et al, (2018), Phys Ther, 98, 108 – 121
Progress in clinical research in surgery and IDEAL. McCulloch P. et al, (2018), Lancet
A protocol for the development of reporting guidelines for IDEAL stage studies. Agha RA. et al, (2018), Int J Surg Protoc, 9, 11 – 14
Hey, I Just Did a Better Operation! Toward an IDEAL Innovation Model. Sood A. et al, (2017), Ann Surg, 266
IDEAL Framework and Recommendations A literature review of its utilization by surgical innovators since 2009. Ashton C. et al, (2017), BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 104, 206 – 206
Ideal framework and recommendations: a literature review of its utilization by surgical innovators since 2009. Feinberg J. et al, (2017), TRIALS, 18
IDEAL-D: a rational framework for evaluating and regulating the use of medical devices. Sedrakyan A. et al, (2016), BMJ, 353
Adapting the IDEAL Framework and Recommendations for medical device evaluation: A modified Delphi survey. Pennell CP. et al, (2016), Int J Surg, 28, 141 – 148
A practical guide to the Idea, Development, and Exploration stages of the IDEAL Framework and Recommendations. Pennell CP. et al, (2016), Br J Surg, 103, 607 – 615
Clinical integration and evolution of transanal total mesorectal excision: the ideal framework in practice. Penna M. et al, (2015), TRIALS, 16
The IDEAL prospective development study format for reporting surgical innovations. An illustrative case study of robotic oesophagectomy. Diez del Val I. et al, (2015), Int J Surg, 19, 104 – 111
A plan for whole-life-cycle scientific evaluation of surgical innovation: the Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term study (IDEAL) recommendations. McCulloch P. et al, (2014), JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, 219, E160 – E160
Application of the IDEAL framework to robotic urologic surgery. Dahm P. et al, (2014), Eur Urol, 65, 849 – 851
[Surgery as a scientific discipline and the IDEAL Collaboration]. McCulloch P., (2014), Cir Esp, 92, 71 – 73
Surgery as a scientific discipline and the IDEAL Collaboration. McCulloch P., (2014), Cirugia Espanola, 92, 71 – 73
Application of the IDEAL framework to robotic urologic surgery. Dahm P. et al, (2014), European Urology, 65, 849 – 851
How can we improve surgical research and innovation?: The IDEAL framework for action Hirst A. et al, (2013), International Journal of Surgery, 11, 1038 – 1042.
IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 1: the idea and development stages. McCulloch P. et al, (2013), BMJ, 346
IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 2: observational studies in the exploration and assessment stages. Ergina PL. et al, (2013), BMJ, 346
IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 3: randomised controlled trials in the assessment stage and evaluations in the long-term study stage. Cook JA. et al, (2013), BMJ, 346
How can we improve surgical research and innovation?: the IDEAL framework for action. Hirst A. et al, (2013), Int J Surg, 11, 1038 – 1042
The IDEAL recommendations and urological innovation. McCulloch P., (2011), World J Urol, 29, 331 – 336
Innovation or regulation: IDEAL opportunity for consensus. McCulloch P. and Schuller F., (2010), Lancet, 376, 1034 – 1036
No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. McCulloch P. et al, (2009), Lancet, 374, 1105 – 1112
