The IDEAL Council oversees the governance of the Collaboration. The Council is formed of an international group of surgeons and researchers in surgical and other complex interventions, methodologists, statisticians, journal editors and experts in the translation of research into clinical practice.
Governance aligns with the IDEAL Charter, including four-year Officer terms, transparent nomination and election processes, defined quorum requirements, and structured decision-making processes.
The Council includes up to 8 elected members representing senior and junior professionals, including trainee, allied health, and lay representation. The Council meets quarterly to set strategic priorities, oversee governance, and ensure accountability.
Peter is a Professor of Surgical Science and Practice, University of Oxford. As an Upper GI surgeon he 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.
IDEAL response to Real-World Data
Integration of IDEAL into UK Commissioning policy
DECIDE-AI
IDEAL Robotics Colloquium
Related publications
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
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:
IDEAL response to Real-World Data
Integration of IDEAL into UK Commissioning policy
DECIDE-AI
IDEAL Robotics Colloquium
Related publications
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
Hani Marcus is Professor of Neurosurgery at the UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology. His academic work focuses on the development and evaluation of new technologies, particularly robotics and artificial intelligence, and on improving the processes by which surgical innovations are translated into clinical practice.
He was recently elected Interim Chair of the IDEAL Collaboration, following the resignation of Professor Peter McCulloch, and has led several IDEAL initiatives, including Stage 0, and IDEAL Robotics.
Visit Hani’s UCL profile page
Related publications
The IDEAL framework in neurosurgery: a bibliometric analysis
IDEAL-D Framework for Device Innovation: A Consensus Statement on the Preclinical Stage.
Dr. Pedro T. Ramirez is a Professor in the Department of Gynecologic Oncology & Reproductive Medicine at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, USA.
He is the David M. Gershenson Distinguished Professor in Ovarian Cancer Research and Director of Minimally Invasive Surgical Research & Education. He is also the Chair of the Gynecologic Oncology Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Program.
In addition, he is the Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Gynecological Cancer. He is also the Chair of the Global Gynecologic Oncology Consortium (G-GOC) for the Gynecologic Oncology Intergroup (GCIG). The G-GOC is a collaborative consortium that conducts multi-institutional prospective trials with other sites worldwide.
Dr. Ramirez is also the Principal Investigator of the LACC Trial, a prospective randomized trial evaluating the role of minimally invasive surgery in patients with early-stage cervical cancer undergoing radical hysterectomy. The manuscript for oncologic outcomes for this study has been published in the New England Journal of Medicine. In addition, subsequent secondary analysis of the LACC Trial evaluating adverse events and quality of life in patients undergoing minimally invasive vs. open radical hysterectomy have been recently published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Lancet Oncology.
Dr. Ramirez has also written a textbook titled Principles of Gynecologic Oncology Surgery. This textbook addresses strategies of preoperative evaluation of patients undergoing gynecologic surgery, techniques and details of such procedures, and prevention and management of postoperative complications. He has also published a total of 262 articles in peer-reviewed journals and 19 book chapters. He also serves as Reviewer for 31 peer-reviewed journals. He is the recipient of multiple distinguished awards including the David M. Gershenson, MD Distinguished Professorship for Ovarian Cancer Research Endowment and, in addition, he received the 2018 Jack and Beverly Randall Prize for Excellence in Cancer Treatment at MD Anderson Cancer Center.
He is currently working on developing the North America IDEAL Network and is also part of the IDEAL Robotic Surgery Colloquium.
Dr Paez is a Research Fellow at Concordia University and Senior Lecturer at Northeastern University. He is an IDEAL Council member and a clinical trials methodologist with a particular interest in study design and clinical trials methods in complex interventions. His DPhil research at Oxford in intervention fidelity in clinical trials was greatly inspired by the IDEAL framework.
Arsenio’s clinical background is in CNV genetic, neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative disorders. He is particularly interested in how IDEAL can be applied to trials that combine surgery, medical devices and biologics, such as advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) in regenerative medicine and rehabilitation trials. He is also keenly interested in applying IDEAL to sleep medicine and behavioural neuroscience clinical trials.
Arsenio lead the working group considering when RCTs are, or are not, appropriate for implantable medical devices, and what other study designs or forms of evidence are appropriate instead.
He also lead a real world data working group, and is one of IDEAL’s clinical specialty leads. As a development lead at IDEAL, he is excited to support the development of a North American IDEAL centre and foster greater collaboration between IDEAL centres in the UK, Europe, and Asia.
Arsenio also co-leads a multi-centre working group working to adapt the IDEAL framework to accommodate surgical regenerative medicine trials.
Paez A, Rovers M, Hutchinson K, Rogers W, Vasey B, McCulloch P. Beyond the RCT: When are randomised trials unnecessary for new implantable therapeutic devices, and what should we do instead? Under review, Annals of Surgery.
Bilbro NA*, Hirst A*, Paez A*, Vasey B, Pufulete M, Sedrakyan A, McCulloch P; IDEAL Collaboration Reporting Guidelines Working Group. The IDEAL Reporting Guidelines: A Delphi Consensus Statement Stage Specific Recommendations for Reporting the Evaluation of Surgical Innovation. Ann Surg. 2021 Jan 1;273(1):82-85. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004180. PMID: 32649459. *Co-first authors
Yu J, Hirst A, Yang Z, Zhang Y, Paez A, et al. The methodological quality of systematic reviews with meta-analyses of surgical randomized controlled trials: A cross-sectional survey. Under review, British Journal of Surgery.
Beard D, Hamilton D, Davies L, Cook J, Hirst A, McCulloch P, Paez A. Evidence-based evaluation of practice and innovation in Physical Therapy using the IDEAL-Physio framework. Phys Ther.2018; Feb 98(2), 108-121.
Other job titles: Surgeon Champion NSQIP; Chairman, QAC committee;
Joel has always maintained an intense interest in EBM and Surgery.
He participated in all meetings of IDEAL since the first meeting in New York City. He served on the IDEAL Council as the Education Lead. His institution has provided fellows for IDEAL studies and research in Oxford on a regular basis for the past decade.
Art Sedrakyan is the Vice-Chair of the IDEAL initiative with focus on devices. He is a tenured professor at Weill Cornell Medicine and directs the Institute for Health Technologies and Interventions.
The institute is the academic home of the Medical Device Epidemiology Network’s (MDEpiNet) Coordinating and Science center. Dr. Sedrakyan is the initiator of over 15 major national and international coordinated registry networks (CRN) in collaboration with FDA.
He is a trained Cardio-Thoracic surgeon and a graduate of Johns Hopkins University with Ph.D in Health Policy and Management. He was a senior adviser at FDA and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
He is current ranking member and was previously the Vice-Chair of Medicare Evidence Development & Coverage Advisory Committee (MEDCAC).
He is serving as a specialist advisor for Australian Therapeutic Good Administration (TGA), Expert for European Commission Horizon 2020 funding and Japanese Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED). He helped establish Australian, European and Japanese MDEpiNet chapters.
Since May 2019 he is serving as a founding Co-Editor-In-Chief of ‘BMJ Surgery, Interventions &Health Technologies’ (BMJ-SIT). He has published over 250 manuscripts and received over $30M in funding in the past 10 years as a principal investigator
As Professor of Gynaecological Oncology, Andreas drives a program of investigator-initiated, surgical clinical trials. His mission is to make surgical treatments more humane, kinder and at the same time more effective. Andreas is also the Founder of SurgicalPerformance.com, a platform used by surgeons to gain feedback about their clinical and patient-reported outcomes.
Andreas graduated from Vienna Medical School and commenced clinical training in Obstetrics and Gynaecology in 1990. In 2000 he moved with his family to Brisbane, Australia to embark on subspecialty training in gynaecological oncology. In 2003, he was appointed Director of Research at the Queensland Centre for Gynaecological Cancer and in 2007 he was appointed Professor of Gynaecological Oncology at The University of Queensland.
Jane Blazeby is Professor of Surgery at the University of Bristol and an Honorary Consultant Surgeon at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust.
She studied Medicine at the University of Bristol and undertook higher surgical training in the South West of England. Jane has a long-standing interest in patient centred surgical care and standards of surgery.
She has developed and validated an international portfolio of patient reported outcome measures which are widely used in clinical trials in surgical oncology. She collaborates with surgeons, methodologists, trialists and patient partners to design and deliver randomised controlled surgical trials. She enjoys embedding methodological research into the trials. She is developing a of team academic surgeons and methodologists with special interests in evaluating surgery. She is working hard to establish evidence based surgical practice in the UK.
Jane directs the Bristol Centre of Surgical Research. The Centre includes the Surgical Innovation theme of the Bristol Biomedical Research Centre and Royal College of England Surgical Trials Centre. The MRC ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research was hosted in the Centre. Jane is Chief Investigator of the NIHR HTA By-Band-Sleeve study in bariatric surgery and she mentors and supports consultant surgeons to become chief and principal investigators. She is a member of the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) management group. She is an NIHR Senior Investigator.
Jane has been involved with IDEAL since its inception in 2009. She continues to lead work on how to implement and optimise the IDEAL framework to evaluate surgery and invasive procedures.
Within the surgical innovation theme of the Bristol and Weston Biomedical research centre we are undertaking a number of projects related to IDEAL to make early phase surgical innovation safe, transparent and efficient
Macefield RR, Wilson N, Hoffmann C, Blazeby JM, McNair AGK, Avery KNL, Potter S. Outcome selection, measurement and reporting for new surgical procedures and devices: a systematic review of IDEAL/IDEAL-D studies to inform development of a core outcome set. BJS Open. 2020 Oct 4. doi: 10.1002/bjs5.50358. PMID: 33016009
Currie AC, Blazeby JM, Suzuki N, Thomas-Gibson S, Reeves B, Morton D, Kennedy RH Evaluation of an early stage innovation for full-thickness excision of benign colonic polyps using the IDEAL framework. Colorectal Disease 2019 April 16; (Doi: 10.1111/codi.14650). [PMID 30993857]
Hirst A, Philippou Y, Blazeby JM, Campbell B, Campbell M, Feinberg J, Rovers M, Blencowe N, Pennell C, Quinn T, Rogers W, Cook J, Kolias AG, Agha R, Dahm P, Sedrakyan A, McCulloch P. No surgical Innovation without evaluation: Evolution and further development of the IDEAL framework and recommendations. Ann Surg. 2018 Apr 24. (DOI:10.1097/SLA.0000000000002794) [PMID: 2967448]
McCulloch P, Cook JA, Altman DG, Heneghan C, Diener MK; IDEAL Group (35 collaborators incl. Blazeby JM). IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 1: the idea and development stages. BMJ. 2013 Jun 18; 346:f3012. (DOI:10.1136/bmj.f3012) (PMID: 23778427). [PMCID: PMC3685515]
Ergina PL, Barkun JS, McCulloch P, Cook JA, Altman DG, Heneghan C, Diener MK; IDEAL Group (35 collaborators incl. Blazeby JM). IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 2: observational studies in the exploration and assessment stages. BMJ. 2013 Jun 18; 346:f3011. (DOI:10.1136/bmj.f3011) [PMID: 23778426]. [PMCID: PMC3685514]
Cook JA, McCulloch P, Blazeby JM, Beard DJ, Marinac-Dabic D, Sedrakyan A; IDEAL group. IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 3: randomised controlled trials in the assessment stage and evaluations in the long-term study stage. BMJ. 2013 Jun 18; 346:f2820. (DOI:10.1136/bmj. f2820) (PMID: 23778425). [PMCID: PMC3685513]
Blazeby JM, Blencowe NS, Titcomb DR, Metcalfe C, Hollowood AD, Barham CP. Demonstration of the IDEAL recommendations for evaluating and reporting surgical innovation in minimally invasive oesophagectomy. Br J Surg. 2011 Apr; 98(4):544-51. (DOI:10.1002/bjs.7387) [PMID: 21246515]
McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Marshall JC, Nicholl J; Balliol Collaboration, Aronson JK, Barkun JS, Blazeby JM, Boutron IC, Campbell WB, Clavien PA, Cook JA, Ergina PL, Feldman LS, Flum DR, Maddern GJ, Nicholl J, Reeves BC, Seller CM, Strasberg SM, Meakins JL, Ashby D, Black N, Bunker J, Burton M, Campbell M, Chalkidou K, Chalmers I, de Leval M, Deeks J, Ergina PL, Grant A, Gray M, Greenhalgh R, Jenicek M, Kehoe S, Lilford R, Littlejohns P, Loke Y, Madhock R, McPherson K, Meakins J, Rothwell P, Summerskill B, Taggart D, Tekkis P, Thompson M, Treasure T, Trohler U, Vandenbroucke J. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet. 2009 Sep 26; 374(9695):1105-12. (DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61116-8) [PMID: 19782876]
Wendy’s work focuses on ethical issues that arise as new surgical devices and interventions are developed and move through the IDEAL stages of research. Her interests include how surgical innovation is defined for regulatory purposes and how to manage the conflicts of interest that arise when surgeons work closely with device developers.
Wendy is Chief Investigator on a project funded by the Australian Research Council investigating the role of medical/surgical device representatives in the practice of surgery (DP200100883: Support or sales? Medical device representatives in Australian hospitals). This project engages with the role of device representatives in facilitating and/or encouraging uptake of new devices in advance of evidence of safety and efficacy.
Ethical issues across the IDEAL stages of surgical innovation. Rogers, W. A., Hutchison, K. & McNair, A., 1 Feb 2019, In: Annals of Surgery. 269, 2, p. 229-233
No surgical innovation without evaluation: evolution and further development of the IDEAL Framework and Recommendations. Hirst, A., Philippou, Y., Blazeby, J., Campbell, B., Campbell, M., Feinberg, J., Rovers, M., Blencowe, N., Pennell, C., Quinn, T., Rogers, W., Cook, J., Kolias, A. G., Agha, R., Dahm, P., Sedrakyan, A. & McCulloch, P., Feb 2019, In: Annals of Surgery. 269, 2, p. 211-220
Sex and gender in health research: updating policy to reflect evidence – an Australian call to action. Wainer, Z., Carcel, C., Hickey, M., Scheibinger, L., Schmiede, A. & Rogers, W. A., Feb 2020, Medical Journal of Australia, 212(2):57-62.e1
Evidence-based medicine in theory and practice: epistemological and normative issues. Rogers, W. & Hutchison, K., 2017, Handbook of the philosophy of medicine. Schramme, T. & Edwards, S. (eds.). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, Springer Nature, p. 851-872
Macquarie Surgical Innovation Identification Tool (MSIIT): a study protocol for a usability and pilot test. Blakely, B., Selwood, A., Rogers, W. A. & Clay-Williams, R., 18 Nov 2016, In: BMJ Open. 6, 11, p. 1-7 e013704.
On the cutting edge: ethics and surgical innovation. Rogers, W., 2016, In: AQ: Australian Quarterly. 87, 1, p. 32-34 3
Guy was a member of the original team which met in the early 2000s at Balliol College in Oxford to formulate the IDEAL Collaboration. This led to the initial Lancet publications in 2009. Since then I have been active in attending IDEAL meetings and advocating for the initiative.
Currently I am directing the surgical innovation assessment of new procedures and technologies for the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, which also has as its role to encourage Australian and New Zealand surgeons to work through the IDEAL Scheme for new procedures and devices.
University of Aberdeen profile page
Visit Marion’s Twitter profile
Marion is a medical statistician and clinical trialist.
Her main research interests are in the design, conduct and analysis of clinical trials especially complex trial design and the design and conduct of surgical and device trials.
Marion has published widely on clinical trials methodology including on cluster randomised trials, design of trials of non-pharmacological interventions, pragmatic trials and trials reporting. She has served on many national and international funding agencies and committees and is an elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, the Faculty of Public Health and the International Society for Clinical Trials.
Marion was an original member of the Balliol Collaboration that developed the IDEAL framework and continues to act and an adviser to the IDEAL Collaboration.
Marion is currently involved in a number of surgical and device trials.
Hirst A, Philippou Y, McCulloch P, Blazeby J, Campbell B, Campbell MK, Feinberg J, Rovers M, Blencowe N, Pennell C, Quinn T, Rogers W, Cook J, Kolias A, Agha R, Dahm P, Sedrakyan A. No surgical innovation without evaluation: Evolution and further development of the IDEAL Framework and Recommendations. Annals of Surgery 2019 ;269(2):211-220.
Professor Bruce Campbell MS, FRCP, FRCS. chaired the NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) Interventional Procedures Advisory Committee 2002-15 and the NICE Medical Technologies Advisory Committee 2009-15, producing guidance for UK health services on new medical/surgical procedures and on medical technologies. He was an Non-Executive Director of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) (2015-21). He chaired the Therapeutic Procedures Panel of the Health Technology Assessment Programme 2000-8.
It was through his work for NICE that Bruce became involved in the IDEAL Collaboration, from the time of the first meeting at Balliol College, Oxford, about a framework for evidence on procedures. He has continued to contribute to IDEAL ever since. In addition to co-authoring publications about IDEAL, he has published a range of articles about the work of NICE and about the evidence required for assessment and regulation of medical devices.
Bruce Campbell is a vascular surgeon and has been a consultant in Exeter since 1986. He is an Honorary Professor at the University of Exeter Medical School. He has been Honorary Secretary of the Vascular Society of Great Britain and Ireland. He has published and lectured extensively on vascular subjects and patient-related issues, as well as health technology assessment.
Other job titles: Professor of Musculoskeletal and Surgical Science, Extended Scope Physiotherapist (Knee), Swansea Bay University Health Board
A short summary of you and your work in IDEAL:
List of any current projects related to IDEAL:
List of any publications related to IDEAL:
We would like to acknowledge and thank our funders for supporting the work of IDEAL
Our work is intended to improve the ethical and scientific quality and transparency of surgical innovation research. Specifically we are engaged in coordinating the further development of research methodology in this field, promoting education about IDEAL and actively working with stakeholders to create an environment supportive of appropriate and timely evaluation internationally.
We would like to acknowledge and thank Medtronic for their funding to support the work of the IDEAL Collaboration. Medtronic funding is provided as an unrestricted educational
National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC)
