No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations.

By P. McCulloch, Douglas G. Altman, W. B. Campbell, D. Flum, P. Glasziou, J. Marshall, J. Nicholl, J. Aronson, J. Barkun, Jane M. Blazeby and 37 more. The Lancet, 2009

1,710 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine, Economics and Econometrics, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0b2e6bf598001b4b4975b9fa6aef4b9574520979

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Statistics and Probability

1. L. DeCamp
2. Nipa Doshi
3. Julie S Byerley
4. Michael J. Steiner

Citations in the corpus

• A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (2011, positive): “Preferably, the innovation under investigation should be at step 3 (assessment) according to the IDEAL-Recommendation.(4) Moreover, data on the effect of an experimental intervention before an RCT are essential to be able to answer the questions posed in the ‘‘Ethical framework for the use of placeb”
• Why and how to report surgeons’ levels of expertise (2016, background): “In the past, concerns have been raised about the need for expertise-based randomized controlled trials (Devereaux et al., 2005; McCulloch et al., 2009).”