Skip to content

Protocol for developing quality assurance measures to use in surgical trials: an example from the ROMIO study

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (Academic Journal)

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere026209
Number of pages7
JournalBMJ Open
Issue number3
Early online date28 Feb 2019
DateAccepted/In press - 2 Jan 2019
DateE-pub ahead of print - 28 Feb 2019
DatePublished (current) - Mar 2019


Introduction Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in surgery are frequently criticised because surgeon expertise and standards of surgery are not considered or accounted for during study design. This is particularly true in pragmatic trials (which typically involve multiple centres and surgeons and are based in ‘real world’ settings), compared with explanatory trials (which are smaller and more tightly controlled).

Objective This protocol describes a process to develop and test quality assurance (QA) measures for use within a predominantly pragmatic surgical RCT comparing minimally invasive and open techniques for oesophageal cancer (the NIHR ROMIO study). It builds on methods initiated in the ROMIO pilot RCT.

Methods and analysis
We have identified three distinct types of QA measure: (i) entry criteria for surgeons, through assessment of operative videos, (ii) standardisation of operative techniques (by establishing minimum key procedural phases) and (iii) monitoring of surgeons during the trial, using intraoperative photography to document key procedural phases and standardising the pathological assessment of specimens. The QA measures will be adapted from the pilot study and tested iteratively, and the video and photo assessment tools will be tested for reliability and validity.

Ethics and dissemination
Ethics approval was obtained (NRES Committee South West—Frenchay, 25 April 2016, ref: 16/SW/0098). Results of the QA development study will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

    Structured keywords

  • BRTC
  • Centre for Surgical Research

Download statistics

No data available



  • Full-text PDF (final published version)

    Rights statement: This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via BMJ Publishing at . Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.

    Final published version, 898 KB, PDF document

    Licence: CC BY


View research connections

Related faculties, schools or groups