Analysis of National Presentations of Surgical Case Series Discussions: What Matters to Surgeons?

Abstract

BackgroundAlthough the surgical case series is a useful study design for surgical disciplines, elements of its presentation have not been standardized with a widely accepted reporting guideline. Hence, case series may not include all components necessary for surgeons to best interpret their results. We aimed to determine core elements of case series through qualitative analysis of discussions after presentations at national meetings. MethodsCase series with accompanying discussions in three high-impact journals from 2010 to 2015 were analyzed with conventional content analysis. All interrogative sentences were selected for analysis and were classified by a redundant iterative process into descriptive categories and subcategories. ResultsTwo hundred twenty-one case series were identified, 56 of which included discussion transcripts. Four hundred seventy six unique interrogatives were classified into 4 categories and 13 subcategories. The main categories identified were “Application of Results to Patient Care,” “Clarification of Study Methodology,” “Facilitation of Author Insight,” and “Request for Additional Study-Specific Data.” The most frequent subcategories of inquiry pertained to the changes to current standard of care, clarification of study variables, and subgroup data and outcomes. ConclusionsWe determined major themes of inquiry that reflected core elements surgeons use to evaluate case series for relevance and applicability to their own practice. Discussants frequently questioned how the study's results changed the author's standard of care. Specifically encouraging surgical case series authors to comment on changes they made to their practice as a result of their findings would allow the surgical audience to quickly assess potential clinical applicability.