A_Z DIRECTORY
Skip to content

  • Home

  • About the College

  • Education and Trainees

  • Fellows

  • Research and Audit

  • External Affairs

  • College Resources
  
ASERNIP-S
Advisory Committee
Presentations
Procedures
Publications
Review Process
Consumer Information
Contacts and Staff
Links
Privacy and Website Disclaimer
NETS
 
ASERNIP-S > Review Process
Review Process
The ASERNIP-S Review Group Process

The process for systematic review of each procedure is as follows.

1. Review Group Establishment

  • ASERNIP-S establishes the Review Group to assess the procedure.

2. Review Protocol Manual Development
The purpose of the protocol is to establish the criteria for the systematic review.

  • The Protocol Surgeon and ASERNIP-S Researcher consult regarding the search terms, study design, comparators and the inclusion/exclusion criteria.
  • The ASERNIP-S Researcher conducts a comprehensive search of the literature, and references are input into a database.
  • The finalised draft protocol is forwarded to all members of the Review Group and a protocol teleconference is arranged.
  • Following the teleconference any necessary changes to the protocol are made and the protocol for the systematic review is complete.

3. Systematic Review Preparation

  • Based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria stated in the protocol, two ASERNIP-S Researchers independently assess abstracts of articles for inclusion in the review. Any discrepancies are discussed and an agreement reached.
  • The Researcher obtains copies of all articles to be included in the review.
  • The ASERNIP-S Researcher extracts data from all articles into tables on the safety and efficacy of the procedure and assesses the methodological validity of the studies using checklists for both randomized controlled trials and non-randomised studies.
  • The ASERNIP-S Researcher produces a draft systematic review on the safety and efficacy of the procedure. The Advisory surgeon is consulted during this period if necessary. At this stage, no recommendation or classification of safety and efficacy is made.
  • All members of the Review Group are sent the draft systematic review. They critique the draft systematic review and provide comments, which are then circulated to all other members of the Review Group. This forms a basis for discussions at the teleconference.
  • The Review Group is also asked to provide a preferred safety and efficacy classification for the procedure.

4. Review Group Teleconference

  • The Review Group meets to discuss the review and classification via a teleconference.
  • The Review Group reaches consensus on the safety and efficacy classification of the procedure and provide clinical recommendation(s) for its use in practice.

5. Review Ratification by ASERNIP-S Management Committee

  • A representative of the Review Group presents the ASERNIP-S systematic review, which includes the safety and efficacy classification and clinical recommendation(s), to the Management Committee.
  • The Management Committee ratifies the ASERNIP-S systematic review.

6. Consideration of the ASERNIP-S Systematic Review by RACS Council

  • The Council of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons endorses the ASERNIP-S systematic review.

7. Dissemination of the Systematic Review

  • The ASERNIP-S Systematic Review is forwarded to the relevant Section/Division of the RACS and/or specialist society, and released into the public domain.
  • Executive summaries of systematic reviews are forwarded to Credentials Committees at all surgical hospitals in Australia.

8. Mediation

  • Should an individual or group of persons wish to appeal against the contents or recommendation of the ASERNIP-S review, a petition is first directed to the respective Review Group.
  • The Review Group meets again by teleconference to discuss the concerns raised.
  • This appeal is reported to the Management Committee as part of a mediation process.
  • If the Review Group agrees it cannot resolve the appeal, then the appeal proceeds through the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons external appeals process.

ASERNIP-S Review Re-Appraisal Process

Approximately 1 to 2 years after the initial review scoping searches are conducted to determine the worth of commencing a full re-appraisal and update of the original systematic review.

If re-appraisal is warranted, the Review Group is contacted to inform them of the re-appraisal. Complete searches are conducted and the abstracts of retrieved articles assessed independently by both the Researcher and the Protocol Surgeon regarding their inclusion for the review re-appraisal. The finalised database of new articles for review is sent to all members of the Review Group along with the protocol. If necessary a pre-assessment teleconference is held, however in most cases this will not be required. The Researcher conducts the re-appraisal. The updated systematic review, a copy of the new articles and a draft review appraisal form are forwarded to the Review Group. The Review Group decides if the new evidence requires any changes to be made to the classification and recommendations of the systematic review, and these are updated if necessary. The ASERNIP-S Management Committee considers the re-appraisal for ratification and then the RACS Council is forwarded the re-appraisal documentation. Relevant groups of the RACS and any other interested stakeholders are forwarded a copy of the review re-appraisal and the updated version is posted on the ASERNIP-S website.


© Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. All rights reserved. 		 
Accessibility  | Home