title: Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy and the need for a randomized trial: a survey of surgeons and ethical committees in the British Isles.
abstract: A questionnaire on the necessity and ethics of a randomized trial to compare laparoscopic cholecystectomy and open cholecystectomy was sent to 200 randomly selected surgeons in the British Isles, of whom 117 replied. Of these, 58% thought that a trial was needed to compare laparoscopic cholecystectomy with open cholecystectomy by either minilaparotomy or the conventional approach. Nearly half (45%) expressed interest in participating in such a trial. A hypothetical protocol for a trial was sent to 40 ethical committees; 25 gave approval and only 3 considered that a trial was unethical (12 refused to comment). This survey shows wide support for a trial comparing laparoscopic cholecystectomy with open cholecystectomy.
authors: University Department of Surgery, Western Infirmary, Glasgow, UK.
authors: A J
authors: AJ
authors: McMahon
authors: P J
authors: PJ
authors: O'Dwyer
authors: I T
authors: IT
authors: Russell
authors: J N
authors: JN
authors: Baxter
mesh_terms: D001291:Attitude of Health Personnel; D002763:Cholecystectomy / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D017081:Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D017041:Ethics Committees / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D006801:Humans; D010820:Physicians / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D006113:United Kingdom