Surgical Complication NecNCT02837224
Effectiveness of a RF Sponge Detection
An observational study of Surgical Complication Nec, run by University of Iowa.
Trial summary
Retained surgical items (e.g. sponges, needles, and instruments) remain the most frequently reported serious adverse event for five of the last six years. Retained surgical sponges have resulted in negative patient outcomes (reoperation, readmission/prolonged hospital stay, infection, fistulas/ bowel obstructions, and… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any ageHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Surgical Complication Nec
- What is being tested?
- The Situate Detection System
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- How many people
- 27,637 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- Aug 2016to 31 May 2017
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Study population: Surgical patients
Who may be able to join
- We estimate including 27,000 patients during the total of 18 months.
- The first part of the sample will be retrospective, all patients undergoing surgery in the Main Operating Room during a 9 month period of time of the RF sponge detection system (February through October, 2014) This time frame was selected to allow inclusion of data from our previous study.
- The second part of the sample will be prospective, for nine months after implementation of the RF sponge detection system.
Who cannot join
- ophthalmology, dentistry, non-surgical procedures, aborted surgical procedures, surgeries during which the patient expired, and surgeries performed outside of the Main Operating Room.
About this study
Official title: Effectiveness of a Radiofrequency Surgical Sponge Detection System for Preventing Retained Surgical Sponges
Retained surgical items (e.g. sponges, needles, and instruments) remain the most frequently reported serious adverse event for five of the last six years. Retained surgical sponges have resulted in negative patient outcomes (reoperation, readmission/prolonged hospital stay, infection, fistulas/ bowel obstructions, and death). The national standard for prevention of retained surgical sponges relies heavily on manual counting several times before, during, and after the surgical procedure. If a sponge is missing, a series of steps are taken to reconcile the count. These steps require extra time and pull personnel away from other competing priorities. If the final closing count remains incorrect, it is common practice to obtain an intraoperative radiograph to rule out retention of a surgical sponge. This X-Ray is expensive and increases the time required for the surgery.
Novel technology using a radiofrequency (RF) is now available for detecting and preventing retained surgical sponges. The objective of this study is to evaluate the in-use effectiveness of a radiofrequency (RF) surgical sponge detection system for reducing the cost of searching for sponges and prevention of incorrect counts.
Read the detailed description
Background:
Retained surgical items (e.g. sponges, needles, and instruments) remain one of the sentinel events most frequently reported to The Joint Commission, and are estimated to occur in 1: 5500 surgeries. These serious adverse events have resulted in negative patient outcomes (reoperation, readmission/prolonged hospital stay, infection or sepsis, fistulas/ bowel obstructions, visceral perforation, and death). Cotton gauze sponges account for 48-69% of retained surgical items, and result in more serious tissue reaction than metal items. The national standard for prevention of retained surgical sponges relies heavily on manual counting, a process that occurs prior to incision, at the time of closing a cavity within a cavity, closing the first layer of tissue, and closing skin. The immediate outcome of the closing counts is either correct or unresolved. If unresolved, a series of steps are taken to reconcile the count (surgeon notified, wound searched, sterile field searched, room searched, count repeated). These steps require extra time and effort, pulling personnel away from other competing priorities. If the final closing count remains incorrect, it is common practice to obtain an intraoperative radiograph to rule out retention of a surgical sponge. The practice of searching for misplaced sponges and using radiography to rule out the presence of a retained sponge extend the operating time and add to costs associated care of the patient in surgery. Novel technology is now available for detecting and preventing retained surgical sponges. The technology uses a radiofrequency (RF) chip in the sponge, and a mat or wand that scans the patient for a sponge. Only one clinical trial has evaluated the in-use effectiveness of this RF technology. No retained sponges occurred during the 18 month trial. However the sample size was not large enough to determine significance.
Primary Objective:
The objective in this Health Services Research is to evaluate the in-use effectiveness of a radiofrequency (RF) surgical sponge detection system for reducing the cost of searching for sponges and prevention of incorrect counts.
Specific Aims are:
- To compare the estimated time and cost of searching for sponges and using radiography to rule out the presence of retained sponges before and after implementation of a RF sponge detection system.
- To compare the incidence of incorrect final closing counts before and after implementation of a RF sponge detection system.
Study Design:
Using deidentified existing data, investigators propose a quasiexperimental study evaluating the outcomes of using RF surgical sponge detection system. The setting is the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, a 711-bed academic medical center, a Level 1 trauma center, located in Iowa City, Iowa. The University of Iowa Institutional Review Board has determined that this study does not meet the regulatory definition of human subjects research.
Primary Endpoints
- The estimated time and cost of searching for sponges and using radiography to rule out the presence of retained surgical sponges.
- The frequency of incorrect final closing sponge counts.
Data for individual patients will be recorded by the circulating nurses in a questionnaire embedded in the surgical log of Epic Systems®, module Optime®. The questionnaire will consist of three individual counts: initial closing, final closing, and additional count. If the first question, "was a search required" is answered "yes", four subsequent questions will be asked: type of sponge, actions taken, number of minutes required, and the location of the sponge if found. Data will be retrieved from the Health Information System (HIS) using S.A.P. ® Business Objects™ (surgical volume, surgical service) and Crystal reports (details about searches for sponges). Incorrect final closing counts are documented in the Patient Safety Net® electronic event reporting system. Data will be retrieved from events reported within the category of "count incomplete or not done" and "count incorrect". Data will be retrieved by HIS personnel and provided via a report to the Director of Clinical Functions responsible for the Main Operating Room. This report is part of the quality improvement program. Electronic data will be stored in the College of Nursing, the University of Iowa, on the college's secure server. Data will be cleaned by a data manager and analyzed by the college's statistician.
Analysis:
Aim 1: Minutes of time spent searching for misplaced sponges will be analyzed using ranges, means, and standard deviations. Comparison before and after implementation of the RF detection technology will be described as percentages and analyzed using chi square with Yates correction. To provide the best estimate of the resources used in searching for sponges, investigators will use published data on operating room costs per minute to estimate search costs ($17.23). However, there are significant differences across institutions. To accommodate this broad range of potential adopters of this RF detection technology and show differences in potential cost-effectiveness, in addition to using the average estimate of operating room time cost from the literature, investigators will construct lower bound and upper bound estimates of the operating room time costs to provide a range of cost estimates to use in assessing the RF detection technology intervention.
Investigators further adjust search costs for variation in practices during searches. At times surgeons continue with the procedure (e.g. closing the wound) while in other cases surgeons will assist with efforts to locate the sponge. As investigators are interested in time spent on non-productive searches, investigators will use a range of estimates of non-productive search costs. Investigators start with 100% non-productive and also estimate based on 75% non-productive (25% of the search time moving forward with the procedure) and 50% non-productive (50% of the search time moving forward with the procedure). Investigators will use the average radiography costs from published literature ($286) in addition to the operating room time associated with obtaining an intraoperative radiograph (30minutes). All times and costs will be analyzed using ranges, means, and standard deviations. Comparison before and after implementation of the RF detection technology will be described as percentages and analyzed using chi square with Yates correction.
Aim 2: To compare the incidence of incorrect final closing counts The number of incorrect final closing counts before and after implementation of a RF sponge detection system will be analyzed using ranges, means, and standard deviations. Comparison before and after implementation of the RF detection technology will be described as percentages and analyzed using chi square with Yates correction.
- Conditions
- Surgical Complication Nec
- Being tested
- The Situate Detection System
- Keywords
- retained surgical sponge, adverse event
- Medical subject headings
- Foreign Bodies
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
The Situate Detection SystemDevice
Also called RF Assure
The Situate Detection System for locating surgical sponges
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Preimplementation: Situate Locate System | Subjects/surgeries performed before implementation of the Situate Detection System. | |
| Implementation | Subjects/surgeries performed after implementation of the Situate Detection System. Receives: Device: The Situate Detection System |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Time spent searching for sponges
The total annualized number of operating room minutes spent searching for missing surgical sponges
Measured: 6 months after study start
Cost of time spent searching for sponges
The total annualized cost of operating room time spent searching for sponges
Measured: 6 months after study start
Time spent using radiography to rule out the presence of a retained sponge
The total annualized number of operating room minutes spent ruling out the presence of a retained sponge using radiography
Measured: 6 months after study start
Cost of using radiography to rule out the presence of a retained sponge
The total annualized cost of operating room time and radiography spent ruling out the presence of a retained sponge
Measured: 6 months after study start
Incorrect final counts
The frequency of incorrect final closing counts of surgical sponges.
Measured: 6 months after study start
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted19 Jul 2016 (estimated)
- Study startAug 2016
- Primary completion31 May 2017
- Study completion31 May 2017
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (9)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Surgical Complication NecStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Retrospective
- Enrolment
- 27,637 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Iowa
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Victoria J Steelman, University of Iowa
- Investigators
- Victoria J Steelman, PhD, Principal investigator, University of Iowa
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02837224
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 201602723
- Status last verified
- Oct 2017
- First submitted
- 7 Jul 2016
- Last updated
- 30 Nov 2017
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Cima RR, Kollengode A, Garnatz J, Storsveen A, Weisbrod C, Deschamps C. Incidence and characteristics of potential and actual retained foreign object events in surgical patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2008 Jul;207(1):80-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.12.047. Epub 2008 May 23.
PubMed 18589366Gawande AA, Studdert DM, Orav EJ, Brennan TA, Zinner MJ. Risk factors for retained instruments and sponges after surgery. N Engl J Med. 2003 Jan 16;348(3):229-35. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa021721.
PubMed 12529464Lincourt AE, Harrell A, Cristiano J, Sechrist C, Kercher K, Heniford BT. Retained foreign bodies after surgery. J Surg Res. 2007 Apr;138(2):170-4. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2006.08.001. Epub 2007 Feb 1.
PubMed 17275034Guideline for prevention of retained surgical items. In: AORN, ed. Guidelines for Perioperative Practice. 2014 ed. Denver, CO: Association of periOperative Registered Nurses; 2016.
Williams TL, Tung DK, Steelman VM, Chang PK, Szekendi MK. Retained surgical sponges: findings from incident reports and a cost-benefit analysis of radiofrequency technology. J Am Coll Surg. 2014 Sep;219(3):354-64. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.03.052. Epub 2014 May 10.
PubMed 25081938Steelman VM, Schaapveld AG, Perkhounkova Y, Storm HE, Mathias M. The Hidden Costs of Reconciling Surgical Sponge Counts. AORN J. 2015 Nov;102(5):498-506. doi: 10.1016/j.aorn.2015.09.002.
PubMed 26514707Rupp CC, Kagarise MJ, Nelson SM, Deal AM, Phillips S, Chadwick J, Petty T, Meyer AA, Kim HJ. Effectiveness of a radiofrequency detection system as an adjunct to manual counting protocols for tracking surgical sponges: a prospective trial of 2,285 patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2012 Oct;215(4):524-33. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.06.014. Epub 2012 Jul 6.
PubMed 22770865Hart S, Hashemi L, Sobolewski CJ. Effect of a disposable automated suturing device on cost and operating room time in benign total laparoscopic hysterectomy procedures. JSLS. 2013 Oct-Dec;17(4):508-16. doi: 10.4293/108680813X13693422522231.
PubMed 24398190Dossett LA, Dittus RS, Speroff T, May AK, Cotton BA. Cost-effectiveness of routine radiographs after emergent open cavity operations. Surgery. 2008 Aug;144(2):317-21. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2008.03.012. Epub 2008 Jun 5.
PubMed 18656641
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 30 Nov 2017. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Effectiveness of a Radiofrequency Surgical Sponge Detection System for Preventing Retained Surgical Sponges
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02837224
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 201602723
- Conditions
- Surgical Complication Nec
- Keywords
- retained surgical sponge, adverse event
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 27,637 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of IowaUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Aug 2016 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 May 2017 (actual)
- Study completion
- 31 May 2017 (actual)
- First posted
- 19 Jul 2016 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Retained surgical items (e.g. sponges, needles, and instruments) remain the most frequently reported serious adverse event for five of the last six years. Retained surgical sponges have resulted in negative patient outcomes (reoperation, readmission/prolonged hospital stay, infection, fistulas/ bowel obstructions, and death). The national standard for prevention of retained surgical sponges relies heavily on manual counting several times before, during, and after the surgical procedure. If a sponge is missing, a series of steps are taken to reconcile the count. These steps require extra time and pull personnel away from other competing priorities. If the final closing count remains incorrect, it is common practice to obtain an intraoperative radiograph to rule out retention of a surgical sponge. This X-Ray is expensive and increases the time required for the surgery.
Novel technology using a radiofrequency (RF) is now available for detecting and preventing retained surgical sponges. The objective of this study is to evaluate the in-use effectiveness of a radiofrequency (RF) surgical sponge detection system for reducing the cost of searching for sponges and prevention of incorrect counts.
Detailed description
Background:
Retained surgical items (e.g. sponges, needles, and instruments) remain one of the sentinel events most frequently reported to The Joint Commission, and are estimated to occur in 1: 5500 surgeries. These serious adverse events have resulted in negative patient outcomes (reoperation, readmission/prolonged hospital stay, infection or sepsis, fistulas/ bowel obstructions, visceral perforation, and death). Cotton gauze sponges account for 48-69% of retained surgical items, and result in more serious tissue reaction than metal items. The national standard for prevention of retained surgical sponges relies heavily on manual counting, a process that occurs prior to incision, at the time of closing a cavity within a cavity, closing the first layer of tissue, and closing skin. The immediate outcome of the closing counts is either correct or unresolved. If unresolved, a series of steps are taken to reconcile the count (surgeon notified, wound searched, sterile field searched, room searched, count repeated). These steps require extra time and effort, pulling personnel away from other competing priorities. If the final closing count remains incorrect, it is common practice to obtain an intraoperative radiograph to rule out retention of a surgical sponge. The practice of searching for misplaced sponges and using radiography to rule out the presence of a retained sponge extend the operating time and add to costs associated care of the patient in surgery. Novel technology is now available for detecting and preventing retained surgical sponges. The technology uses a radiofrequency (RF) chip in the sponge, and a mat or wand that scans the patient for a sponge. Only one clinical trial has evaluated the in-use effectiveness of this RF technology. No retained sponges occurred during the 18 month trial. However the sample size was not large enough to determine significance.
Primary Objective:
The objective in this Health Services Research is to evaluate the in-use effectiveness of a radiofrequency (RF) surgical sponge detection system for reducing the cost of searching for sponges and prevention of incorrect counts.
Specific Aims are:
- To compare the estimated time and cost of searching for sponges and using radiography to rule out the presence of retained sponges before and after implementation of a RF sponge detection system.
- To compare the incidence of incorrect final closing counts before and after implementation of a RF sponge detection system.
Study Design:
Using deidentified existing data, investigators propose a quasiexperimental study evaluating the outcomes of using RF surgical sponge detection system. The setting is the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, a 711-bed academic medical center, a Level 1 trauma center, located in Iowa City, Iowa. The University of Iowa Institutional Review Board has determined that this study does not meet the regulatory definition of human subjects research.
Primary Endpoints
- The estimated time and cost of searching for sponges and using radiography to rule out the presence of retained surgical sponges.
- The frequency of incorrect final closing sponge counts.
Data for individual patients will be recorded by the circulating nurses in a questionnaire embedded in the surgical log of Epic Systems®, module Optime®. The questionnaire will consist of three individual counts: initial closing, final closing, and additional count. If the first question, "was a search required" is answered "yes", four subsequent questions will be asked: type of sponge, actions taken, number of minutes required, and the location of the sponge if found. Data will be retrieved from the Health Information System (HIS) using S.A.P. ® Business Objects™ (surgical volume, surgical service) and Crystal reports (details about searches for sponges). Incorrect final closing counts are documented in the Patient Safety Net® electronic event reporting system. Data will be retrieved from events reported within the category of "count incomplete or not done" and "count incorrect". Data will be retrieved by HIS personnel and provided via a report to the Director of Clinical Functions responsible for the Main Operating Room. This report is part of the quality improvement program. Electronic data will be stored in the College of Nursing, the University of Iowa, on the college's secure server. Data will be cleaned by a data manager and analyzed by the college's statistician.
Analysis:
Aim 1: Minutes of time spent searching for misplaced sponges will be analyzed using ranges, means, and standard deviations. Comparison before and after implementation of the RF detection technology will be described as percentages and analyzed using chi square with Yates correction. To provide the best estimate of the resources used in searching for sponges, investigators will use published data on operating room costs per minute to estimate search costs ($17.23). However, there are significant differences across institutions. To accommodate this broad range of potential adopters of this RF detection technology and show differences in potential cost-effectiveness, in addition to using the average estimate of operating room time cost from the literature, investigators will construct lower bound and upper bound estimates of the operating room time costs to provide a range of cost estimates to use in assessing the RF detection technology intervention.
Investigators further adjust search costs for variation in practices during searches. At times surgeons continue with the procedure (e.g. closing the wound) while in other cases surgeons will assist with efforts to locate the sponge. As investigators are interested in time spent on non-productive searches, investigators will use a range of estimates of non-productive search costs. Investigators start with 100% non-productive and also estimate based on 75% non-productive (25% of the search time moving forward with the procedure) and 50% non-productive (50% of the search time moving forward with the procedure). Investigators will use the average radiography costs from published literature ($286) in addition to the operating room time associated with obtaining an intraoperative radiograph (30minutes). All times and costs will be analyzed using ranges, means, and standard deviations. Comparison before and after implementation of the RF detection technology will be described as percentages and analyzed using chi square with Yates correction.
Aim 2: To compare the incidence of incorrect final closing counts The number of incorrect final closing counts before and after implementation of a RF sponge detection system will be analyzed using ranges, means, and standard deviations. Comparison before and after implementation of the RF detection technology will be described as percentages and analyzed using chi square with Yates correction.
Study design
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Retrospective
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Preimplementation: Situate Locate System | – | –Subjects/surgeries performed before implementation of the Situate Detection System. |
| Implementation | – | Device: The Situate Detection SystemSubjects/surgeries performed after implementation of the Situate Detection System. |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Surgical patients
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- We estimate including 27,000 patients during the total of 18 months.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- ophthalmology, dentistry, non-surgical procedures, aborted surgical procedures, surgeries during which the patient expired, and surgeries performed outside of the Main Operating Room.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| The Situate Detection SystemAlso: RF AssureThe Situate Detection System for locating surgical sponges | Device | Implementation |
Primary outcome
Time spent searching for sponges
Time frame: 6 months after study start
The total annualized number of operating room minutes spent searching for missing surgical sponges
Cost of time spent searching for sponges
Time frame: 6 months after study start
The total annualized cost of operating room time spent searching for sponges
Time spent using radiography to rule out the presence of a retained sponge
Time frame: 6 months after study start
The total annualized number of operating room minutes spent ruling out the presence of a retained sponge using radiography
Cost of using radiography to rule out the presence of a retained sponge
Time frame: 6 months after study start
The total annualized cost of operating room time and radiography spent ruling out the presence of a retained sponge
Incorrect final counts
Time frame: 6 months after study start
The frequency of incorrect final closing counts of surgical sponges.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 30 Nov 2017.
- Background: PubMed 18589366Cima RR, Kollengode A, Garnatz J, Storsveen A, Weisbrod C, Deschamps C. Incidence and characteristics of potential and actual retained foreign object events in surgical patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2008 Jul;207(1):80-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.12.047. Epub 2008 May 23.
- Background: PubMed 12529464Gawande AA, Studdert DM, Orav EJ, Brennan TA, Zinner MJ. Risk factors for retained instruments and sponges after surgery. N Engl J Med. 2003 Jan 16;348(3):229-35. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa021721.
- Background: PubMed 17275034Lincourt AE, Harrell A, Cristiano J, Sechrist C, Kercher K, Heniford BT. Retained foreign bodies after surgery. J Surg Res. 2007 Apr;138(2):170-4. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2006.08.001. Epub 2007 Feb 1.
- BackgroundGuideline for prevention of retained surgical items. In: AORN, ed. Guidelines for Perioperative Practice. 2014 ed. Denver, CO: Association of periOperative Registered Nurses; 2016.
- Background: PubMed 25081938Williams TL, Tung DK, Steelman VM, Chang PK, Szekendi MK. Retained surgical sponges: findings from incident reports and a cost-benefit analysis of radiofrequency technology. J Am Coll Surg. 2014 Sep;219(3):354-64. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.03.052. Epub 2014 May 10.
- Background: PubMed 26514707Steelman VM, Schaapveld AG, Perkhounkova Y, Storm HE, Mathias M. The Hidden Costs of Reconciling Surgical Sponge Counts. AORN J. 2015 Nov;102(5):498-506. doi: 10.1016/j.aorn.2015.09.002.
- Background: PubMed 22770865Rupp CC, Kagarise MJ, Nelson SM, Deal AM, Phillips S, Chadwick J, Petty T, Meyer AA, Kim HJ. Effectiveness of a radiofrequency detection system as an adjunct to manual counting protocols for tracking surgical sponges: a prospective trial of 2,285 patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2012 Oct;215(4):524-33. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.06.014. Epub 2012 Jul 6.
- Background: PubMed 24398190Hart S, Hashemi L, Sobolewski CJ. Effect of a disposable automated suturing device on cost and operating room time in benign total laparoscopic hysterectomy procedures. JSLS. 2013 Oct-Dec;17(4):508-16. doi: 10.4293/108680813X13693422522231.
- Background: PubMed 18656641Dossett LA, Dittus RS, Speroff T, May AK, Cotton BA. Cost-effectiveness of routine radiographs after emergent open cavity operations. Surgery. 2008 Aug;144(2):317-21. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2008.03.012. Epub 2008 Jun 5.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Surgical Complication Nec
RecruitingObservational study
Diagnostic, Therapeutic and Reproductive Aspects of Patients With Mullerian Anomalies
Mullerian Anomaly of Uterus, Nec, Mullerian Anomaly of Vagina
RecruitingObservational study
Diagnostic, Therapeutic and Reproductive Aspects of Patients With Mullerian Anomalies (MULAN)
Mullerian Anomaly of Vagina, Mullerian Anomaly of Uterus, Nec
Enrolling by invitationObservational study
The Norwegian Pancreas Transplantation (PTx) Study
Diabetes Mellitus, Pancreas Transplantation
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Victoria J Steelman, PhD principal investigator
University of Iowa
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Surgical Complication Nec, run by University of Iowa.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 30 Nov 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Time spent searching for sponges (time frame: 6 months after study start). The study lists 5 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02837224, which also lists 9 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 30 Nov 2017.