Committee Position Application 2020

General committee positions OPEN

Deadline: 23:59 Friday 15th May 2020

 Following on from the IDENTIFY & MIMIC, we are looking for several enthusiastic urology trainees/fellows/doctors interested in urology to join the committee to assist with the running of our research collaborative and our 5 upcoming projects!

This will be a very rewarding role as you will not only gain skills in a number of key areas such as research methodology, study design, statistics, delivering clinical studies and publishing papers but you would have a chance to contribute to and lead high quality research that may change clinical practice and be recognised for this. You will also have the opportunity to network with leading clinicians in British Urology and have mentorship from the BURST family.

We are looking for flexible people with excellent team-working skills, who are self-motivated to go the extra mile and who can contribute with their own ideas. An essential criterion is having time to dedicate to projects so dedicated academic time or being out of program for research, are highly desirable qualities. Even without academic time, those who are highly committed to the BURST cause but in full time clinical jobs have previously flourished providing they have the right attitude and drive and are willing to dedicate time to BURST. Prompt electronic communication using software like Slack is essential. IT proficiency, specifically the ability to design websites or programming is also a desirable quality. Experience in fundraising from commercial and charity sponsors is another desirable quality. The post will be for up to 18 months subject to a 12-month review. Meetings are held approximately 4 times a year either over Skype or at the major UK conferences (e.g. BAUS, EAU, NRCM).


If you would like to apply for a committee position please email a word document (strictly max 500 words) & 2 page max CV to with the title of email, ‘BURST Committee 2020’ outlining:

  1. Your current position (e.g. year of training, deanery, are you out of programme?)
  2. Why you are interested
  3. What is your research experience is to date (Involvement with research, research skills, research degrees, formal methodology training, key publications, key presentations)
  4. Any other major commitments or pending applications for other committee posts that will take your time up over the next 2 years.


Please specifically mention:

  1. If you are out of programme for research or have any dedicated time for academic work (or plan to be in the next 12 months)
  2. If you are highly proficient in IT e.g. database formation or website creation
  3. If you have experience in successfully raising money from commercial sponsors / charity
  4. If you have previously organised large teams of people
  5. If you have been involved in BURST activities previously


BURST Research Collaborative Committee



Medical Student Representative Application 2020

Medical Student Representative positions OPEN

Deadline: 23:59 Friday 15th May 2020

Following on from the IDENTIFY & MIMIC, we are looking for several enthusiastic medical students interested in urology to join the committee to assist with the running of our research collaborative and our 5 upcoming projects!

This will be a very rewarding role as you will not only gain skills in a number of key areas such as research methodology, study design, statistics, delivering clinical studies and publishing papers but you would have a chance to contribute to and lead high quality research that may change clinical practice and be recognised for this. You will also have the opportunity to network with leading clinicians in British Urology and have mentorship from the BURST family. This role will put you in a good position for future surgical job applications.

We are looking for applicants with excellent team-working skills, who are self-motivated to go the extra mile and who can contribute with their own ideas. An essential criterion is being excellent with IT as we increasingly incorporate new software into our projects. Applicants must be prompt with replying to communications, able to contribute at short notice, and work well within a team. Previous research experience is desirable, but not necessary. We encourage applicants in earlier years and/or with no research experience to apply.

The post will be for up to 18 months subject to a 12-month review. Meetings are held approximately 4 times a year either over Skype or at the major UK conferences (e.g. BAUS, EAU, NRCM).

If you would like to apply for a committee position please email a word document (strictly 1 side A4) to with the title of email, ‘Medical student rep application 2020’ outlining:  

  1. Your current year of study and medical school
  2. Why you are interested
  3. How you will ensure that you have time to commit to projects
  4. Any research experience is to date (Involvement with research, research skills, research degrees, formal methodology training, key publications, key presentations)

Please specifically mention:

  1. If you are highly proficient in IT e.g. database formation or website creation
  2. If you have been involved in BURST activities previously
  3. Your involvement in university surgical society activities
  4. Whether you are interested in urology as a career

BURST Research Collaborative Committee


FIX-IT Project Opportunity

Dear Trainees,

On behalf of the BURST (British Urology Researchers in Training) research collaborative, we’d like to announce an excellent opportunity to become involved with one of our upcoming projects.

There is one space being made available for an enthusiastic trainee to become part of the steering group for the FIX-IT project: ‘A Consensus Meeting for Best Practice in the Conduct of Scrotal Exploration for Suspected Testicular Torsion’. Given the lack of British, European or American guidelines regarding the technical conduct of scrotal exploration (based on a BURST systematic review in peer review) and the lack of evidence of best approach available, we aim to produce an expert BURST-BAUS consensus-based guideline on the acceptable performance of scrotal exploration.

The group will include andrologists, adult urologists, paediatric urologists and trainees to establish best practice in surgical approach for exploration for suspected testicular torsion, given the absence of high level evidence. We recognise the importance of involving trainees in research hence our desire to offer this opportunity out.

Your role in the steering group would involve completion of an online consensus questionnaire regarding the acceptable conduct of scrotal exploration as well as attendance at a face-to-face 3 hour consensus meeting at the British Association of Urology (BAUS) annual meeting on 17th June 2020 at 13.00-17.00. You will be recognised on the main line authorship upon publication.

Eligibility: 1. You must be able to commit to both the online questionnaire and attendance at the BAUS consensus meeting 2. You must have been involved in 50 operations in the scrotum 3. You must be able to respond promptly to electronic communication. If you are interested please reply to with a confirmation to all 3 of the points above, your C.V. and a 200 word summary (including why you would be suited to this role and why you want to be involved), by March 15th.

BURST at NRCM 2019

The BURST committee were pleased to attend this year’s annual National Research Collaborative Meeting, held in Newcastle at the impressive Sage Gateshead on the 6th of December.

The meeting was a great success and gave insight into the current status of surgical collaborative research in the UK & globally.

BURST work was presented in a variety of sessions, with posters detailing our recent survey of Urologists on ureteric drainage post ureteroscopy, our future projects RESECT & DETORT, as well as LEARN, a national audit of urology teaching in UK medical schools. The MIMIC study’s calculator and the work completed by BURST since our inception, were also presented in the oral sessions. The research MOT allowed for brainstorming with regards to these future projects, which will start recruitment soon.

There were a number of sessions with talks for medical students including how to navigate an academic career as well as the GRANULE course, detailing important aspects of recruitment into RCTs.  This was followed on by talks from PRCSEng Prof. Derek Alderson & colleagues, detailing new opportunities in collaborative research.

The meeting is a fantastic opportunity for medical students and doctors of all levels to interact with other surgical specialities and research colleagues and we would highly recommend next year’s event, especially if you have a keen interest in collaborative working.

Stay up-to-date with all BURST activities by following us on Twitter @BURSTurology.

Survey on ureTEric draiNage post uncomplicaTed ureteroscopy (STENT)


The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines encourage clinicians notto leave stents after uncomplicated ureteroscopies. Ureteric drainage practice internationally is variable. The published evidence alludes towards a high tendency of temporary ureteric stenting even after uncomplicated ureteroscopy (Hughes et al, 2014)(Auge et al, 2007). A recent Cochrane review on ureteral stenting after uncomplicated ureteroscopy reported desirable and undesirable effects of stents were small in absolute terms. All included studies had limitations. The Cochranereview identified a need to conduct higher quality sufficiently powered trials to answer this important question. (Ordonez M, 2019).

Aims of the Survey

Primary objective: To assess the uncertainties about the feasibility of an interventional study assessing whether not stenting after uncomplicated ureteroscopy is superior to routine ureteric drainage (e.g. JJ stent or equivalent).

Secondary objectives: To understand current views and practice about ureteral stenting after uncomplicated ureteroscopy.

The survey is now closed – stay tuned for our results! 




NICE guideline [NG118] Published date: January 2019. Accessed 22-05-19.

Türk C,Knoll T,Petrik A,Sarica K,Seitz C,Straub M. EAU Guidelines on Urolithiasis. Uroweb 2012. Available at: Accessed 22 May 2019

Auge, Brian K, Jamey A Sarvis, James O L’esperance, and Glenn M Preminger. 2007. “Practice Patterns of Ureteral Stenting after Routine Ureteroscopic Stone Surgery: A Survey of Practicing Urologists. Journal of Endourology 21(11): 1287–91.

Hughes, Ben et al. 2014. “The Dilemma of Post-Ureteroscopy Stenting.” BJU international 113(2): 184–85.

Ordonez M, Hwang EC, Borofsky M, Bakker CJ, Gandhi S, Dahm P. Ureteral stent versus no ureteral stent for ureteroscopy in the management of renal and ureteral calculi. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 2019;(2).

BURST at BAUS 2019

The BURST team would like to invite you to our session at BAUS 2019, this year being held in Glasgow, as well as our evening dinner & social.

There will be a chance to hear about the results from our multicenter IDENTIFY study, and the opportunity to voice your opinion on our future projects, helping us shape design.

The Burst Session will be held in Hall 1 from 15.30-17.00 on the 24th of June & includes the following talks:

15.30 – 15.40: Opportunities for trainees.
Mr Veeru Kasivisvanathan, University College Hospital, London

15.40-15.55: IDENTIFY study results, implications and audience feedback.
Mr Sinan Khadhouri, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary

15.55-16.10: Designing an RCT based on IDENTIFY results: interactive audience participation.
Mr Kevin Gallagher, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh & Mr Taimur Shah, Imperial Health NHS Trust, London

16.10-16.20: Committee updates.
BURST Committee Members

16.20-16.30: Where are they now? Last year’s Dragon’s Den’s proposal: PROPEL study (Optimal stent duration post ureteroscopy): lessons learnt.
Ms Nikita Bhatt, Ipswich Hospital & Mr Kenneth MacKenzie, Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals

16.30-16.40: Where are they now? Last year’s Dragon’s Den’s proposal: DETORT study (Scrotal US by Urology SpRs in reducing negative torsion rate)
Mr Simon Morton, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne

16.40-17.00: Feasibility of rolling out DETORT and design questions: interactive audience participation.
Mr Veeru Kasivisvanathan, University College Hospital, London & Mr Arjun Nambiar Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne

Can’t attend? Tune in our LIVESTREAM:


We look forward to seeing as many of you as possible at our session, and thank you for your ongoing collaboration with BURST.

Join us at EAU!

The BURST and IDENTIFY teams would like to invite you to three exciting BURST events at the Congress.

Please join us to discuss and influence the progression of the IDENTIFY study and hear about our upcoming projects.

1. IDENTIFY Abstract Presentation

Date: Friday 15th March

Time: 12:30-14:00 (CET)

Session name: Poster Session 13: Novel technology and techniques in Urothelial Cancer diagnosis

Location: Green Area, Room 11, Fira Gran Via Barcelona

2. IDENTIFY ‘Best Abstract’ Prize Presentation

Date: Saturday 16th March

Time:16.50-17.00 (CET)

Location: Green Area, Room 2, Fira Gran Via Barcelona

We have been awarded the First Prize for the Best Abstract by a Resident by the EAU Young Urologist’s Office and European Society of Residents in Urology!

The IDENTIFY team is extremely proud to collect this award on behalf of all of the investigators on the project, so please come and join us for the presentation ceremony.

3. IDENTIFY Investigators Meeting (combined meeting of BURST-ESRU)

Date: Sunday 17th March

Time: 12-13.00 (CET)

Location: Room 7.01

This will be an opportunity to meet other the investigators, have an interactive discussion about the analysis and outputs from the study and to give your feedback about the questions you would like the data to answer.

We look forward to seeing as many of as possible at the events, and thank you for your ongoing collaboration with BURST.

National Research Collaborative Meeting Manchester 2018- a BURST perspective

The NRCM meeting was held in Manchester on the 7th of December 2018. This page provides a brief overview of each session in the meeting, it is a useful meeting to gain a wider understanding of collaborative research in this country.

Main agenda

Session 1- Ten priority research questions for the UK Collaboratives: a Delphi Study

This session was the third round of the Delphi technique by a cross collaboration group to identify the the key research question for the future. Delphi technique is repeated rounds of voting, progressively narrowing down the best questions until eventually one/ multiple are chosen. They started with 85 questions and in this round the delegates had to score the top 10 questions. There were three areas assessing geriatric involvement in surgical patients, three were related to training and trainees and two were on antibiotic use.

Though the questions were not specific to urology, it does raise the potential of reviewing management of patients in the elderly since it such a prevalent issue with a large proportion of patients being over 75 years of age. There is a potential to evaluate training provided to trainees regarding complex CoTE conditions. The Delphi technique is also a potential method to select future projects, similar to Dragon’s den.


Session 2- Getting it right first time: designing high quality collaborative research

This was an excellent session relevant to not only those planning large scale research projects, but also clinical trainees and alike who have a good research idea and are not sure where to start. The range of expert speakers was extremely well planned and offered the ideal balance to answer those often tricky questions.

The importance of the research idea itself cannot be overestimated – this is where it is vital that prior research into the subject / objective is thorough, and the question has not yet been answered.  Early patient and public involvement is essential, and is a key driver in ensuring the inception of research is well thought out and relevant to patient outcomes – link to the COMET initiative.

The way to catch the funders attention is not just with your idea, but to tailor it to their requirements – and to be aware of any recent changes in priorities and policies that the funding body has published. Surprisingly, funder review advice is not always followed – so be sure to pick out each separate feedback point and address it in a timely fashion – you won’t have long to respond to the first review, which is often given a tight deadline of around 2 weeks.

A good tip is to find out who the programme director and programme leads are, and where their interests lie – they may not be specialists in the field you are proposing to research, so shy away from abbreviations and keep language easy to read and interpret. When it comes to planning your intervention, explain the rationale, and consider retention of recruitment target as well as the value for money – this is what the funders are looking for in the sadly restricted world of research funding.

Making your study proposal original can be tricky, but this is what will earn you the attention you want to drive it to fruition. Seek advice for every stage – from inception through to methodology and funding. Clinical Trials Units relevant to your research can offer invaluable advice, and do not have to be based in your region to offer support – make the most of any resource available to you.  Selecting the most appropriate methodology and statistical analysis to answer your research question and objectives is crucial. Consider this early, for example matching characteristics in parallel arms – relevant prognostic markers, for example, will reduce confounding and strengthen the interpretation of causality. Most importantly, however, remember to enjoy the whole journey!


Session 3-  Active studies from NRC e.g. SPARCs, EUROSURG, ROCSS

This session covered new trial designs and the results of some recently completed project, it was useful to learn about multiple trials and their designs. Plenty of thought-provoking designs and questions were presented that could inspire future studies


Launching soon


Almost 14,000 patients

At risk of Common Bile duct stones

MRCP prior to lap chole


Global SURG trials – overseas central UK government funding – Developed a pipeline to run multiple trials simultaneously / slight staggering.


FALCON study

4 arm RCT testing 2 factors- Again to do with wound infection

Multiple hubs around the world for a hub and spoke model of delivering collaborative research.



Cluster RCT- Change of gloves for wound infection rates and skin prep

Co-enrolment with ROSSINI II – this is interesting as they recruit into 2 trials simultaneously


RECON – StarSurg – The Student Audit and Research in Surgery (STARSurg) collaborative is a national, student-led audit and research network with representation from medical schools across the UK and Ireland

This is their sixth project- Postoperative Pulmonary Complications after abdominal surgery


In progress


Post-op ileus in colorectal surgery- Role of NSAID’s

No worsening of ileus or AKI and decreased opioid requirements.


Session 3- Winning oral abstracts

Oral presentations on the winning abstracts- including IDENTIFY.

Winning abstract was WAX – orthopaedic study assessing the length of time a patient is non-weight bearing after ankle fixation.

Relatively straight forward, non-contentious project.

Very similar to PROPEL but timelines were a bit different i.e. theirs were 2 vs 6 weeks whereas ours might be 4 days vs 2 weeks.


Session 4- Social Media, Altmetrics and Collaborative Research

This session focused on how social media can be used to benefit research collaboratives, gave a fascinating insight into the growing world of altmetrics, and revealed the top 10 visual abstracts by twitter engagement for #NRCM2018. Much of what was covered in this session can be found of the BURST twitter page(!) but below is a breakdown of some of the key take home messages.

Key points:

  • Social media, particularly twitter, is a powerful tool for engaging healthcare professionals, governing bodies, patients and the general public in research. It makes research more accessible and transparent, offers a platform for debate, and more easily gives a voice to patients.
  • Very important to stick to GMC guidance and local trust guidance on social media use at all times.
  • Data presented showed patients are increasingly keen for clinicians to have professional social media accounts – shows transparency & modern approach.
  • Could be a useful tool for recruitment – more professional guidance due on this.
  • The future – gifs? Instagram?
  • Altmetrics – an alternative way to assess impact. Looks at professional citations in public documents/government use, social media engagement etc. Potential flaws e.g. when clickbait-esque titles used, but countered if you click on the altmetric number – gives breakdown of where an article has scored highly. Growing field – worthy of further Ix.
  • IDENTIFY study visual abstract came 3rd overall!


Breakout sessions

Session: What the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) can offer you

This session involved short presentations as it was designed as an interactive Q & A session.

Main points covered were:

The NIHR budget

Bulk of Clinical Research Network (CRN)  goes on clinical delivery, e.g research nurses

Insight into NIHR surgical portfolio studies

Key theme was the importance of engaging with trainees early to facilitate research onwards into consultant level. These consultants will then engage the next generation of trainees. The associate PI scheme was also highlighted and discussed.


Session: How to get funding from NIHR

This was an excellent session that covered in detail how to approach a funding application to the NIHR.

The research for patient benefit (RfPB) scheme

–      up to £350k for three years

–      All NHS researchers eligible

–      Three competition rounds per annum

–      Two stage process

–      Eight regional advisory panels

Key aspect is a clear trajectory to patient benefit. There is an option to have a joint lead application for NIHR funding which is a new option. Scale of impact is important and needs to be clearly articulated. Other important considerations for an application:

–      Recruitment

–      Expertise of the research team, eg. health economics, statistics.

–      Collaboration with clinical trial units encouraged

–      Dissemination strategy vital to achieving patient benefit


Session: How can pilot and feasibility studies optimise the design and conduct of surgical trials?

This session looked at some of the challenges of conducting surgical trials, what feasibility studies are and how they can be useful in surgical trials, and took the format of a discussion followed by group work designing a pilot study.

Key points:

  •       Definitions:

o   Feasibility study = piece of research done before a main study – should we proceed and, if so, how?

o   Pilot study = piece of research more similar to main trial done prior to main trial – a version of the main trial, do all these components work together?

o   All pilot studies are feasibility studies, not vice versa.

  •       Challenges in surgical trials can be broadly grouped into methodological/design (recruitment, intervention, measurement of outcomes) and cultural (equipoise). Feasibility studies can help to optimise design by addressing uncertainties, establishing routes of interest and optimising/streamlining the process.
  •       Important to remember feasibility studies are not powered/designed to detect a significant difference – interpret pilot data with caution!
  •       Feasibility studies can help ensure relevance of research question, test recruitment and enable tweaks to be made.
  •       Ensure feasibility study enables you to accurately assess outcome measures – does it test their definitions, the follow-up, adherence, attrition etc?
  •       Also worth considering – will intervention stabilise after initial recruitment in pilot study?
  •       When designing a pilot study, how much uncertainty with the design is there?

o   If high – external pilot – cannot use data in end study.

o   If low – internal pilot – data will contribute to main study.

Session: Data management tips & tricks

This session covered optimising Case Report Form (CRF)  and database management in research.

Key points:

  •       When designing CRFs

o   Think about computerisation – can it be done on an electronic collection tool? If not, how easy is it to computerise the hard copy form?

o   Keep it simple – use numbers, dates, clearly defined values, use yes/no questions, and if more complex use category lists.

o   Consider using code lists, shading to make clear your desired responses (appropriately, obviously), and notched boxes to clearly denote exactly how many figures you’re after.

o   Above all, be consistent and be specific.

  •       Only collect what is needed; should be relevant to primary and secondary outcome measures. Adhere to your protocol.
  •       Remember, if you have the data, you are obliged to be checking it!


Session: Associate Principal Investigator (PI) scheme

The PI scheme aims to provide formal recognition to trainees who are involved in local research, as long as certain criteria are met:

–      6 month duration of involvement

–      Good Clinical Practice (GCP) compliant

–      Involvement in CRF completion/documentation

–      Involvement in trial planning or progress meetings

–      Involvement in patient recruitment

At present only 2 general surgical studies are signed up to the program but any study could potentially be involved as long as the PI and the Trial Management Group (TMG) contact the co-ordinators of the scheme (Mr. Richard Wilkin). More details available in the surgical section of the NIHR website.


Session: JCST Quality Indicators in Academic Surgery

This session was an interactive one designed to create quality indicators for NIHR integrated academic clinical jobs (e.g. NIHR Academic Foundation Program, NIHR ACF, NIHR ACL). The idea was to identify key aspects of these jobs that should be specified as measurable outcomes to allow the evaluation of the quality of a particular academic job. Things that we learnt that trainees identified as being important included:

  1. Dedicated space and university infrastructure for the trainee to use during their academic time
  2. Two named contacts for academic supervision
  3. Clear and transparent method of accessing funding and resources for research methodology training

If you would like to contribute your views to forming this document which aims to get higher approval and publication, then please contact


Session: One-stop NIHR Research Clinic

This was a one-one session with an academic Dr. Ian Fletcher from the research design service (NIHR RDS). There are different research design offices in each region e.g. Central and SouthWest (London), East of England etc that can help researchers plan their research projects and trial. They also help you with the NIHR funding application.

Contact your local research design office in the early stages of your project planning.PPI or Patient Public Involvement is something NIHR look for from the inception of the project. They can also help us by providing a PPI member to join our team for the NIHR funding application- this makes the application much stronger. There are also clinical trial units that can help us set up, recruit and analyse RCTs, these are all chargeable but the costs are covered by the NIHR funding. Again, something that would make the funding application stronger.

Finally, a member of the team with a previous grant from NIHR would also add to the application. The services offered by the research design office are free- contact your local RDS for further information.


Session- Research clinic

This was a very useful session providing critical appraisal of upcoming studies from trainee led collaborative groups like BURST by a panel comprising of a senior urologist, statistician and NIHR committee member. Three upcoming BURST projects were discussed- IDENTIFY RCT, DETORT and PROPEL. The committee made good points about the protocols and helped BURST gain an external perspective on their projects, we took a lot away from this session. It is also useful to defend and debate your study protocols prior to conducting large scale research.