Development and application of health outcome descriptors facilitated decision-making in the production of practice guidelines

OBJECTIVE

Stakeholders involved in developing recommendations need to have a common understanding of health outcomes and the perspective of affected individuals. In this paper we report on the development and application of health outcome descriptors (HODs) to inform decision-making by panels developing guideline recommendations.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Ten American Society of Hematology guideline panels addressing the management of venous thromboembolism developed HODs, rated their importance and health utility, applied them to prioritize outcomes, and to balance potential benefits and harms to formulate recommendations.

RESULTS

It was feasible to involve 18 panelists in developing 127 HODs. There was high agreement (82%) across the ten panels about outcomes perceived as critical or important for decision-making. Panelists' utility ratings of the outcomes were strongly correlated with panelists' outcome importance ratings (Pearson's r=-0.88). HODs were incorporated into Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence-to-decision (EtD) frameworks to support a shared understanding of health outcomes in panel deliberations.

CONCLUSION

HODs serve as a valuable tool to promote an explicit, common understanding of health outcomes during clinical guideline development and across different stakeholders. They are helpful across multiple steps of guideline development to facilitate panels' judgements, aiming to avoid variable implicit interpretations of health outcomes.

Characteristics and Outcomes Among US Patients Hospitalized for Ischemic Stroke Before vs During the COVID-19 Pandemic

IMPORTANCE

After the emergence of COVID-19, studies reported a decrease in hospitalizations of patients with ischemic stroke (IS), but there are little to no data regarding hospitalizations for the remainder of 2020, including outcome data from a large cohort of patients with IS and comorbid COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE

To assess hospital discharge rates, demographic factors, and outcomes of hospitalization associated with the COVID-19 pandemic among US patients with IS before vs during the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study used data from the Vizient Clinical Data Base on 324 013 patients with IS at 478 nonfederal hospitals in 43 US states between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020. Patients were eligible if they were admitted to the hospital on a nonelective basis and were not receiving hospice care at the time of admission. A total of 41 166 discharged between January and March 2020 were excluded from the analysis because they had unreliable data on COVID-19 status, leaving 282 847 patients for the study.

EXPOSURE

Ischemic stroke and laboratory-confirmed COVID-19.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Monthly counts of discharges among patients with IS in 2020. Demographic characteristics and outcomes, including in-hospital death, among patients with IS who were discharged in 2019 (control group) were compared with those of patients with IS with or without comorbid COVID-19 (COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 groups, respectively) who were discharged between April and December 2020.

RESULTS

Of the 282 847 patients included in the study, 165 912 (50.7% male; 63.4% White; 26.3% aged ≥80 years) were allocated to the control group; 111 418 of 116 935 patients (95.3%; 51.9% male; 62.8% White; 24.6% aged ≥80 years) were allocated to the non-COVID-19 group and 5517 of 116 935 patients (4.7%; 58.0% male; 42.5% White; 21.3% aged ≥80 years) to the COVID-19 group. A mean (SD) of 13 846 (553) discharges per month among patients with IS was reported in 2019. Discharges began decreasing in February 2020, reaching a low of 10 846 patients in April 2020 before returning to a prepandemic level of 13 639 patients by July 2020. A mean (SD) of 13 492 (554) discharges per month was recorded for the remainder of 2020. Black and Hispanic patients accounted for 21.4% and 7.0% of IS discharges in 2019, respectively, but accounted for 27.5% and 16.0% of those discharged with IS and comorbid COVID-19 in 2020. Compared with patients in the control and non-COVID-19 groups, those in the COVID-19 group were less likely to smoke (16.0% vs 17.2% vs 6.4%, respectively) and to have hypertension (73.0% vs 73.1% vs 68.2%) or dyslipidemia (61.2% vs 63.2% vs 56.6%) but were more likely to have diabetes (39.8% vs 40.5% vs 53.0%), obesity (16.2% vs 18.4% vs 24.5%), acute coronary syndrome (8.0% vs 9.2% vs 15.8%), or pulmonary embolus (1.9% vs 2.4% vs 6.8%) and to require intubation (11.3% vs 12.3% vs 37.6%). After adjusting for baseline factors, patients with IS and COVID-19 were more likely to die in the hospital than were patients with IS in 2019 (adjusted odds ratio, 5.17; 95% CI, 4.83-5.53; National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale adjusted odds ratio, 3.57; 95% CI, 3.15-4.05).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, after the emergence of COVID-19, hospital discharges of patients with IS decreased in the US but returned to prepandemic levels by July 2020. Among patients with IS between April and December 2020, comorbid COVID-19 was relatively common, particularly among Black and Hispanic populations, and morbidity was high.

Online questionnaire, clinical and biomechanical measurements for outcome prediction of plantar heel pain: feasibility for a cohort study

BACKGROUND

Plantar heel pain (PHP) accounts for 11-15% of foot symptoms requiring professional care in adults. Recovery is variable, with no robust prognostic guides for sufferers, clinicians or researchers. Therefore, we aimed to determine the validity, reliability and feasibility of questionnaire, clinical and biomechanical measures selected to generate a prognostic model in a subsequent cohort study.

METHODS

Thirty-six people (19 females & 17 males; 20-63 years) were recruited with equal numbers in each of three groups: people with PHP (PwPHP), other foot pain (PwOP) and healthy (H) controls. Eighteen people performed a questionnaire battery twice in a randomised order to determine online and face-to-face agreement. The remaining 18 completed the online questionnaire once, plus clinical measurements including strength and range of motion, mid-foot mobility, palpation and ultrasound assessment of plantar fascia. Nine of the same people underwent biomechanical assessment in the form of a graded loaded challenge augmenting walking with added external weight and amended step length on two occasions. Outcome measures were (1) feasibility of the data collection procedure, measurement time and other feedback; (2) establishing equivalence to usual procedures for the questionnaire battery; known-group validity for clinical and imaging measures; and initial validation and reliability of biomechanical measures.

RESULTS

There were no systematic differences between online and face-to-face administration of questionnaires (p-values all > .05) nor an administration order effect (d = - 0.31-0.25). Questionnaire reliability was good or excellent (ICC2,1_absolute)(ICC 0.86-0.99), except for two subscales. Full completion of the survey took 29 ± 14 min. Clinically, PwPHP had significantly less ankle-dorsiflexion and hip internal-rotation compared to healthy controls [mean (±SD) for PwPHP-PwOP-H = 14°(±6)-18°(±8)-28°(±10); 43°(±4)- 45°(±9)-57°(±12) respectively; p < .02 for both]. Plantar fascia thickness was significantly higher in PwPHP (3.6(0.4) mm vs 2.9(0.4) mm, p = .01) than the other groups. The graded loading challenge demonstrated progressively increasing ground reaction forces.

CONCLUSION

Online questionnaire administration was valid therefore facilitating large cohort recruitment and being relevant to remote service evaluation and research. The physical and ultrasound examination revealed the expected differences between groups, while the graded loaded challenge progressively increases load and warrants future research. Clinician and researchers can be confident about these methodological approaches and the cohort study, from which useful clinical tools should result, is feasible.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Evaluating the cerebrospinal fluid tap test with the Hellström iNPH scale for patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus

BACKGROUND

The cerebrospinal fluid tap test (CSF TT) is used for selecting shunt surgery candidates among patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH). We aimed to evaluate the predictive value of the CSF TT, by using the Hellström iNPH scale for shunted iNPH patients with a standardized method.

METHODS

One hundred and sixteen shunt-operated iNPH patients were retrospectively included in this study. The gait and balance domains in the iNPH scale were used as outcome measures for the CSF TT and the total iNPH scale score as the postoperative outcome. A positive response to CSF TT was defined as a change of ≥ 5 points in the gait domain and ≥ 16 points in the balance domain. Differences between CSF TT responders and non-responders, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, accuracy, and correlations between changes from baseline to post CSF TT and from baseline to the postoperative follow-up, were calculated.

RESULTS

In the CSF TT there were 63.8% responders in the gait domain and correspondingly 44.3% in the balance domain. CSF TT responders had a significantly better postoperative outcome in the total scale score (gait P ≤ 0.001, balance P ≤ 0.012) and gait CSF TT responders improved more in gait (P ≤ 0.001) and balance CSF TT responders in balance (P ≤ 0.001). No differences between CSF TT gait or balance responders could be found in neuropsychological or urinary continence assessments postoperatively. The sensitivity and specificity of the CSF TT and the outcome of the total iNPH scale score postoperatively were 68.1% and 52.0% for gait and 47.8% and 68.0% for balance, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The CSF TT, with the Hellström iNPH scale as the outcome measure, has clear limitations in predicting postoperative results. The gait domain may be used to predict outcomes for gait, but the balance domain is too insensitive.

Identifying maternal deaths with the use of hospital data versus death certificates: a retrospective population-based study

BACKGROUND

Accurate identification of maternal deaths is paramount for audit and policy purposes. Our aim was to determine the accuracy and completeness of data on maternal deaths in hospital and those recorded on a death certificate, and the level of agreement between the 2 data sources.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective population-based study using data for Ontario, Canada, from Apr. 1, 2002, to Dec. 31, 2015. We used Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) databases to identify deaths during inpatient, emergency department and same-day surgery encounters. We captured Vital Statistics deaths in the Office of the Registrar General, Deaths (ORGD) data set. Deaths were considered within 42 days and within 365 days after a pregnancy outcome (live birth, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy or induced abortion) for all multiple and singleton pregnancies. We calculated agreement statistics and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Among 1 679 455 live births and stillbirths, 398 pregnancy-related deaths in the ORGD data set were mapped to a birth in CIHI databases, and 77 (16.2%) were not. Among 2 039 849 recognized pregnancies, 534 pregnancy-related deaths in the ORGD data set were linked to CIHI records, and 68 (11.3%) were not. Among live births and stillbirths, after pregnancy-related deaths in the ORGD data set not matched to a maternal death in the CIHI databases were removed, concordance measures between CIHI and ORGD records for maternal death within 42 days after delivery included a κ value of 0.87 (95% CI 0.82-0.91) and positive percent agreement of 0.88 (95% CI 0.83-0.94). The corresponding measures were similar for maternal death within 42 days after the end of a recognized pregnancy. When unlinked pregnancy-related deaths in the ORGD data set were retained, agreement measures declined for death within 42 days after a live birth or stillbirth (κ = 0.68, 95% CI 0.62-0.74). For maternal death within 365 days after a live birth or stillbirth, or after the end of a recognized pregnancy, the concordance statistics were generally favourable when unlinked pregnancy-related deaths in the ORGD data set were removed but were substantially declined when they were retained.

INTERPRETATION

Maternal mortality cannot be ascertained solely with the use of hospital data, including beyond 42 days after the end of pregnancy. To improve linkage, we propose including health insurance numbers on provincial and territorial medical death certificates.

Model-Based Estimation of Colorectal Cancer Screening and Outcomes During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Importance

COVID-19 has decreased colorectal cancer screenings.

Objective

To estimate the degree to which expanding fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening participation during the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with clinical outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A previously developed simulation model was adopted to estimate how much COVID-19 may have contributed to colorectal cancer outcomes. The model included the US population estimated to have completed colorectal cancer screening pre-COVID-19 according the American Cancer Society. The model was designed to estimate colorectal cancer outcomes between 2020 and 2023. This analysis was completed between July and December 2020.

Exposures

Adults screened for colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer cases detected by stage.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Estimates of colorectal cancer outcomes across 4 scenarios: (1) 9 months of 50% colorectal cancer screenings followed by 21 months of 75% colorectal cancer screenings; (2) 18 months of 50% screening followed by 12 months of 75% screening; (3) scenario 1 with increased use of fecal immunochemical tests; and (4) scenario 2 with increased use of fecal immunochemical tests.

Results

In our simulation model, COVID-19-related reductions in care utilization resulted in an estimated 1 176 942 to 2 014 164 fewer colorectal cancer screenings, 8346 to 12 894 fewer colorectal cancer diagnoses, and 6113 to 9301 fewer early-stage colorectal cancer diagnoses between 2020 and 2023. With an abbreviated period of reduced colorectal cancer screenings, increasing fecal immunochemical test use was associated with an estimated additional 588 844 colorectal cancer screenings and 2836 colorectal cancer diagnoses, of which 1953 (68.9%) were early stage. In the event of a prolonged period of reduced colorectal cancer screenings, increasing fecal immunochemical test use was associated with an estimated additional 655 825 colorectal cancer screenings and 2715 colorectal cancer diagnoses, of which 1944 (71.6%) were early stage.

Conclusions and Relevance

These results suggest that the increased use of fecal immunochemical tests during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with increased colorectal cancer screening participation and more colorectal cancer diagnoses at earlier stages. If our estimates are borne out in real-world clinical practice, increasing fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening participation during the COVID-19 pandemic could mitigate the consequences of reduced screening rates during the pandemic for colorectal cancer outcomes.

A core outcome set development for a French national prospective study about the effect of mediolateral episiotomy on obstetric anal sphincter injury during operative vaginal delivery (INSTRUMODA)

BACKGROUND

We aimed at developing a core outcome and variables of interest set to investigate the effects of mediolateral episiotomy on Obstetric Anal Sphincter Injury (OASI) during and after operative delivery in nulliparous women in a large-scale one-year observational French study including 15,000 women (INSTRUMODA).

METHODS

A list of outcomes and variables of interest was suggested to obstetricians participating in the INSTRUMODA study using online questionnaires divided into 7 categories: the woman's history and course of pregnancy, course of labor, modalities of operative delivery, episiotomy characteristics, immediate maternal morbidity, one-year maternal morbidity, immediate neonatal morbidity. We used a three-round DELPHI method to reach a consensus. In the first round, outcomes and variables considered as essential by 70% or more of obstetricians were included in the corpus whereas they were excluded when 70% rated them as "not important". In the second round, non-consensual outcomes and variables were reassessed and excluded or definitively included if considered as "not important" or essential by 50% or more of the obstetricians. During the first round, obstetricians were invited to suggest new outcomes and/or variables that were then assessed in the second and third round. We used the same method to develop a core outcome and variables of interest set in a population of women in the community recruited via an association of patients. At the end of the procedure the core outcome and variables of interest sets were merged to provide the final core outcome set for the INSTRUMODA study.

RESULTS

Fifty-three obstetricians and 16 women filled out questionnaires. After the 3 rounds of Delphi procedure in each population, 74 outcomes and variables were consensually reported by obstetricians and 92 by women in the community. By mixing these two consensual corpora we reported a final consensual list of 114 variables of interest and outcomes for both obstetricians and women.

CONCLUSION

We established a core outcome and variables of interest set among obstetricians and women in the community to investigate the association between mediolateral episiotomy and OASI during operative delivery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The INSTRUMODA study was registered on https://clinicaltrials.gov on June 25, 2020 ( NCT04446780 ).

National diabetes registries: do they make a difference?

AIMS

The global epidemic of diabetes mellitus continues to expand, including its large impact on national health care. Measuring diabetes outcomes and their causes of variation highlights areas for improvement in care and efficiency gains; large registries carry this potential. By means of a systematic review, we aimed to give an overview of national registries worldwide by quantifying their data and assessing their influence on diabetes care.

METHODS

The literature on MEDLINE up to March 31, 2020, was searched, using keywords diabetes mellitus, national, registry, registration, and/or database. National disease-specific registries from corresponding articles were included. Database characteristics and clinical variables were obtained. All registries were compared to the ICHOM standard set of outcomes.

RESULTS

We identified 12 national clinical diabetes registries, comprising a total of 7,181,356 diabetic patients worldwide. Nearly all registries recorded weight, HbA1c, lipid profile, and insulin treatment; the recording of other variables varied to a great extent. Overall, registries corresponded fairly well with the ICHOM set. Most registries proved to monitor and improve the quality of diabetes care using guidelines as a benchmark. The effects on national healthcare policy were more variable and often less clear.

CONCLUSIONS

National diabetes registries confer clear insights into diagnostics, complications, and treatment. The extent to which registries influenced national healthcare policy was less clear. A globally implemented standard outcome set has the potential to improve concordance between national registries, enhance the comparison and exchange of diabetes outcomes, and allocate resources and interventions where most needed.

A Patient-Centric Tool to Facilitate Goal Attainment Scaling in Neurogenic Bladder and Bowel Dysfunction: Path to Individualization

OBJECTIVES

People with neurogenic bladder and/or bowel dysfunction experience diverse challenges that can be difficult to evaluate with standardized outcome measures. Goal attainment scaling (GAS) is an individualized, patient-centric outcome measure that enables patients/caregivers to identify and track their own treatment goals. Because creating goals de novo can be cumbersome, we aimed to develop a neurogenic bladder/bowel dysfunction goal menu to facilitate goal attainment scaling uptake and use.

METHODS

We conducted a workshop with 6 expert clinicians to develop an initial menu. Individual interviews with 12 people living with neurogenic bladder and/or bowel dysfunction and 2 clinician panels with 5 additional experts aided us in refining the menu. A thematic framework analysis identified emergent themes for analysis and reporting.

RESULTS

Interview participants were adults (median = 36 years, range 25-58), most with spinal cord injury (75%; 9/12). Of 24 goals identified initially, 2 (8%) were not endorsed and were removed, and 3 goals were added. Most participants listed "Impact on Life" goals (eg, Exercise, Emotional Well-Being) among their 5 most important goals (58%; 35/60). Three main themes emerged: challenges posed by incontinence, limitations on everyday life, and need for personalized care.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a clinical outcome assessment tool following a multistep process of representative stakeholder engagement. This patient-centric tool consists of 25 goals specific to people living with neurogenic bladder and/or bowel dysfunction. Asking people what matters most to them can identify important constructs that clinicians might have overlooked.

Effect of Tactile Experience During Preterm Infant Feeding on Clinical Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Although the survival rate of very preterm infants has improved, rates of subsequent neurobehavioral disabilities remain high. One factor implicated in poor neurobehavioral and developmental outcomes is hospitalization and inconsistent caregiving patterns in the neonatal intensive care unit. Although much underlying brain damage occurs in utero or shortly after birth, neuroprotective strategies may stop progression of damage, particularly when these strategies are used during the most sensitive periods of neural plasticity 2-3 months before term age.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this analysis was to test the effect of a patterned feeding experience involving a tactile component (touch and/or holding) provided during feedings on preterm infants' clinical outcomes, measured by oral feeding progress, as an early indicator of neurodevelopment.

METHODS

We used an experimental, longitudinal, two-group random assignment design. Preterm infants (n = 120) were enrolled within the first week of life and randomized to an experimental group receiving a patterned feeding experience or to a control group receiving usual feeding care.

RESULTS

Analysis of data from 91 infants showed that infants receiving touch at more than 25% of early gavage feedings achieved full oral feeding more quickly; as touch exposure increased, time from first oral to full oral feeding decreased. There was no association between holding during early gavage feedings or touch during transition feedings and time to full oral feeding.

DISCUSSION

Neurological expectation during critical periods of development is important for infants. However, a preterm infant's environment is not predictable: Caregivers change regularly, medical procedures dictate touch and holding, and care provision based on infant cues is limited. Current knowledge supports caregiving that occurs with a naturally occurring sensation (i.e., hunger), is provided in a manner that is congruent with the expectation of the neurological system, and occurs with enough regularity to enhance neuronal and synaptic development. In this study, we modeled an experience infants would "expect" if they were not in the neonatal intensive care unit and demonstrated a shorter time from first oral feeding to full oral feeding, an important clinical outcome with neurodevelopmental implications. We recommend further research to determine the effect of patterned caregiving experiences on other areas of neurodevelopment, particularly those that may occur later in life.

Association of Mandatory Bundled Payments for Joint Replacement With Postacute Care Outcomes Among Medicare and Medicaid Dual Eligible Patients

IMPORTANCE

The Medicare comprehensive care for joint replacement (CJR) model, a mandatory bundled payment program started in April 2016 for hospitals in randomly selected metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), may help reduce postacute care (PAC) use and episode costs, but its impact on disparities between Medicaid and non-Medicaid beneficiaries is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To determine effects of the CJR program on differences (or disparities) in PAC use and outcomes by Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility status.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Observational cohort study of 2013-2017, based on difference-in-differences (DID) analyses on Medicare data for 1,239,452 Medicare-only patients, 57,452 dual eligibles with full Medicaid benefits, and 50,189 dual eligibles with partial Medicaid benefits who underwent hip or knee surgery in hospitals of 75 CJR MSAs and 121 control MSAs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Risk-adjusted differences in rates of institutional PAC [skilled nursing facility (SNF), inpatient rehabilitation, or long-term hospital care] use and readmissions; and for the subgroup of patients discharged to SNF, risk-adjusted differences in SNF length of stay, payments, and quality measured by star ratings, rate of successful discharge to community, and rate of transition to long-stay nursing home resident.

RESULTS

The CJR program was associated with reduced institutional PAC use and readmissions for patients in all 3 groups. For example, it was associated with reductions in 90-day readmission rate by 1.8 percentage point [DID estimate=-1.8; 95% confidence interval (CI), -2.6 to -0.9; P<0.001] for Medicare-only patients, by 1.6 percentage points (DID estimate=-1.6; 95% CI, -3.1 to -0.1; P=0.04) for full-benefit dual eligibles, and by 2.0 percentage points (DID estimate=-2.0; 95% CI, -3.6 to -0.4; P=0.01) for partial-benefit dual eligibles. These CJR-associated effects did not differ between dual eligibles (differences in above DID estimates=0.2; 95% CI, -1.4 to 1.7; P=0.81 for full-benefit patients; and -0.3; 95% CI, -1.9 to 1.3; P=0.74 for partial-benefit patients) and Medicare-only patients. Among patients discharged to SNF, the CJR program showed no effect on successful community discharge, transition to long-term care, or their persistent disparities.

CONCLUSIONS

The CJR program did not help reduce persistent disparities in readmissions or SNF-specific outcomes related to Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility, likely due to its lack of financial incentives for reduced disparities and improved SNF outcomes.

Systematic review of outcomes and endpoints in preventive migraine clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Over the last six decades (earliest included publication from 1959), clinical trials of migraine preventive treatments have led to the regulatory approval of many medications and devices. Despite similar clinical goals, the outcomes and endpoints used in these trials are broad and not well standardized.

OBJECTIVE

To describe results from a systematic literature review focused on outcomes and endpoints used in preventive migraine clinical trials.

METHOD

A systematic literature review, following a pre-specified (unregistered) protocol developed to adhere to recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, was conducted to characterize the endpoints and outcomes used in preventive migraine clinical trials. Predetermined terms were searched in PubMed on October 28, 2019. Data related to trial design, subject characteristics, outcomes, and endpoints reported in each publication were extracted. Descriptive summaries of these features were tabulated for the recent subset of publications, published during or after 1988, that were randomized, blinded, and focused on pharmacological or device therapies for the preventive treatment of migraine.

RESULTS

The initial literature search identified 1506 publications, of which 757 publications were eligible for data extraction. Of specific clinical interest were the recent subset of 268 articles (268/757, 35.4%) fulfilling the targeted criteria. Results showed that the outcomes used to define endpoints varied substantially across publications. For example, in the recent subset of publications, 68.7% (184/268) of the publications examined ≥1 migraine-specific outcome, 39.6% (106/268) examined ≥1 headache-specific outcome, 50.7% (136/268) examined ≥1 acute/rescue medication use outcome, 40.3% (108/268) examined ≥1 headache-related patient-reported outcome measure (PROM), and 22.0% (59/268) examined ≥1 non-headache-specific PROM. Furthermore, the definition of the endpoints used (e.g., change from baseline, fixed timepoint comparisons, categorization of "responders" to treatment based on wide variety of "responder definitions") also differed across publications.

CONCLUSION

Publications from clinical trials of preventive migraine pharmacologic and device treatments differed in terms of study design, endpoint definitions, and how endpoints and outcomes were measured. Although there were common outcomes and endpoints used across publications, no clear "standardized" set of endpoints and outcomes emerged. The inconsistencies in endpoints and outcomes within this literature suggest that the development of a uniform set of outcomes and endpoints could improve the clinical meaningfulness of clinical trial results, facilitate cross-trial comparisons and better inform patient care. This standard set of outcomes and endpoints should be statistically robust and informed by the priorities of various stakeholders, most importantly, the needs and preferences of people living with migraine.

Systematic review of outcomes and endpoints in acute migraine clinical trials

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

To review the acute migraine clinical trial literature and provide a summary of the endpoints and outcomes used in such trials.

METHOD

A systematic literature review, following a prespecified (but unregistered) protocol developed to adhere to recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, was conducted to understand endpoints and outcomes used in acute migraine clinical trials. Predefined terms were searched in PubMed to locate clinical trials assessing acute migraine treatments. Final database search was conducted on October 28, 2019. Identified publications were reviewed against established inclusion and exclusion criteria to determine eligibility. Data related to general trial design characteristics, sample characteristics, and outcomes and endpoints reported in each publication were extracted from eligible publications. Descriptive summaries of design features, sample characteristics, and the endpoints and outcomes employed across publications were constructed. Outcomes are presented within four broad categories: (a) pain-related outcomes (pain relief, pain freedom, etc.), (b) associated symptoms (nausea, photophobia, etc.), (c) disability/impairment/impact, (d) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs, general health and migraine/headache-specific). Endpoint types were categorized within three broad categories: (a) change from baseline, (b) fixed timepoint, and (c) responder definitions (e.g., 50% reduction). This review focuses on a subset of recent (1998 or later) randomized and blinded publications evaluating drugs or medical devices.

RESULTS

Of 1567 publications found through the initial search and reference section reviews, 705 met criteria and were included for data extraction. Inter-rater agreement kappas for the descriptive variables extracted had an average kappa estimate of 0.86. The more recent, randomized and blinded pharmaceutical and medical device article subset includes 451 publications (451/705, 63.9%). The outcomes and endpoints varied substantially across trials, ranging from pain relief or freedom, freedom from or relief of migraine-associated symptoms, use of acute or rescue medication, and various other PROMs, including measures of satisfaction and quality of life. Within the recent randomized and blinded article subset, most articles examined ≥1 pain-related outcome (430/451, 95.3%). Of the publications that examined pain, outcomes most often used were pain relief (310/430, 72.1%), pain freedom (279/430, 64.9%), and headache recurrence (202/43,051, 47.0%) or rescue medication use (278/430, 64.9%). Associated symptoms such as nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia were more frequently measured (299/451, 66.3%) compared to most bothersome associated symptom (16/451, 3.5%), as it is a new addition to regulatory guidance. Over one-third of eligible publications examined disability/impairment (186/451, 41.2%) or ≥1 PROM (159/451, 35.3%). The definition of the endpoints used (e.g., change from baseline, fixed timepoint comparisons, categorization of "responders" to treatment based on wide variety of "responder definitions") also differed substantially across publications.

CONCLUSION

Acute migraine clinical trials exhibit a large amount of variability in outcomes and endpoints used, in addition to the variability in how outcomes and endpoints were used from trial-to-trial. There were some common elements across trials that align with guidance from the International Headache Society, the Food and Drug Administration and other regulatory agencies (e.g., assessing pain and associated symptoms, 2-hour post-treatment). Other aspects of acute migraine clinical trial design did not follow guidance. For example, multi-item PROMs intended to measure constructs (e.g., scales) are rarely used, the use of pain-related outcomes is inconsistent, some associated symptom assessments are idiosyncratic, and the timing of the assessment of primary endpoints is variable. The development of a core set of outcomes and endpoints for acute migraine clinical trials that are patient-centered and statistically robust could improve the conduct of individual trials, facilitate cross-trial comparisons, and better support informed treatment decisions by healthcare professionals and patients.

The Structure of Research Questions in Randomized Controlled Trials in the Rehabilitation Field: A Methodological Study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to assess whether and how the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes) format is described to frame research questions in randomized controlled trials looking at effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions.

DESIGN

A methodological study was conducted. Randomized controlled trials in the rehabilitation field, published between July 1, 2019, and December 31, 2019, were included. The framing of the primary research question from each trial was evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 97 randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis. The most frequent framing of the primary research question was as an "objective" statement (55%), and in 33% of the articles, this was stated as an "objective" together with a "hypothesis" description. All PICO elements were present in 55% of research questions, but only 49% have used the statement suggested by Cochrane.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study suggest that a specific item about the "research question" and the rationale that drove the proposed design following the form suggested by Cochrane should be included in the RCT Rehabilitation Checklist.

A systematic review finds Core Outcome Set uptake varies widely across different areas of health

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our review was to bring together studies that had assessed the uptake of core outcome sets (COS) to explore the level of uptake across different COS and areas of health.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We examined the citations of 337 COS reports to identify studies that had assessed the uptake of a particular COS in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or systematic reviews (SRs).

RESULTS

We identified 24 studies that had assessed uptake in RCTs and two studies that had assessed uptake in SRs. The studies covered a total of 17/337 (5%) COS. Uptake rates reported for RCTs varied from 0% of RCTs (gout) to 82% RCTs (rheumatoid arthritis) measuring the full COS. Studies that assessed uptake of individual core outcomes showed a wide variation in uptake between the outcomes. Suggested barriers to uptake included lack of validated measures, lack of patient and other key stakeholder involvement in COS development, and lack of awareness of the COS.

CONCLUSIONS

Few studies have been undertaken to assess the uptake of COS in RCTs and SRs. Further studies are needed to assess whether COS have been implemented across a wider range of disease categories and to explore the barriers and facilitators to COS uptake.

Criteria to Evaluate the Quality of Outcome Reporting in Randomized Controlled Trials of Rehabilitation Interventions

ABSTRACT

No standardized guideline for the reporting of outcomes measures in randomized controlled trials of rehabilitation interventions is currently available. This study includes four phases to identify, synthesize, and make recommendations for potential attributes of reporting criteria of outcome measures in rehabilitation randomized controlled trials. First, we surveyed the author instructions for rehabilitation journals to determine how journals require authors to report outcomes. Second, we reviewed all consolidated standards of reporting trials extensions to determine how other speciality groups require reporting of outcomes in randomized controlled trials. Third, we conducted a focused scoping review to examine the nature and variations of criteria used to evaluate the quality of outcome measures in randomized controlled trials. Finally, we synthesized the information from phases 1-3 and propose four criteria specific to the reporting of outcomes in randomized controlled trials of rehabilitation interventions: (1) clearly describe the construct to be measured as outcome(s); (2) justify the selection of outcome measures by mapping to World Health Organization International Classification of Function, Disability, and Health (International Classification of Functioning) framework; justify the psychometric properties (relevance, validity, reliability) of the selected measurement tool; (3) clearly describe the timing of outcome measurement, with consideration of the health condition, the course of disease, and hypothesized effect of intervention; and (4) complete and unselective reporting of outcome data.

Precision clinical trials: a framework for getting to precision medicine for neurobehavioural disorders

The goal of precision medicine (individually tailored treatments) is not being achieved for neurobehavioural conditions such as psychiatric disorders. Traditional randomized clinical trial methods are insufficient for advancing precision medicine because of the dynamic complexity of these conditions. We present a pragmatic solution: the precision clinical trial framework, encompassing methods for individually tailored treatments. This framework includes the following: (1) treatment-targeted enrichment, which involves measuring patients' response after a brief bout of an intervention, and then randomizing patients to a full course of treatment, using the acute response to predict long-term outcomes; (2) adaptive treatments, which involve adjusting treatment parameters during the trial to individually optimize the treatment; and (3) precise measurement, which involves measuring predictor and outcome variables with high accuracy and reliability using techniques such as ecological momentary assessment. This review summarizes precision clinical trials and provides a research agenda, including new biomarkers such as precision neuroimaging, transcranial magnetic stimulation-electroencephalogram digital phenotyping and advances in statistical and machine-learning models. Validation of these approaches - and then widespread incorporation of the precision clinical trial framework - could help achieve the vision of precision medicine for neurobehavioural conditions.

International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification social determinants of health codes are poorly used in electronic health records

There have been increasing calls for clinicians to document social determinants of health (SDOH) in electronic health records (EHRs). One potential source of SDOH in the EHRs is in the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) Z codes (Z55-Z65). In February 2018, ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting approved that all clinicians, not just the physicians, involved in the care of a patient can document SDOH using these Z codes.To examine the utilization rate of the ICD-10-CM Z codes using data from a large network of EHRs.We conducted a retrospective analysis of EHR data between 2015 to 2018 in the OneFlorida Clinical Research Consortium, 1 of the 13 Clinical Data Research Networks funded by Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. We calculated the Z code utilization rate at both the encounter and patient levels.We found a low rate of utilization for these Z codes (270.61 per 100,000 at the encounter level and 2.03% at the patient level). We also found that the rate of utilization for these Z codes increased (from 255.62 to 292.79 per 100,000) since the official approval of Z code reporting from all clinicians by the American Hospital Association Coding Clinic and ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting became effective in February 2018.The SDOH Z codes are rarely used by clinicians. Providing clear guidelines and incentives for documenting the Z codes can promote their use in EHRs. Improvements in the EHR systems are probably needed to better document SDOH.

The Italian Version of SCORE-15: Validation and Potential Use

SCORE-15 (Systemic Clinical Outcome and Routine Evaluation) is a 15-item questionnaire for completion by family members aged 12 years and older to assess outcomes in systemic therapy. This study aimed to investigate (a) the psychometric properties and the internal consistency reliability of the Italian version of SCORE-15, (b) clinical responsiveness, and (c) normative (Italian) criteria. Furthermore, (d) the study sought to evaluate the participants' representation of both their family and their problems, analyzing open-ended questions included in the SCORE-15. Data were collected from two clinical centers for 208 families (n = 507). Results confirmed the three-factor structure (i.e., strengths, difficulties, and communication), a good internal consistency reliability, and indicated a cutoff threshold for the Italian version. Furthermore, results showed that SCORE-15 is a good instrument for clinical responsiveness and that it can be used to explore the way in which family members describe their families and problems. Overall, SCORE-15 is a brief, psychometrically robust family assessment instrument that may be used for both researchers and practitioners in several domains of clinical and social psychology.

Standardizing definitions and reporting guidelines for the infertility core outcome set: an international consensus development study

STUDY QUESTION

Can consensus definitions for the core outcome set for infertility be identified in order to recommend a standardized approach to reporting?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Consensus definitions for individual core outcomes, contextual statements, and a standardized reporting table have been developed.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Different definitions exist for individual core outcomes for infertility. This variation increases the opportunities for researchers to engage with selective outcome reporting, which undermines secondary research and compromises clinical practice guideline development.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Potential definitions were identified by a systematic review of definition development initiatives and clinical practice guidelines and by reviewing Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. These definitions were discussed in a face-to-face consensus development meeting, which agreed consensus definitions. A standardized approach to reporting was also developed as part of the process.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Healthcare professionals, researchers, and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus development methods.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Forty-four potential definitions were inventoried across four definition development initiatives, including the Harbin Consensus Conference Workshop Group and International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, 12 clinical practice guidelines, and Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. Twenty-seven participants, from 11 countries, contributed to the consensus development meeting. Consensus definitions were successfully developed for all core outcomes. Specific recommendations were made to improve reporting.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations. There was limited representation from low- and middle-income countries.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

A minimum data set should assist researchers in populating protocols, case report forms, and other data collection tools. The generic reporting table should provide clear guidance to researchers and improve the reporting of their results within journal publications and conference presentations. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statement, and over 80 specialty journals have committed to implementing this core outcome set.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund, and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. Hans Evers reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. Richard Legro reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. Ben Mol reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. Craig Niederberger reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and a financial interest in NexHand. Ernest Ng reports research sponsorship from Merck. Annika Strandell reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. Jack Wilkinson reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. Andy Vail reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and of the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from HFEA for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. Lan Vuong reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023.

Beyond abstinence and relapse: cluster analysis of drug-use patterns during treatment as an outcome measure for clinical trials

RATIONALE

Many people being treated for opioid use disorder continue to use drugs during treatment. This use occurs in patterns that rarely conform to well-defined cycles of abstinence and relapse. Systematic identification and evaluation of these patterns could enhance analysis of clinical trials and provide insight into drug use.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate such an approach, we analyzed patterns of opioid and cocaine use from three randomized clinical trials of contingency management in methadone-treated participants.

METHODS

Sequences of drug test results were analyzed with unsupervised machine-learning techniques, including hierarchical clustering of categorical results (i.e., whether any samples were positive during each week) and K-means longitudinal clustering of quantitative results (i.e., the proportion positive each week). The sensitivity of cluster membership as an experimental outcome was assessed based on the effects of contingency management. External validation of clusters was based on drug craving and other symptoms of substance use disorder.

RESULTS

In each clinical trial, we identified four clusters of use patterns, which can be described as opioid use, cocaine use, dual use (opioid and cocaine), and partial/complete abstinence. Different clustering techniques produced substantially similar classifications of individual participants, with strong above-chance agreement. Contingency management increased membership in clusters with lower levels of drug use and fewer symptoms of substance use disorder.

CONCLUSIONS

Cluster analysis provides person-level output that is more interpretable and actionable than traditional outcome measures, providing a concrete answer to the question of what clinicians can tell patients about the success rates of new treatments.

Person Ability Scores as an Alternative to Norm-Referenced Scores as Outcome Measures in Studies of Neurodevelopmental Disorders

Although norm-referenced scores are essential to the identification of disability, they possess several features which affect their sensitivity to change. Norm-referenced scores often decrease over time among people with neurodevelopmental disorders who exhibit slower-than-average increases in ability. Further, the reliability of norm-referenced scores is lower at the tails of the distribution, resulting in floor effects and increased measurement error for people with neurodevelopmental disorders. In contrast, the person ability scores generated during the process of constructing a standardized test with item response theory are designed to assess change. We illustrate these limitations of norm-referenced scores, and relative advantages of ability scores, using data from studies of autism spectrum disorder and creatine transporter deficiency.

Outcome Measures for Core Symptoms of Intellectual Disability: State of the Field

Intellectual disability (ID) is defined by impairments in intellectual and adaptive functioning. As such, tools designed to assess these domains would theoretically be ideal outcome measures for treatment trials targeting core symptoms of ID. However, measures of intellectual and adaptive functioning have rarely been used as primary outcome measures to date and further study is needed regarding their usefulness to measure change. This area of inquiry is important because promising, mechanism-modifying treatments for conditions leading to ID are being initiated. To show efficacy, these treatments need to demonstrate an impact on core features of ID. After reviewing literature on this topic, we suggest solutions to several problems outlined, including use of out-of-age-range testing, alternative metrics, and development of new measures.

Construct Validity of Outcome Rating Scale (ORS) Scores in Clinical Samples: Extension of Harris, Murphy, and Rakes' (2019) Narrative Review

PURPOSE

A recent review of 24 studies primarily evaluated psychometric properties of the Outcome Rating Scale (ORS) related to coefficient alpha and convergent validity.

METHOD

To provide a fuller picture, this review examined effect size (ES) estimates and the full range of correlations between ORS scores and related measures.

RESULTS

Mean ORS ESs equaled 1.00 for 44 comparison periods. ORS scores correlated highest with measures of depression and evidenced larger ESs in depression treatments.

DISCUSSION

The ORS functions as a robust measure for detecting client progress in clinical samples that were primarily young, female, and Caucasian. Some results suggest ORS scores primarily reflect a rapid response to interventions.

CONCLUSION AND LIMITATIONS

Future research should assess ORS scores' psychometric properties in response to interventions with more heterogeneous client samples as well as its capacity to monitor change beyond initial sessions.

A Psychometric Evaluation of the Motor-Behavioral Assessment Scale for Use as an Outcome Measure in Rett Syndrome Clinical Trials

Rett syndrome (RTT) is a neurodevelopmental disorder that primarily affects females. Recent work indicates the potential for disease modifying therapies. However, there remains a need to develop outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Using data from a natural history study (n = 1,075), we examined the factor structure, internal consistency, and validity of the clinician-reported Motor Behavior Assessment scale (MBA). The analysis resulted in a five-factor model: (1) motor dysfunction, (2) functional skills, (3) social skills, (4) aberrant behavior, and (5) respiratory behaviors. Item Response Theory (IRT) analyses demonstrated that all items had acceptable discrimination. The revised MBA subscales showed a positive relationship with parent reported items, age, and a commonly used measure of clinical severity in RTT, and mutation type. Further work is needed to evaluate this measure longitudinally and to add items related to the RTT phenotype.