Core outcome sets for research and clinical practice

Development of a Core Set of Patient-Reported Outcomes for Population-Based Cancer Survivorship Research: Protocol for an Australian Consensus Study

BACKGROUND

Core outcome sets seek to improve the consistency and quality of research by providing agreed-upon recommendations regarding what outcomes should be measured as a minimum for a population and setting. The problems arising from a lack of outcome standardization in population-based cancer survivorship research indicate the need for agreement on a core set of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to enhance data quality, consistency, and comparability.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to identify a core set of PROs, representing the most important issues impacting on cancer survivors' long-term health, functioning and quality of life, to inform population-based research on cancer survivorship.

METHODS

In Phase I, a list of all potentially important outcomes will be generated through focus group discussions with cancer survivors and a review of measures for assessing quality of life in cancer survivorship. The consolidated list will be advanced to Phase II, where a stakeholder consensus process will be conducted with national experts in cancer survivorship to refine and prioritize the outcomes into a core outcome set. The process will consist of a two-round Delphi survey and a consensus meeting. Cancer survivors, oncology health care professionals, and potential end users of the core outcome set with expertise in cancer survivorship research or policy will be invited to participate. In Phase III, recommended measures for assessment of the core outcome set will be selected with advice from experts on the assessment, analysis, and interpretation of PROs.

RESULTS

As of April 2019, data collection for Phase I is complete and data analysis is underway. These data will inform the list of outcomes to be advanced into Phase II. Recruitment for Phase II will commence in June 2019, and it is anticipated that it will take 6 months to complete the three-step consensus process and identify a provisional core outcome set. The study results are expected to be published in early 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

Expert consensus-driven recommendations on outcome measurement will facilitate the inclusion of survivorship outcomes considered important by cancer survivors and health professionals in future research. Adoption of the core outcome set will enable comparison and synthesis of evidence across studies and enhance the quality of PRO data collected in cancer survivorship research, particularly when applied to address macro-level questions.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/14544.

Multidimensional screening for predicting pain problems in adults: a systematic review of screening tools and validation studies

Screening tools allowing to predict poor pain outcomes are widely used. Often these screening tools contain psychosocial risk factors. This review (1) identifies multidimensional screening tools that include psychosocial risk factors for the development or maintenance of pain, pain-related distress, and pain-related disability across pain problems in adults, (2) evaluates the quality of the validation studies using Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST), and (3) synthesizes methodological concerns. We identified 32 articles, across 42 study samples, validating 7 screening tools. All tools were developed in the context of musculoskeletal pain, most often back pain, and aimed to predict the maintenance of pain or pain-related disability, not pain-related distress. Although more recent studies design, conduct, analyze, and report according to best practices in prognosis research, risk of bias was most often moderate. Common methodological concerns were identified, related to participant selection (eg, mixed populations), predictors (eg, predictors were administered differently to predictors in the development study), outcomes (eg, overlap between predictors and outcomes), sample size and participant flow (eg, unknown or inappropriate handling of missing data), and analysis (eg, wide variety of performance measures). Recommendations for future research are provided.

Immediate effects of Mulligan's techniques on pain and functional mobility in individuals with knee osteoarthritis: A randomized control trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Mulligan's mobilization with movement was shown to be effective when implemented in multimodal therapy for knee osteoarthritis. However, no study has evaluated the Mulligan's technique in isolation and compared the relative effectiveness with sham-controlled interventions. Hence, the present study examined the immediate effects of Mulligan's techniques with sham mobilization on the numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) and timed up and go (TUG) test in individuals with knee osteoarthritis.

METHODS

Thirty participants (mean age: 55.3 ± 8.3 years) with symptoms at the knee and radiographic diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis were randomized into sham (n = 15) and intervention (n = 15) groups. The intervention (I) group received Mulligan's mobilization glides that resulted in relative pain relief for three sets of 10 repetitions. For the sham (S) group, the therapist's hand was placed over the joint surfaces mimicking the pain-relieving glides, without providing the gliding force. The outcome measures NPRS and TUG were recorded by a blinded assessor pre- and post-intervention.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences were identified between the groups in post-intervention median (interquartile range) NPRS (I group: 4.00 [2.00-5.00]; S group: 6.00 [4.00-7.00]) and TUG scores (I group: 10.9 [9.43-10.45]; S group: 13.18 [10.38-16.00]) with the intervention group demonstrating better outcomes (p < .05). Within-group, the post-intervention scores of NPRS and TUG were significantly lower (p < .05) compared to the pre-intervention scores in the intervention group. In the sham group, a statistically significant pre-post change was noticed only in the NPRS scores but not in the TUG scores.

CONCLUSION

Mulligan's techniques were effective in improving pain and functional mobility in individuals with knee osteoarthritis. The underlying mechanisms for observed effects must be examined further, as participants reported pain relief following sham mobilization.

The responsiveness and interpretability of psychosocial patient-reported outcome measures in chronic musculoskeletal pain rehabilitation

BACKGROUND

For several widely used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMSP) rehabilitation, it is still not known whether they are responsive to change, and what the smallest detectable change (SDC) and minimal clinically important change (MCIC) are. Knowledge of these values can be used to accurately interpret change scores in research and clinical practice.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, the responsiveness, the SDC and the MCIC of the mental components of the Research and Development 36-Item Health Survey (RAND-36), the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) and the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK) were investigated in CMSP patients. Responsiveness, the SDC and MCIC were determined by using both anchor and distribution-based methods.

RESULTS

For all outcome measures, there was a progression from smallest to largest mean change scores between participants who did not perceive change and those who reported change after treatment. However, correlations of the Global Perceived Effect (GPE) with the change scores on the outcome measures were low. For all outcome measures, the SDC was larger than the MCIC.

CONCLUSIONS

For this population, the questionnaires were shown not to be responsive. Furthermore, the questionnaires appeared not to be able to distinguish clinically important change from measurement error in individual patients. The finding of large measurement errors of PROMs is in line with previous research in pain rehabilitation. Using generic PROMs only, to examine changes in psychosocial status due to a pain rehabilitation programme, is therefore questionable.

SIGNIFICANCE

This study shows that widely used generic psychosocial PROMs might not be responsive and not able to distinguish clinically important change from measurement error in individual chronic musculoskeletal pain patients. It therefore seems reasonable to reconsider the (compulsory) use of these PROMs for assessing the quality of pain rehabilitation programmes, and necessary to consider other, more objective, outcome measures for this purpose in this population.

Outcome and comparator choice in molar incisor hypomineralisation (MIH) intervention studies: a systematic review and social network analysis

OBJECTIVES

Outcome and comparator choice strongly determine the validity and implementation of clinical trial results. We aimed to assess outcome and comparator choice in intervention studies on molar incisor hypomineralisation (MIH) using systematic review and social network analysis (SNA).

DESIGN AND DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, Google Scholar, opengrey.eu as well as DRKS.de and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for MIH intervention studies. The search covered the period from 1980 to 2019.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Clinical single-arm/multiarm, controlled/uncontrolled studies reporting on the management of MIH were included. Reported outcomes and comparators were extracted and categorised. SNA was used to evaluate comparator choice and the resulting trial networks.

DATA EXTRACTION

Of the 7979 identified records, 100 were evaluated in full text and 35 studies (17 randomised controlled trials, 14 prospective and 4 retrospective cohort studies) were included.

RESULTS

In total, 2124 patients with a mean age of 11 years (min/max 6/70 years) were included. Outcomes fell in one of 11 different outcome categories: restoration success, aesthetic improvement, pain/hypersensitivity/discomfort, mineral gain, space management, anaesthesia effectiveness, preventive success, efficiency, quality of life, gingival and periodontal health and patient satisfaction. Comparators were mainly restorative interventions (17 studies), remineralisation (3), treatment of hypersensitivity (10), aesthetic interventions (5) and orthodontic interventions (3). Two highly clustered comparator networks emerged; many interventions were not robustly linked to these networks.

CONCLUSIONS

MIH intervention studies recorded both clinically centred and patient-centred outcomes. Core outcome set development should consider these and supplement them with outcomes on, for example, applicability. The high number of compared interventions tested in only few studies and our SNA results implicate that the current evidence may not be robust.

Intraexaminer and Interexaminer Reproducibility of the Downing Test for Sacroiliac Joint Evaluation of Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Individuals

Objective

This study aimed to assess the intraexaminer and interexaminer reproducibility of the Downing test in sacroiliac joint evaluation in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals.

Methods

A reliability study was conducted with a test-retest design in 54 college students of both sexes. To assess the intraexaminer reproducibility, each participant was evaluated twice by the same examiner with a 7-day interval, and to assess the interexaminer reproducibility, each participant was evaluated by 2 examiners.

Results

Of the 54 participants included in the study, 18 (33.3%) were asymptomatic and 36 (66.7%) were symptomatic; a total of 108 sacroiliac joints were evaluated. Sacroiliac joint diagnosis based on the Downing test presented low intraexaminer reproducibility in all participants (κ = 0.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.03-0.22), in asymptomatic individuals (κ = 0.18, 95% CI 0.02-0.34), and in symptomatic individuals (κ = 0.28, 95% CI 0.17-0.39). The interexaminer reproducibility also was low in all participants (κ = 0.18, 95% CI 0.09-0.27), in asymptomatic individuals (κ = 0.22, 95% CI 0.15-0.37), and in symptomatic individuals (κ = 0.16, 95% CI 0.05-0.27). The standard error of the measurement values were not lower than smallest detectable change values considering a CI of 95% for all participants.

Conclusion

For this group of asymptomatic and symptomatic participants, the reproducibility of the Downing test was poor. The clinical utility of this test used in isolation is not supported by the present study.

Prediction of Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) using PROMIS-29 in a national sample of lumbar spine surgery patients

PURPOSE

The primary purpose was to examine the measurement properties of the PROMIS-29 to better understand its use in patients undergoing spine surgery. A secondary objective was to calculate a predictive equation between PROMIS-29 and ODI, to allow clinicians and researchers to determine a predicted ODI score based on PROMIS short form scores.

METHODS

719 patients with PROMIS v2.0 and ODI responses were queried from the quality outcomes database. Validity was assessed using coefficient omega, ceiling/floor effects, and confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariable regression predicting ODI scores from PROMIS-29 domains was used to create a predictive equation. Predicted ODI scores were plotted against ODI scores to determine how well PROMIS-29 domains predicted ODI.

RESULTS

Results showed good reliability and validity of PROMIS-29 in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery: convergent and discriminant validity, low floor/ceiling effects, and unidimensional domains. The conversion equation used 6 PROMIS-29 domains (ODI_% =  37.847- 1.475*[PF_raw] + 1.842*[PAIN_raw] + 0.557*[SD_raw] - 0.642*[SR_raw] + 0.478*[PI_raw] + 0.295*[DEP_raw]). Correlation between the predicted and actual ODI scores was R = 0.88, R² = 0.78, suggesting that the equation predicted ODI scores that are strongly correlated with actual ODI scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Good measurement properties support the use of PROMIS-29 in spine surgery patients. Findings suggest accurate ODI scores can be derived from PROMIS-29 domains. Clinicians who want to move from ODI to PROMIS-29 can use this equation to obtain estimated ODI scores when only collecting PROMIS-29. These results support the idea that PROMIS-29 domains have the potential to replace disease-specific traditional PROMs.

Women's experiences of maternity care in England: preliminary development of a standard measure

BACKGROUND

As maternity services evolve and the population of women served also changes, there is a continuing need to effectively document the views of women with recent experience of care. A woman's maternity experience can have a positive or negative effect upon her emotional well-being and health, in the immediate and the long-term, which can also impact the infant and the wider family system. Measuring women's perceptions of maternity services is an important way of monitoring the quality of care provision, as well as providing key indicators to organisations of the services that they are providing. It follows that, without information identifying possible areas in need of improvement, it is not clear what changes should be made to improve the experiences of women during their journey through maternity services from pregnancy to the early weeks at home with a new baby . The objective is to describe the development process and psychometric properties of a measure of women's experience of maternity care covering the three distinctly different phases of maternity - pregnancy, labour and birth, and the early postnatal period.

METHODS

Data from a national survey of women who had recently given birth (n = 504) were used. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic methods were employed. The measure was assessed for underlying latent factor structure, as well as for reliability, internal consistency, and validity (predictive, convergent and discriminant).

RESULTS

The models developed confirmed the use of three separate, but related scales about experience of maternity care during pregnancy, labour and birth and the postnatal period. Data reduction was effective, resulting in a measure with 36 items (12 per scale).

CONCLUSION

The need for a psychometrically robust and qualitatively comprehensive measure of women's experience of maternity care has been addressed in the development and validation of this prototype measure. The whole measure can be used at one time point, or the three separate subscales used as individual measures of experience during particular phases of the maternity journey with identified factor structures in their own right.

Effect of pulsed electromagnetic field on nonspecific low back pain patients: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Further research on pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) effects on the different conditions of low back pain was warranted due to lack of studies in this area.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effects of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy with 50Hz frequency, with low intensity of 20Gauss compared to conventional non-invasive treatment modalities in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain.

METHODS

Design - A prospective, randomized, patient-blinded, controlled trial. Setting - The study was conducted at Outpatient Physiotherapy Clinic in Cairo, Egypt. The study was conducted between May 2015 and September 2016. Participants - Fifty participants with non-specific low back pain enrolled into experimental and control groups. Interventions - The experimental group received the Conventional physical therapy Protocol as well as magnetic field, while the control group received the same Conventional physical therapy and sham electromagnetic field. Both groups received 12 sessions over 4 weeks' period. Outcome measures - Primary outcome measures was pain intensity while the secondary outcome measures were disability and lumbar range of motion - ROM. There were no adverse events occurred during the study.

RESULTS

Fifty participants with non-specific low back pain (control group n=25; experimental group n=25) were randomized. There were significant between-group differences in pain scores (mean difference - MD 1.52; 95%CI -0.34 to 3.35), function disability (MD 8.14; 95%CI 6.5 to 9.96), Range of Motion (ROM) of lumbar flexion (MD -1.27; 95%CI -1.09 to -1.45), ROM of lumbar extension (MD -1.1; 95%CI -0.97 to -1.23), ROM of lumbar right side bending (MD 8.2; 95%CI 6.56 to 9.84) and ROM of lumbar left side bending (MD 10.4; 95%CI 8.81 to 11.99) in favour of the experimental group.

CONCLUSION

Adding pulsed electromagnetic field to Conventional physical therapy Protocol yields superior clinical improvement in pain, functional disability, and lumbar ROM in patients with non-specific low back pain than Conventional physical therapy alone.

Systematic review of clinical outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials of burn care

INTRODUCTION

Systematic reviews collate trial data to provide evidence to support clinical decision-making. For effective synthesis, there must be consistency in outcome reporting. There is no agreed set of outcomes for reporting the effect of burn care interventions. Issues with outcome reporting have been identified, although not systematically investigated. This study gathers empirical evidence on any variation in outcome reporting and assesses the need for a core outcome set for burn care research.

METHODS

Electronic searches of four search engines were undertaken from January 2012 to December 2016 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), using medical subject headings and free text terms including 'burn', 'scald' 'thermal injury' and 'RCT'. Two authors independently screened papers, extracted outcomes verbatim and recorded the timing of outcome measurement. Duplicate outcomes (exact wording ± different spelling), similar outcomes (albumin in blood, serum albumin) and identical outcomes measured at different times were removed. Variation in outcome reporting was determined by assessing the number of unique outcomes reported across all included trials. Outcomes were classified into domains. Bias was reduced using five researchers and a patient working independently and together.

RESULTS

147 trials were included, of which 127 (86.4%) were RCTs, 13 (8.8%) pilot studies and 7 (4.8%) RCT protocols. 1494 verbatim clinical outcomes were reported; 955 were unique. 76.8% of outcomes were measured within 6 months of injury. Commonly reported outcomes were defined differently. Numbers of unique outcomes per trial varied from one to 37 (median 9; IQR 5,13). No single outcome was reported across all studies demonstrating inconsistency of reporting. Outcomes were classified into 54 domains. Numbers of outcomes per domain ranged from 1 to 166 (median 11; IQR 3,24).

CONCLUSIONS

This review has demonstrated heterogeneity in outcome reporting in burn care research which will hinder amalgamation of study data. We recommend the development of a Core Outcome Set.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017060908.

Using Cell Cultures for the Investigation of Treatments for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Advances in basic and molecular biology have promoted the use of cell cultures in a wide range of areas, including the evaluation of drug efficacy, safety and toxicity.

OBJECTIVE

This article aims to provide a general overview of the methodological parameters of cell cultures used to investigate therapeutic options for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.

METHOD

A systematic search was performed in the electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, and DOAJ. In vitro experimental studies using cell cultures were included.

RESULTS

A total of 328 studies were initially identified, with 16 included for qualitative synthesis. Seven studies used neuronal cells (SH-SY5Y neuroblastoma and PC12 cell line) and nine used nonneuronal cells. All the studies described the culture conditions, but most studies were inconsistent with regard to reporting results and raw data. Only one-third of the studies performed cell viability assays, while a further 30% conducted gene expression analysis. Other additional tests included electrophysiological evaluation and transporter activity. More than 50% of the studies evaluated the effects of drugs such as methylphenidate and atomoxetine, while plant extracts were assessed in four studies and polyunsaturated fatty acids in one.

CONCLUSION

We suggested a flowchart to guide the planning and execution of studies, and a checklist to be completed by authors to allow the standardized reporting of results. This may guide the elaboration of laboratory protocols and further in vitro studies.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and interferential current demonstrate similar effects in relieving acute and chronic pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and interferential current have been widely used in clinical practice. However, a systematic review comparing their effects on pain relief has not yet been performed.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and interferential current on acute and chronic pain.

METHODS

We use Pubmed, Embase, LILACS, PEDro and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials as data sources. Two independent reviewers that selected studies according to inclusion criteria, extracted information of interest and verified the methodological quality of the studies made study selection. The studies were selected if transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and interferential current were used as treatment and they had pain as the main outcome, as evaluated by a visual analog scale. Secondary outcomes were the Western Ontario Macmaster and Rolland Morris Disability questionnaires, which were added after data extraction.

RESULTS

Eight studies with a pooled sample of 825 patients were included. The methodological quality of the selected studies was moderate, with an average of six on a 0-10 scale (PEDro). In general, both transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and interferential current improved pain and functional outcomes without a statistical difference between them.

CONCLUSION

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and interferential current have similar effects on pain outcome The low number of studies included in this meta-analysis indicates that new clinical trials are needed.

Core outcome measurement instruments for clinical trials in nonspecific low back pain

To standardize outcome reporting in clinical trials of patients with nonspecific low back pain, an international multidisciplinary panel recommended physical functioning, pain intensity, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) as core outcome domains. Given the lack of a consensus on measurement instruments for these 3 domains in patients with low back pain, this study aimed to generate such consensus. The measurement properties of 17 patient-reported outcome measures for physical functioning, 3 for pain intensity, and 5 for HRQoL were appraised in 3 systematic reviews following the COSMIN methodology. Researchers, clinicians, and patients (n = 207) were invited in a 2-round Delphi survey to generate consensus (≥67% agreement among participants) on which instruments to endorse. Response rates were 44% and 41%, respectively. In round 1, consensus was achieved on the Oswestry Disability Index version 2.1a for physical functioning (78% agreement) and the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for pain intensity (75% agreement). No consensus was achieved on any HRQoL instrument, although the Short Form 12 (SF12) approached the consensus threshold (64% agreement). In round 2, a consensus was reached on an NRS version with a 1-week recall period (96% agreement). Various participants requested 1 free-to-use instrument per domain. Considering all issues together, recommendations on core instruments were formulated: Oswestry Disability Index version 2.1a or 24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for physical functioning, NRS for pain intensity, and SF12 or 10-item PROMIS Global Health form for HRQoL. Further studies need to fill the evidence gaps on the measurement properties of these and other instruments.

The use of FDI criteria in clinical trials on direct dental restorations: A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

A scoping review was conducted to explore the use of FDI criteria 10 years after their introduction. The first aim was to compare the amount of studies using the FDI and/or the modified USPHS criteria. The second aim was to analyse the use of the FDI criteria in clinical trials evaluating direct dental restorations.

DATA

Listing of studies using FDI and/or USPHS criteria per year since 2007. Clinical studies related to the assessment of direct restorations using FDI criteria.

SOURCE

Two systematic searches - regarding the use of FDI and modified USPHS criteria - were carried out on Medline/Pubmed in order to identify the studies published between 2007 and 2017. Authors of the included articles were contacted to clarify their choice of FDI criteria in their studies. ClinicalTrials.gov database was also queried for the on-going studies that use FDI and modified USPHS criteria.

STUDY SELECTION

In the first review, all the clinical trials (randomized/non-randomized, controlled, prospective/retrospective studies) that used FDI criteria to evaluate direct restorations on primary or permanent teeth were included.

CONCLUSIONS

16.3% of the studies used FDI criteria. The percentage of studies using them increased from 4.5% in 2010 to 50.0% in 2016. In average, 8.5 FDI criteria were used. The most employed criteria were: marginal adaptation (96.7%), staining (90.0%), fracture of material and retention (90.0%), recurrence of caries/erosion/abfraction (90.0%), post-operative sensitivity/tooth vitality (86.7%) and surface luster (60.0%). In addition, among the 27 on-going studies from ClinicalTrials.gov database, 51.9% use FDI criteria (including 87.5% with an open recruitment status).

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

FDI criteria were reported as practical (various and freely selectable), relevant (sensitive as well as appropriate to current restorative materials and clinical studies design), standardized (making comparisons between investigations easier). Investigators should go on using them for a better standardization of their clinical judgment, allowing comparisons with other studies.

Choosing the right outcome measurement instruments for patients with low back pain

Choosing the most fit-for-purpose outcome measurement instruments is fundamental because using inappropriate instruments can lead to detection bias and measurement inconsistency. Recent recommendations, consensus procedures and systematic reviews on existing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) informed this manuscript, which provides suggestions on which outcome domains and measurement instruments to use in patients with low back pain (LBP). Six domains are identified as highly relevant: (1) physical functioning, (2) pain intensity, (3) health-related quality of life, (4) work, (5) psychological functioning and (6) pain interference. For each domain, one or more PROMs are suggested for clinical research and practice, selecting among those that are most frequently used and recommended, and that have satisfactory measurement properties in patients with LBP. Further research on the measurement properties of these suggested PROMs is needed while also considering other emerging instruments, such as the PROMIS computerised adaptive testing and short forms.