Core Outcome Sets in Child Health: A Systematic Review

Developments in the Design, Conduct, and Reporting of Child Health Trials

To identify priority areas to improve the design, conduct, and reporting of pediatric clinical trials, the international expert network, Standards for Research (StaR) in Child Health, was assembled and published the first 6 Standards in Pediatrics in 2012. After a recent review summarizing the 247 publications by StaR Child Health authors that highlight research practices that add value and reduce research "waste," the current review assesses the progress in key child health trial methods areas: consent and recruitment, containing risk of bias, roles of data monitoring committees, appropriate sample size calculations, outcome selection and measurement, and age groups for pediatric trials. Although meaningful change has occurred within the child health research ecosystem, measurable progress is still disappointingly slow. In this context, we identify and review emerging trends that will advance the agenda of increased clinical usefulness of pediatric trials, including patient and public engagement, Bayesian statistical approaches, adaptive designs, and platform trials. We explore how implementation science approaches could be applied to effect measurable improvements in the design, conducted, and reporting of child health research.

Core Outcome Set for Necrotizing Enterocolitis Treatment Trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Variability in outcome reporting in necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) treatment trials hinders conducting meta-analyses and implementing novel treatments. We aimed to develop a core outcome set (COS) for NEC treatment trials including outcome measures most relevant to patients and physicians, from NEC diagnosis to adulthood.

METHODS

Clinicians and/or researchers from low-middle- and high-income countries were approached based on their scientific contributions to NEC literature, and patients and parents through local organizations. We presented participants with 45 outcomes used in NEC research, identified through a systematic review. To achieve consensus, outcomes were rated on a scale of 1 to 9 in 3 online Delphi rounds, and discussed at a final consensus meeting.

RESULTS

Seventy-one participants from 25 countries completed all Delphi rounds, including 15 patients and family representatives. Thirteen outcomes reached consensus in one of the stakeholder groups and were included in the consensus meeting, 6 outcomes reached consensus in both groups. Twenty-seven participants from both high- and low-middle-income countries attended the online consensus meeting, including family representatives and NEC patients. After discussion and a final vote, 5 outcomes reached consensus to be included: mortality, NEC-related mortality, short bowel syndrome, quality of life, and neurodevelopmental impairment.

CONCLUSIONS

This NEC COS includes 5 predominantly long-term outcomes agreed upon by clinicians, patients, and family representatives. Use of this international COS will help standardize outcome selection in clinical trials, ensure these are relevant to those most affected by NEC care, and, ultimately, improve the care of infants with NEC.

Fluids in the treatment of diabetic ketoacidosis in children: A systematic review

AIM

To determine the comparative effectiveness of fluid schemes for children with diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review with an attempt to conduct network meta-analysis (NMA). We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Epistemonikos, Virtual Health Library, and gray literature from inception to July 31, 2022. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in children with DKA evaluating any intravenous fluid schemes. We planned to conduct NMA to compare all fluid schemes if heterogeneity was deemed acceptable.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs were included. Studies were heterogeneous in the population (patients and DKA episodes), interventions with different fluids (saline, Ringer's lactate (RL), and polyelectrolyte solution-PlasmaLyte®), tonicity, volume, and administration systems. We identified 47 outcomes that measured clinical manifestations and metabolic control, including single and composite outcomes and substantial heterogeneity preventing statistical combination. No evidence was found of differences in neurological deterioration (main outcome), but differences were found among interventions in some comparisons to normalize acid-base status (∼2 h less with low vs. high volume); time to receive subcutaneous insulin (∼1 h less with low vs. high fluid rate); length of stay (∼6 h less with RL vs. saline); and resolution of the DKA (∼3 h less with two-bag vs. one-bag scheme). However, available evidence is scarce and poor.

CONCLUSIONS

There is not enough evidence to determine the best fluid therapy in terms of fluid type, tonicity, volume, or administration time for DKA treatment. There is an urgent need for more RCTs, and the development of a core outcome set on DKA in children.

Protocol of a scoping review of outcome domains in dermatology

INTRODUCTION

Core outcome sets (COSs) are agreed outcomes (domains (subdomains) and instruments) that should be measured as a minimum in clinical trials or practice in certain diseases or clinical fields. Worldwide, the number of COSs is increasing and there might be conceptual overlaps of domains (subdomains) and instruments within disciplines. The aim of this scoping review is to map and to classify all outcomes identified with COS projects relating to skin diseases.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a scoping review of outcomes of skin disease-related COS initiatives to identify all concepts and their definitions. We will search PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library. The search dates will be 1 January 2010 (the point at which Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) was established) to 1 January 2024. We will also review the COMET database and C3 website to identify parts of COSs (domains and/or instruments) that are being developed and published. This review will be supplemented by querying relevant stakeholders from COS organisations, dermatology organisations and patient organisations for additional COSs that were developed. The resulting long lists of outcomes will then be mapped into conceptually similar concepts.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was supported by departmental research funds from the Department of Dermatology at Northwestern University. An ethics committee review was waived since this protocol was done by staff researchers with no involvement of patient care. Conflicts of interests, if any, will be addressed by replacing participants with relevant conflicts or reassigning them. The results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals, social media posts and promotion by COS organisations.

Development of a core outcome set for cardiovascular diabetology: a methodological framework

Background

Cardiovascular diabetology is an emergent field focusing on all aspects of diabetes/cardiovascular interrelationship and metabolic syndrome. High-quality evidence needs to be provided to determine the efficacy and safety of interventions in cardiovascular diabetology. The heterogeneity of outcomes among trials limits the comparison of results, and some outcomes are not always meaningful to end-users. The cardiovascular diabetology core outcome set (COS) study aims to develop a COS of interventions for cardiovascular diabetology. In this paper, we introduce the methodological framework for developing the COS.

Methods

The COS development will include the following steps: (a) establish the COS groups of stakeholders, including international steering committee, Delphi survey group, and consensus meeting group; (b) systematic reviews of outcomes used in trials of cardiovascular diabetology; (c) semistructured interview of stakeholders for outcomes of cardiovascular diabetology; (d) generate a list of candidate outcomes and determine the original outcome pool; (e) Delphi survey with stakeholders of cardiovascular diabetology to select potential core outcomes; and (f) review and endorse the cardiovascular diabetology COS by expert consensus meeting.

Conclusions

This current study reports the methodological framework to develop a COS in cardiovascular diabetology and will provide evidence for the future development of COS in cardiovascular diabetology.

Strengthening Reporting of Neonatal Trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There is variability in the selection and reporting of outcomes in neonatal trials with key information frequently omitted. This can impact applicability of trial findings to clinicians, families, and caregivers, and impair evidence synthesis. The Neonatal Core Outcomes Set describes outcomes agreed as clinically important that should be assessed in all neonatal trials, and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-Outcomes 2022 is a new, harmonized, evidence-based reporting guideline for trial outcomes. We reviewed published trials using CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 guidance to identify exemplars of neonatal core outcome reporting to strengthen description of outcomes in future trial publications.

METHODS

Neonatal trials including >100 participants per arm published between 2015 to 2020 with a primary outcome included in the Neonatal Core Outcome Set were identified. Primary outcome reporting was reviewed using CONSORT 2010 and CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 guidelines by assessors recruited from Cochrane Neonatal. Examples of clear and complete outcome reporting were identified with verbatim text extracted from trial reports.

RESULTS

Thirty-six trials were reviewed by 39 assessors. Examples of good reporting for CONSORT 2010 and CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 criteria were identified and subdivided into 3 outcome categories: "survival," "short-term neonatal complications," and "long-term developmental outcomes" depending on the core outcomes to which they relate. These examples are presented to strengthen future research reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified examples of good trial outcome reporting. These illustrate how important neonatal outcomes should be reported to meet the CONSORT 2010 and CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 guidelines. Emulating these examples will improve the transmission of information relating to outcomes and reduce associated research waste.

Using Evidence-Based Medicine to Support Clinical Decision-Making in RMS

The foundations of evidence-based practice are the triad of patient values and preferences, healthcare professional experience, and best available evidence, used together to inform clinical decision-making. Within the field of rhabdomyosarcoma, collaborative groups such as the European Paediatric Soft Tissue Sarcoma Group (EpSSG) have worked to develop evidence to support this process. We have explored many of the key research developments within this review, including patient and public involvement, decision-making research, research into areas other than drug development, core outcome sets, reporting and dissemination of research, evidence synthesis, guideline development and clinical decision rules, research of research methodologies, and supporting research in RMS.