Core outcome set for surgical trials in gastric cancer (GASTROS study): international patient and healthcare professional consensus

Prioritisation of head, neck, and respiratory outcomes in mucopolysaccharidosis type II: lessons from a rare disease consensus exercise and comparison of parental and clinical priorities

BACKGROUND

The mucopolysaccharidoses are a group of rare, inherited metabolic disorders. MPS II is a X-linked recessive disease, also known as Hunter syndrome. Clinical manifestations include upper and lower respiratory tract, and head and neck pathologies influencing quality of life, morbidity, and mortality. Medical and surgical intervention outcomes for MPS are reported inconsistently, creating a challenge when synthesising and contrasting evidence. This study set out to address the inconsistency in outcome measurement in this field. International recommendations for developing a core outcome set were adopted. Available data from qualitative studies and outcomes from a modified e-Delphi surveys were used to develop a list of candidate outcomes for consideration. Three consensus meetings with patients diagnosed with MPS II alongside their parents/carers were ran to help finalise a list of outcome domains.

RESULTS

Survival, airway obstruction, and quality of life were outcomes identified as important to always measure in all MPS II clinical trials and/or in clinical practice. Other outcomes for younger children included swallowing difficulties, cognitive development, ability to participate in education, and communication. The adolescent group included safety of chewing and swallowing, complications of anaesthesia, sleep quality and apnoea, nasal problems, and chronic otitis media. The adult group identified sleep apnoea, and hearing, as additional outcomes to measure.

CONCLUSIONS

A novel methodology for determining a core outcome set in rare diseases has been recommended. Both functional and quality of life outcomes were identified by the three age groups of individuals and/or their parents. Adoption of these sets of outcomes in future clinical trials and/or clinical practice will enable comparison of outcomes reported.

The spinal cord injury (SCI) peer support evaluation tool: the development of a tool to assess outcomes of peer support programs within SCI community-based organizations

STUDY DESIGN

Guided by the 4-step process outlined in the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guideline, multiple methodologies were used: Delphi, literature reviews, ratings with consensus, think-aloud, and test-retest.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to develop and test a spinal cord injury (SCI) peer support evaluation tool that meets the needs of community-based SCI organizations in Canada.

SETTING

Peer support programs for people with SCI delivered by community-based SCI organizations.

METHODS

This research was co-constructed with executives and staff from SCI community-based organizations, people with SCI, researchers, and students. Given the multiple steps of this study, sample size and characteristics varied based on each step. Participants included people with SCI who received peer support (mentees) or provided peer support (mentors/supporters) and staff of community-based organizations.

RESULTS

In step 1, the 20 most important outcomes for SCI peer support were identified. In step 2 and 3, the 97 items were identified to assess the outcomes and by using rating and multiple consensus methodologies 20 items, one to assess each outcome, were selected. In step 4, content and face validity and test-retest reliability were achieved. The resulting SCI Peer Support Evaluation Tool consists of 20 single-item questions to assess 20 outcomes of SCI peer support.

CONCLUSION

Through a systematic process, the SCI Peer Support Evaluation Tool is now ready to be implemented to assess outcomes of SCI peer support programs delivered by community-based SCI organizations.

Editor's Choice - A Core Outcome Set for Intact Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVE

Technology and advances in clinical care have changed the management of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) but the clinical effectiveness of continuing advances needs to be assessed. To facilitate rapid synthesis of new evidence and improve stakeholder representation, including patients, the concept of core outcome sets (COS) has been developed. COS, reflecting the needs of all stakeholders, have been established across several surgical specialties. This study aimed to develop an international core outcome set for intact AAA repair.

METHODS

Following COMET methodology, potential outcomes were identified from a systematic review of published outcomes and focus groups involving patients, carers, and nurses. A 38 question Delphi consensus survey in lay language was developed (with translation to local languages); this included 35 themes identified from the findings of the systematic review and three themes from the focus groups. All three of the themes identified by the focus groups (cognitive, physical, and social functioning) can be evaluated from quality of life instruments, with overall quality of life being identified from the systematic review. The survey was completed by patients, carers or family members, vascular nurses, vascular surgeons, trainees, interventional radiologists, anaesthetists, and industry partners from six European countries. After two rounds of the survey, the top outcomes were discussed at a face to face multistakeholder consensus meeting.

RESULTS

The 38 item questionnaire was amended after piloting among all stakeholder groups. After the first round of the Delphi survey (98 respondents) 15 questions were eliminated, and 11 further questions were eliminated after round 2 (90 respondents). This left two outcome questions for discussion at the consensus meeting, where the top six outcomes were unanimously endorsed: death at 30 days (or in hospital if longer), secondary AAA rupture, overall quality of life and retention of cognitive functioning after recovery, five year survival, and continued sac growth.

CONCLUSION

Six core outcomes are recommended for use as a minimum framework in all future studies and registries of intact open and endovascular AAA repair. Further work to select instruments for quality of life and to define instruments for cognitive functioning is needed.

Reporting of core outcomes in gastric cancer surgery trials over the past 25 years (systematic review)

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer, a leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, has seen limited improvement in survival over the past 3 decades. Surgical resection is the cornerstone of curative management but the optimal approach remains unclear. Decision-making is hindered by inconsistent outcome reporting limiting data synthesis between trials. International consensus between healthcare professionals and patients has formed a core outcome set to be reported as a minimum. We appraised outcomes previously reported.

METHODS

Evidence Based Medicine Reviews, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of RCTs during years 1995-2021. We searched trial registries for protocols of ongoing and future trials.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine articles from 64 studies and 69 trial protocols were included. No study reported all core outcomes: average reported per trial was 4 (interquartile range: 2). 'Serious' adverse events were reported by 98%, completeness of tumour removal by 85% and surgery-related death by 74%. Outcomes important to patients were reported least: quality of life (22%) and nutritional effects (15%). Defining outcomes and time frames used was variable.

CONCLUSIONS

Critically important outcomes are poorly reported in the literature and the status has not improved in future trials. Further work is required to improve uptake.

Development of a Core Outcome Set for Family and Community Nursing: Protocol for a Delphi Study

BACKGROUND

Family and community nurses (FCNs) play a crucial role in delivering primary care to patients within their homes and communities. A key aspect of their role involves various health interventions, which are influenced by their unique competencies, such as health promotion, advanced clinical knowledge, and strong interpersonal skills. However, it is essential to understand which specific health outcomes these interventions impact to better understand the relationship between FCNs' skills and the health results.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to outline the steps we will take to develop a set of core outcomes. These outcomes will be particularly sensitive to the health interventions carried out by FCNs, providing a clearer picture of their practice's impact.

METHODS

A Delphi survey will be used for this research, conducted from January to December 2024. The process will involve 5 steps and input from 3 stakeholder categories. These stakeholders will help identify a preliminary list of outcomes that will form the basis of our core outcome set (COS).

RESULTS

This guideline will be beneficial for a wide range of stakeholders involved in COS development, including COS developers, trialists, systematic reviewers, journal editors, policy makers, and patient groups. As of January 2024, we have successfully completed the first stage of the study, with the stakeholder group approving the reported outcomes and assigning participant lists for each stakeholder group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study will provide a roadmap for identifying the key health outcomes influenced by the interventions of FCNs. The multistakeholder, multiphase approach will ensure a comprehensive and inclusive process. Ultimately, the findings will enhance our understanding of FCNs' impact on health outcomes, leading to more effective primary care strategies and policies.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/51084.

Uncut Roux-en-Y reconstruction after distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Choosing an optimal reconstruction method is pivotal for patients with gastric cancer undergoing distal gastrectomy. The uncut Roux-en-Y reconstruction, a variant of the conventional Roux-en-Y approach (or variant of the Billroth II reconstruction), employs uncut devices to occlude the afferent loop of the jejunum. This modification is designed to mitigate postgastrectomy syndrome and enhance long-term functional outcomes. However, the comparative benefits and potential harms of this approach compared to other reconstruction techniques remain a topic of debate.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of uncut Roux-en-Y reconstruction after distal gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, WanFang Data, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and clinical trial registries for published and unpublished trials up to November 2023. We also manually reviewed references from relevant systematic reviews identified by our search. We did not impose any language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing uncut Roux-en-Y reconstruction versus other reconstructions after distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. The comparison groups encompassed other reconstructions such as Billroth I, Billroth II (with or without Braun anastomosis), and Roux-en-Y reconstruction.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The critical outcomes included health-related quality of life at least six months after surgery, major postoperative complications within 30 days after surgery according to the Clavien-Dindo Classification (grades III to V), anastomotic leakage within 30 days, changes in body weight (kg) at least six months after surgery, and incidence of bile reflux, remnant gastritis, and oesophagitis at least six months after surgery. We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified eight trials, including 1167 participants, which contributed data to our meta-analyses. These trials were exclusively conducted in East Asian countries, predominantly in China. The studies varied in the types of uncut devices used, ranging from 2- to 6-row linear staplers to suture lines. The follow-up periods for long-term outcomes spanned from 3 months to 42 months, with most studies focusing on a 6- to 12-month range. We rated the certainty of evidence from low to very low. Uncut Roux-en-Y reconstruction versus Billroth II reconstruction In the realm of surgical complications, very low-certainty evidence suggests that uncut Roux-en-Y reconstruction compared with Billroth II reconstruction may make little to no difference to major postoperative complications (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 4.05; I² = 0%; risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.04; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 282 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and incidence of anastomotic leakage (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.44; I² not applicable; RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.02; I² = 32%; 3 studies, 615 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about these results. Focusing on long-term outcomes, low- to very low-certainty evidence suggests that uncut Roux-en-Y reconstruction compared with Billroth II reconstruction may make little to no difference to changes in body weight (mean difference (MD) 0.04 kg, 95% CI -0.84 to 0.92 kg; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 233 participants; low-certainty evidence), may reduce the incidence of bile reflux into the remnant stomach (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.83; RD -0.29, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.16; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 4, 95% CI 3 to 7; 1 study, 141 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may have little or no effect on the incidence of remnant gastritis (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.01 to 5.06; I2 = 78%; RD -0.15, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.07; I2 = 0%; NNTB 7, 95% CI 5 to 15; 2 studies, 265 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported on quality of life or the incidence of oesophagitis. Uncut Roux-en-Y reconstruction versus Roux-en-Y reconstruction In the realm of surgical complications, very low-certainty evidence suggests that uncut Roux-en-Y reconstruction compared with Roux-en-Y reconstruction may make little to no difference to major postoperative complications (RR 4.74, 95% CI 0.23 to 97.08; I² not applicable; RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.04; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 256 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and incidence of anastomotic leakage (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.08; I² = 0%; RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.02; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 213 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about these results. Focusing on long-term outcomes, very low-certainty evidence suggests that uncut Roux-en-Y reconstruction compared with Roux-en-Y reconstruction may increase the incidence of bile reflux into the remnant stomach (RR 10.74, 95% CI 3.52 to 32.76; RD 0.57, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.71; NNT for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 2, 95% CI 2 to 3; 1 study, 108 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and may make little to no difference to the incidence of remnant gastritis (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.01; I² = 60%; RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.08; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 361 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and incidence of oesophagitis (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.26; I² = 0%; RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.03; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 361 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about these results. Data were insufficient to assess the impact on quality of life and changes in body weight.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Given the predominance of low- to very low-certainty evidence, this Cochrane review faces challenges in providing definitive clinical guidance. We found the majority of critical outcomes may be comparable between the uncut Roux-en-Y reconstruction and other methods, but we are very uncertain about most of these results. Nevertheless, it indicates that uncut Roux-en-Y reconstruction may reduce the incidence of bile reflux compared to Billroth-II reconstruction, albeit with low certainty. In contrast, compared to Roux-en-Y reconstruction, uncut Roux-en-Y may increase bile reflux incidence, based on very low-certainty evidence. To strengthen the evidence base, further rigorous and long-term trials are needed. Additionally, these studies should explore variations in surgical procedures, particularly regarding uncut devices and methods to prevent recanalisation. Future research may potentially alter the conclusions of this review.

Patient-Centered Research and Outcomes in Cancer and Kidney Transplantation

Cancer has been identified by kidney transplant recipients as a critically important outcome. The co-occurrence of cancer and kidney transplantation represents a complex intersection of diseases, symptoms, and competing priorities for treatments. Research that focuses on biochemical parameters and clinical events may not capture the priorities of patients. Patient-centered research can improve the relevance and efficiency of research and is particularly pertinent in the setting of cancer and kidney transplantation to facilitate shared decision-making in complex clinical situations. In addition, patient-reported outcomes can facilitate the assessment of patients' experiences, symptom burden, treatment side effects, and quality of life. This review discusses patient-centered research in the context of kidney transplantation and cancer, including consumer involvement in research and patient-centered outcomes and their measures and inclusion in core outcome sets.

Comparative analysis of systemic oncological treatments and best supportive care for advanced gastresophageal cancer: A comprehensive scoping review and evidence map

OBJECTIVE

To identify, describe, and organize the available evidence regarding systemic oncological treatments compared to best supportive care (BSC) for advanced gastresophageal cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a thorough search across MEDLINE (PubMed), EMbase (Ovid), The Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, PROSPERO, and Clinicaltrials.gov. Our inclusion criteria encompassed systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental and observational studies involving patients with advanced esophageal or gastric cancer receiving chemotherapy, immunotherapy or biological/targeted therapy compared to BSC. The outcomes included survival, quality of life, functional status, toxicity, and quality of end-of-life care.

RESULTS

We included and mapped 72 studies, comprising SRs, experimental and observational designs, 12 on esophageal cancer, 51 on gastric cancer, and 10 both locations. Most compared schemes including chemotherapy (47 studies), but did not report therapeutic lines. Moreover, BSC as a control arm was poorly defined, including integral support and placebo. Data favor the use of systemic oncological treatments in survival outcomes and BSC in toxicity. Data for outcomes including quality of life, functional status, and quality of end-of-life care were limited. We found sundry evidence gaps specifically in assessing new treatments such as immunotherapy and important outcomes such as functional status, symptoms control, hospital admissions, and the quality of end-life care for all the treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

There are important evidence gaps regarding new for patients with advanced gastresophageal cancer and the effect of systemic oncological treatments on important patient-centered outcomes beyond survival. Future research should clearly describe the population included, specifying previous treatments and considering therapeutic, and consider all patient-centered outcomes. Otherwise, it will be complex to apply research results into practice.

Developing an Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Core set of Outcome Measures for FOot and ankle disorders in RheumaTic and musculoskeletal diseases (COMFORT): core domain set study protocol

BACKGROUND

Foot and ankle involvement is common in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). High-quality evidence is lacking to determine the effectiveness of treatments for these disorders. Heterogeneity in the outcomes used across clinical trials and observational studies hinders the ability to compare findings, and some outcomes are not always meaningful to patients and end-users. The Core set of Outcome Measures for FOot and ankle disorders in RheumaTic and musculoskeletal diseases (COMFORT) study aims to develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in all trials of interventions for foot and ankle disorders in RMDs. This protocol addresses core outcome domains (what to measure) only. Future work will focus on core outcome measurement instruments (how to measure).

METHODS

COMFORT: Core Domain Set is a mixed-methods study involving the following: (i) identification of important outcome domains through literature reviews, qualitative interviews and focus groups with patients and (ii) prioritisation of domains through an online, modified Delphi consensus study and subsequent consensus meeting with representation from all stakeholder groups. Findings will be disseminated widely to enhance uptake.

CONCLUSIONS

This protocol details the development process and methodology to identify and prioritise domains for a COS in the novel area of foot and ankle disorders in RMDs. Future use of this standardised set of outcome domains, developed with all key stakeholders, will help address issues with outcome variability. This will facilitate comparing and combining study findings, thus improving the evidence base for treatments of these conditions. Future work will identify suitable outcome measurement instruments for each of the core domains.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database, as of June 2022: https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2081.

Short-and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer has rapidly developed and become more popular in recent decades. Additional high-quality randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies comparing LG versus open gastrectomy (OG) for gastric cancer (GC) have been published in recent years. An updated systematic review is warranted. The aim of our meta-analysis was to comprehensively evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of LG versus OG for GC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials databases were comprehensively searched to identify RCTs comparing LG versus OG for GC published between January 1994 and December 7, 2021. This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Cochrane Collaboration and the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUORUM) guidelines. All RCTs comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of LG with those of OG were included. A random effects model was adopted with significant heterogeneity (I² > 50%), while a fixed effects model was employed in all other cases (I² ≤ 50%).

RESULTS

A total of 26 RCTs with 8301 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The results indicated that the intraoperative complication rate was comparable between the LG group and the OG group (OR=1.14, 95% CI [0.76, 1.70], I²=0%, p=0.53). The LG group had fewer postoperative complications than the OG group (OR=0.65, 95% CI [0.57, 0.74], I²=26%, p<0.00001). However, the severe postoperative complication rate and perioperative mortality were comparable between the two groups (OR=0.83, 95% CI [0.67, 1.04], I²=10%, p=0.10; OR=1.11, 95% CI [0.59, 2.09], I²=0%, p=0.74, respectively). The number of lymph nodes retrieved by the LG group was less than that of the OG group (MD=-1.51, 95% CI [-2.29, -0.74], I²=0%, p<0.0001). The proximal resection margin distance in the LG group was shorter than that in the OG group (MD=-0.34, 95% CI [-0.57, -0.12], I²=23%, p=0.003), but the distal resection margin distance in the two groups was comparable (MD=-0.21, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.04], I²=0%, p=0.10). The time to first ambulation was shorter in the LG group than in the OG group (MD=-0.14, 95% CI [-.26, -0.01], I²=40%, p=0.03). The time to first flatus was also shorter in the LG group than in the OG group (MD=-0.15, 95% CI [-0.23, -0.07], I²=4%, p=0.0001). However, the first time on a liquid diet was comparable between the two groups (MD=-0.30, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.04], I²=88%, p=0.09). Furthermore, the postoperative length of stay was shorter in the LG group than in the OG group (MD=-1.26, 95% CI [-1.99, -0.53], I²=90%, p=0.0007). The 5-year overall survival (OS) was comparable between the two groups (HR=0.97, 95% CI [0.80, 1.17], I²=0%, p=0.73), and the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) was also similar between the LG group and OG group (HR=1.08, 95% CI [0.77, 1.52], I²=0%, p=0.64).

CONCLUSION

LG is a technically safe and feasible alternative to OG with the advantages of a fewer postoperative complication rate, faster recovery of gastrointestinal function, and greater cosmetic benefit for patients with GC. Meanwhile, LG has comparable long-term outcomes to OG for GC.

Establishment of a core outcome set for burn care research: development and international consensus

Objective

To develop a core outcome set for international burn research.

Design

Development and international consensus, from April 2017 to November 2019.

Methods

Candidate outcomes were identified from systematic reviews and stakeholder interviews. Through a Delphi survey, international clinicians, researchers, and UK patients prioritised outcomes. Anonymised feedback aimed to achieve consensus. Pre-defined criteria for retaining outcomes were agreed. A consensus meeting with voting was held to finalise the core outcome set.

Results

Data source examination identified 1021 unique outcomes grouped into 88 candidate outcomes. Stakeholders in round 1 of the survey, included 668 health professionals from 77 countries (18% from low or low middle income countries) and 126 UK patients or carers. After round 1, one outcome was discarded, and 13 new outcomes added. After round 2, 69 items were discarded, leaving 31 outcomes for the consensus meeting. Outcome merging and voting, in two rounds, with prespecified thresholds agreed seven core outcomes: death, specified complications, ability to do daily tasks, wound healing, neuropathic pain and itch, psychological wellbeing, and return to school or work.

Conclusions

This core outcome set caters for global burn research, and future trials are recommended to include measures of these outcomes.

Systematic review of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) issues associated with gastric cancer: capturing cross-cultural differences

The treatment landscape for gastric cancer (GC) is constantly evolving with therapies affecting all aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) which need careful monitoring. While there are HRQoL measures designed specifically to capture issues relevant to patients with GC, these might be outdated and only relevant to patients in westernised cultures. This review identifies the patient-reported measures used to assess HRQoL of patients with GC and compares the HRQoL measures used across cultures including East Asia, where GC is more prevalent. We conducted a systematic review of publications between January 2001 and January 2021. A total of 267 papers were identified; the majority (66%) of studies involved patients from East Asian countries. Out of the 24 HRQoL questionnaires captured, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Cancer measure (QLQ-C30) was the most widely used (60% of all studies and 62% of those involving patients from East Asian countries), followed by its gastric cancer-specific module (QLQ-STO22, 34% of all studies and 41% from East Asia). Eight questionnaires were developed within East Asian countries and, of the 20 studies including bespoke questions, 16 were from East Asia. There were six qualitative studies. HRQoL issues captured include diarrhoea, constipation, reflux, abdominal pain and abdominal fulness or bloating, difficulty swallowing, restricted eating, and weight loss. Psychosocial issues related to these problems were also assessed. Issues relating to the compatibility of some of the westernised measures within East Asian cultures were highlighted.

Core outcome set for symptomatic uncomplicated gallstone disease

BACKGROUND

Heterogeneity of outcomes is a problem for assessing intervention effectiveness when considering treatments for uncomplicated symptomatic gallstone disease. The value to all stakeholders of outcomes that have been measured and reported to date is also unclear. The aim of this study was to develop a core outcome set for symptomatic uncomplicated gallstone disease.

METHODS

An in person-meeting was held with patients to prioritize potentially important outcomes from a previously developed longlist of outcomes. This was followed by an online three-round Delphi survey that was conducted with healthcare professionals. The results of each consensus process were compared and combined to produce the final core outcome set.

RESULTS

A total of 82 participants enrolled in round 1 of the Delphi survey, with a final sample of 40 participants contributing to round 3. Five patients contributed to the in-person group meeting. Following the consensus processes, 11 outcomes were considered to be core by patients and healthcare professionals, and included in the core outcome set. These were: quality of life; overall health state; overall satisfaction; overall pain; common bile duct injury; biliary leak; haemorrhage; need for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; intra-abdominal collections; admission/readmission for problems; and reoperation.

CONCLUSION

A core outcome set for symptomatic uncomplicated gallstone disease has been developed with patients and healthcare professionals. Eleven outcomes across four key domains have been identified. These represent the minimum set of outcomes that should be reported in trials evaluating interventions for gallstone disease.

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) has been widely used for advanced gastric cancer (GC), and its resection extent is not limited to distal gastrectomy. However, the superiority of this minimally invasive approach remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the benefits and risks of LG on the short- and long-term outcomes compared with open gastrectomy (OG) for GC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LG and OG for treatment of GC. The primary outcomes were adverse events, recurrence, mortality, and the quality of life. The secondary outcomes included operation-relevant outcomes and postoperative recovery outcomes. We employed random-effects meta-analyses to pool results with Hartung-Knapp adjustment. The prediction interval (PI) was used to quantify the between-study heterogeneity. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed to examine the potential sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies involving 7643 patients were included. Most studies (22 out of 28) reported results from experienced surgeons. Compared to OG, LG was found to have the advantages of less blood loss, fewer postoperative complications, and faster recovery, but at the expense of lesser proximal resection margin length, longer operation time, and fewer retrieved lymph nodes. There were no significant differences for anastomosis-related complications, recurrence and survival and other outcomes between LG and OG. Significant between-study heterogeneity was observed. Body mass index (BMI) and age were two major sources of heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

For experienced surgeons, LG is an alternative approach to OG for patients with GC. Patients with lower BMI and older age may benefit most from LG. Future studies are needed to confirm our findings in low-volume hospitals and for less-experienced surgeons. Future trials focusing on patient-important outcomes are warranted for clinical decision-making.

Chinese Medicine as an Adjunctive Treatment for Gastric Cancer: Methodological Investigation of meta-Analyses and Evidence Map

Background: Many meta-analyses (MAs) on Chinese medicine (CM) as an adjunctive treatment for gastric cancer have been published in recent years. However, the pooled evidence reported in MAs and their methodological quality remain unknown. Therefore, we designed a study to comprehensively evaluate and summarize the current evidence of CMs for gastric cancer in published MAs.

Methods: A systematic search on MAs published in English from inception to 1st September 2021 was conducted in PubMed and Embase. The AMSTAR-2 tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included MAs, and the results of the quality assessment were visualized using the evidence mapping method. Stata 17/SE was used for statistical analysis (Registration number: INPLASY202190005).

Results: A total of 20 MAs (16 pairwise and 4 network MAs) were included from 118 records. These MAs were published in 14 journals from 2013 to 2021, with the number of patients and trials ranging from 688 to 6,857, and from 10 to 85, respectively. A large number of CMs (e.g., AiDi, FuFangKuShen, and HuaChanSu) in combination with chemotherapy for gastric cancer were identified among the included MAs. According to the pooled results reported in MAs, when compared to chemotherapy alone, CMs in combination with chemotherapy not only improve various outcomes on efficacy (e.g., objective response rate, quality of life) but also reduce various adverse reactions (e.g., leucopenia, nausea and vomiting). Only 2 MAs were low in terms of the overall methodological quality, while the other 18 MAs were all critically low. The methodology was required to be advanced significantly, mainly involving: study protocol and registration, explanation for the inclusion of study design, list of excluded studies with justifications, adequate details of included studies, reporting on funding sources of primary studies, and evaluation of the potential impact of risk of bias. In addition, MAs that received funds support (β = 2.68; 95%CI: 0.40 to 4.96; p = 0.024) or were published in journals with higher impact factor (β = 2.81; 95%CI: 0.69 to 4.92; p = 0.012) had a higher score on the overall methodological quality in the univariate analysis, but the results were not statistically significant according to the multivariate analysis.

Conclusion: Combining CMs with chemotherapy can potentially improve clinical outcomes and reduce the relevant adverse effects in patients with gastric cancer. However, the methodological quality of relevant MAs requires significant improvement, and the current evidence needs to be validated through multinational trials that are well-designed and have a large sample size.