A systematic review of outcome reporting in colorectal cancer surgery

A scoping review of the outcome reporting following surgery for chronic osteomyelitis of the lower limb

Chronic osteomyelitis (COM) of the lower limb in adults can be surgically managed by either limb reconstruction or amputation. This scoping review aims to map the outcomes used in studies surgically managing COM in order to aid future development of a core outcome set. A total of 11 databases were searched. A subset of studies published between 1 October 2020 and 1 January 2011 from a larger review mapping research on limb reconstruction and limb amputation for the management of lower limb COM were eligible. All outcomes were extracted and recorded verbatim. Outcomes were grouped and categorized as per the revised Williamson and Clarke taxonomy. A total of 3,303 records were screened, of which 99 studies were included. Most studies were case series (77/99; 78%) and assessed one method of reconstruction (68/99; 69%). A total of 511 outcomes were reported, which were grouped into 58 distinct outcomes. Overall, 143/511 of all outcomes (28%) were provided with a clear, in-text definition, and 231 outcomes (45%) had details reported of how and when they were measured. The most commonly reported outcome was 'recurrence of osteomyelitis' (62; 12%). The single-most patient-reported outcome measure was 'pain'. This study has highlighted significant inconsistencies in the defining, reporting, and measuring of outcomes across studies investigating surgical management for chronic osteomyelitis of the lower limb in adults. Future studies should clearly report complete details of how outcomes are defined and measured, including timing. The development of a standardized core outcome set would be of significant benefit in order to allow evidence synthesis and comparison across studies.

A systematic review of reported outcomes in people with lower limb chronic venous insufficiency of the deep veins

OBJECTIVE

The prevalence of lower limb chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) of the deep veins is increasing and presents a significant burden to patients and health care services. To improve the evaluation of interventions it is necessary to standardise their reporting. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the outcomes of interventions delivered to people with CVI of the deep veins as part of the development of a novel core outcome set (COS).

METHODS

Following the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) framework for COS development, a systematic review was conducted to PRISMA guidance. The protocol was preregistered on PROSPERO (CRD42021236795). MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched from January 2018 to January 2021. Clinical trials and observational studies involving more than 20 participants, reporting outcomes for patients with CVI of the deep veins were eligible. Outcomes were extracted verbatim, condensed into agreed outcome terms and coded into domains using standard COMET taxonomy. Outcome reporting consistency, where outcomes were fully reported throughout the methods and results of their respective articles was also assessed.

RESULTS

Some 103 studies were eligible. There were 1183 verbatim outcomes extracted, spanning 22 domains. No outcome was reported unanimously, with the most widely reported outcome of primary patency featuring in 51 articles (<50%). There was a predominant focus on reporting clinical outcomes (n = 963 [81%]), with treatment durability (n = 278 [23%]) and clinical severity (n = 108 [9%]) reported frequently. Life impact outcomes were relatively under-reported (n = 60 [5%]). Outcome reporting consistency was poor, with just 50% of outcomes reported fully.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcome reporting in studies of people with CVI of the deep veins is currently heterogeneous. Life impact outcomes, which likely reflect patients' priorities are under-reported. This study provides the first step in the development of a COS for people with lower limb CVI of the deep veins.

Identification of outcomes reported for hospital antimicrobial stewardship interventions using a systematic review of reviews

Background

Randomized trials of hospital antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions aimed to optimize antimicrobial use contribute less to the evidence base due to heterogeneity in outcome selection and reporting. Developing a core outcome set (COS) for these interventions can be a way to address this problem. The first step in developing a COS is to identify and map all outcomes.

Objectives

To identify outcomes reported in systematic reviews of hospital AMS interventions.

Methods

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE and Embase were searched for systematic reviews published up until August 2019 of interventions relevant to reducing unnecessary antimicrobial use for inpatient populations in secondary care hospitals. The methodological quality of included reviews was assessed using AMSTAR-2, A (revised) MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews. Extracted outcomes were analysed using deductive and inductive thematic analysis. A list of overarching (unique) outcomes reflects the outcomes identified within the systematic reviews.

Results

Forty-one systematic reviews were included. Thirty-three (81%) systematic reviews were of critically low or low quality. A long list of 1739 verbatim outcomes was identified and categorized under five core areas of COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) taxonomy: 'resources use' (45%), 'physiological/clinical' (27%), 'life impact' (16%), 'death' (8%) and 'adverse events' (4%). A total of 421 conceptually different outcomes were identified and grouped into 196 overarching outcomes.

Conclusions

There is significant heterogeneity in outcomes reported for hospital AMS interventions. Reported outcomes do not cover all domains of the COMET framework and may miss outcomes relevant to patients (e.g. emotional, social functioning, etc.). The included systematic reviews lacked methodological rigour, which warrants further improvements.

A systematic review of robot-assisted cholecystectomy to examine the quality of reporting in relation to the IDEAL recommendations: systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Robotic cholecystectomy (RC) is a recent innovation in minimally invasive gallbladder surgery. The IDEAL (idea, development, exploration, assessment, long-term study) framework aims to provide a safe method for evaluating innovative procedures. This study aimed to understand how RC was introduced, in accordance with IDEAL guidelines.

METHODS

Systematic searches were used to identify studies reporting RC. Eligible studies were classified according to IDEAL stage and data were collected on general study characteristics, patient selection, governance procedures, surgeon/centre expertise, and outcome reporting.

RESULTS

Of 1425 abstracts screened, 90 studies were included (5 case reports, 38 case series, 44 non-randomized comparative studies, and 3 randomized clinical trials). Sixty-four were single-centre and 15 were prospective. No authors described their work in the context of IDEAL. One study was classified as IDEAL stage 1, 43 as IDEAL 2a, 43 as IDEAL 2b, and three as IDEAL 3. Sixty-four and 51 provided inclusion and exclusion criteria respectively. Ethical approval was reported in 51 and conflicts of interest in 34. Only 21 reported provision of training for surgeons in RC. A total of 864 outcomes were reported; 198 were used in only one study. Only 30 reported a follow-up interval which, in 13, was 1 month or less.

CONCLUSION

The IDEAL framework was not followed during the adoption of RC. Few studies were conducted within a research setting, many were retrospective, and outcomes were heterogeneous. There is a need to implement appropriate tools to facilitate the incremental evaluation and reporting of surgical innovation.

Qualitative documentary analysis of guidance on information provision and consent for the introduction of innovative invasive procedures including surgeries within NHS organisations' policies in England and Wales

OBJECTIVE

To review guidance, included in written local UK National Health Service (NHS) organisation policies, on information provision and consent for the introduction of new invasive procedures- including surgeries, and devices (IPs/Ds).

DESIGN

A qualitative documentary analysis of data on patient information provision and consent extracted from policies for the introduction of IP/Ds from NHS organisations in England and Wales.

SETTING

NHS trusts in England and health boards in Wales, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Between December 2017 and July 2018, 150 acute trusts in England and 7 health boards in Wales were approached for their policies for the introduction of new IP/Ds. In total, 123 policies were received, 11 did not fit the inclusion criteria and a further policy was included from a trust website resulting in 113 policies included for review.

RESULTS

From the 113 policies, 22 did not include any statements on informed consent/information provision or lacked guidance on the information to be provided to patients and were hence excluded. Consequently, 91 written local NHS policies were included in the final dataset. Within the guidance obtained, variation existed on disclosure of the procedure's novelty, potential risks, benefits, uncertainties, alternative treatments and surgeon's experience. Few policies stated that clinicians should discuss the existing evidence associated with a procedure. Additionally, while the majority of policies referred to patients needing written information, this was often not mandated and few policies specified the information to be included.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly a fifth of all the policies lacked guidance on information to be provided to patients. There was variability in the policy documents regarding what patients should be told about innovative procedures. Further research is needed to ascertain the information and level of detail appropriate for patients when considering innovative procedures. A core information set including patients' and clinicians' views is required to address variability around information provision/consent for innovative procedures.

Effects of Perioperative Oral Nutrition Supplementation in Malaysian Patients Undergoing Elective Surgery for Breast and Colorectal Cancers-A Randomised Controlled Trial

This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of preoperative and an extended 90-days postoperative use of ONS among patients undergoing elective surgery for breast and colorectal cancers. Ninety-one patients were randomised into (i) Group SS received ONS up to 14 days preoperatively and postoperatively up to discharge, (ii) Group SS-E received ONS up to 14 days preoperatively, postoperatively up to discharge and for an extended 90-days after discharge and (iii) Group DS received ONS postoperatively up to discharge. Preoperatively, SS had significantly higher body weight (66.1 ± 15.3 kg vs. 62.5 ± 12.0 kg, p = 0.010) and BMI (26.8 ± 6.8 kg/m2 vs. 26.1 ± 6.7 kg/m2, p = 0.022) than DS when adjusted for baseline values. Postoperatively, SS-E had significantly higher handgrip strength (26 ± 9 kgF vs. 24 ± 6 kgF, p = 0.044) than DS at 90-days post-discharge after adjusted for preoperative values. At 90-days post-discharge, the proportions of patients in SS with albumin < 35 g/d, CAR ≥ 0.1, mPINI ≥ 0.4, mGPS score 1 or 2 were significantly reduced while in SS-E, the reduction in proportions of patients with high hsCRP and mPINI ≥ 0.4 was significant compared to upon discharge. Preoperative ONS had modest benefits in attenuating weight loss whilst postoperative supplementation up to 90-days post-discharge improved handgrip strength and inflammatory prognostic markers.

The use of mesenchymal stem cells in animal models for gastrointestinal anastomotic leak: A systematic review

AIM

Anastomotic leak is the most feared complication of gastrointestinal surgery. Mesenchymal stem cell technology is used clinically to promote wound healing; however, the safety and efficacy of this technology on anastomotic healing has yet to be defined. The aim of this study was to investigate whether mesenchymal stem cells confer any benefit when applied to animal models for gastrointestinal anastomotic leak, identify the methodology and how efficacy is assessed.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, WebofScience and Cochrane Library databases were interrogated between 1 January1947 to 1 May 2020. All studies where mesenchymal stem cells were applied to laboratory animal leak models to demonstrate a healing effect were considered. All experimental and histological outcomes were examined. Compliance to ARRIVE and current International Consensus was assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 1205 studies were screened. Twelve studies reported on 438 gastrointestinal anastomoses in four species using 11 models; seven in the colon. No studies utilised a model with a known leak rate. Significant variance was observed in histological outcomes with efficacy demonstrated in five out of 12 studies. One study demonstrated a benefit in leak rate. Colorectal studies had a greater median ARRIVE compliance, 60.8% (IQR 63.2-64.5) compared to noncolorectal 45.4% (IQR 43.8-49.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Mesenchymal stem cell delivery to an animal anastomosis is safe and feasible. Use may confer benefit but findings are currently limited to surrogate histological outcomes. There is consistency in outcome measures reported but variance in how this is assessed. Poor compliance to ARRIVE but good compliance to current international consensus in leak models of the colon was observed.

A systematic review of outcome reporting for interventions to treat people with diabetic foot ulceration

BACKGROUND

Diabetic foot ulceration (DFU) is a challenging clinical problem that affects up to a quarter of patients with diabetes in their lifetime. An agreed set of outcomes for assessing treatments or interventions for DFU has not previously been considered. The aim of this study was to identify outcomes that are reported in clinical studies assessing a treatment or intervention for DFU, to inform the development of a core outcome set (COS).

METHODS

Systematic literature searches were performed between January 2016 and March 2019. The search strategy was pre-registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019128250). Two authors independently screened abstracts for full text review. Outcomes were extracted from selected papers verbatim and categorized into domains according to established taxonomy. Consistency of outcome reporting was assessed. Overlapping outcomes were merged independently to condense the extracted list of outcomes for use in forthcoming consensus processes.

RESULTS

Of 4645 abstracts identified, 114 studies met the inclusion criteria. There were 69 randomized studies, 40 prospective studies and 5 protocols. Some 948 outcomes were extracted verbatim. Outcome reporting was consistent for 474 (53%) outcomes. De-duplication left 714 unique verbatim outcomes across 33 domains. Merging of overlapping unique verbatim outcomes established 95 merged outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This study describes contemporary outcomes reported in studies assessing interventions for DFU. Outcome reporting is considered to be poor as it was consistent in just over half of outcomes extracted. Merging of outcomes has identified 95 outcomes that can be taken forward in the development of a COS.

Standardised Outcome Reporting for the Nutrition Management of Complex Chronic Disease: A Rapid Review

Individuals with coexisting chronic diseases or with complex chronic disease are among the most challenging and costly patients to treat, placing a growing demand on healthcare systems. Recommending effective treatments, including nutrition interventions, relies on standardised outcome reporting from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to enable data synthesis. This rapid review sought to determine how the scope and consistency of the outcomes reported by RCTs investigating nutrition interventions for the management of complex chronic disease compared to what is recommended by the core outcome sets (COS) for individual disease states. Peer-reviewed RCTs published between January 2010 and July 2020 were systematically sourced from PubMed, CINAHL and Embase, and COS were sourced from the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurements (ICHOM) and the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database. A total of 45 RCTs (43 studies) and 7 COS were identified. Outcomes were extracted from both the RCTs and COS and were organised using COMET Taxonomy Core Areas. A total of 66 outcomes and 439 outcome measures were reported by the RCTs. The RCTs demonstrated extensive outcome heterogeneity, with only five outcomes (5/66, 8%) being reported with relative consistency (cited by ≥50% of publications). Furthermore, the scope of the outcomes reported by studies was limited, with a notable paucity of patient-reported outcomes. Poor agreement (25%) was observed between the outcomes reported in the RCTs and those recommended by the COS. This review urges greater uptake of the existing COS and the development of a COS for complex chronic disease to be considered so that evidence can be better synthesised regarding effective nutrition interventions.

Identification and categorisation of relevant outcomes for symptomatic uncomplicated gallstone disease: in-depth analysis to inform the development of a core outcome set

BACKGROUND

Many completed trials of interventions for uncomplicated gallstone disease are not as helpful as they could be due to lack of standardisation across studies, outcome definition, collection and reporting. This heterogeneity of outcomes across studies hampers useful synthesis of primary studies and ultimately negatively impacts on decision making by all stakeholders. Core outcome sets offer a potential solution to this problem of heterogeneity and concerns over whether the 'right' outcomes are being measured. One of the first steps in core outcome set generation is to identify the range of outcomes reported (in the literature or by patients directly) that are considered important.

OBJECTIVES

To develop a systematic map that examines the variation in outcome reporting of interventions for uncomplicated symptomatic gallstone disease, and to identify other outcomes of importance to patients with gallstones not previously measured or reported in interventional studies.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 794 potentially relevant titles and abstracts of which 137 were deemed eligible for inclusion. A total of 129 randomised controlled trials, 4 gallstone disease specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and 8 qualitative studies were included. This was supplemented with data from 6 individual interviews, 1 focus group (n=5 participants) and analysis of 20 consultations. A total of 386 individual recorded outcomes were identified across the combined evidence: 330 outcomes (which were reported 1147 times) from trials evaluating interventions, 22 outcomes from PROMs, 17 outcomes from existing qualitative studies and 17 outcomes from primary qualitative research. Areas of overlap between the evidence sources existed but also the primary research contributed new, unreported in this context, outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study took a rigorous approach to catalogue and map the outcomes of importance in gallstone disease to enhance the development of the COS 'long' list. A COS for uncomplicated gallstone disease that considers the views of all relevant stakeholders is needed.

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.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Colorectal Surgery: Construction of Core Measures Using Open-Source Research Method

Purpose. The primary aim of the study was to review the existing literature about patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in colorectal cancer and IBD. The secondary aim was to present a road map to develop a core outcome set via opinion gathering using social media. Method. This study is the first step of a three-step project aimed at constructing simple, applicable PROMs in colorectal surgery. This article was written in a collaborative manner with authors invited both through Twitter via the #OpenSourceResearch hashtag. The 5 most used PROMs were presented and discussed as slides/images on Twitter. Inputs from a wide spectrum of participants including researchers, surgeons, physicians, nurses, patients, and patients' organizations were collected and analyzed. The final draft was emailed to all contributors and 6 patients' representatives for proofreading and approval. Results. Five PROM sets were identified and discussed: EORTC QLQ-CR29, IBDQ short health questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30, ED-Q5-5L, and Short Form-36. There were 315 tweets posted by 50 tweeters with 1458 retweets. Awareness about PROMs was generally limited. The general psycho-physical well-being score (GPP) was suggested and discussed, and then a survey was conducted in which more than 2/3 of voters agreed that GPP covers the most important aspects in PROMs. Conclusion. Despite the limitations of this exploratory study, it offered a new method to conduct clinical research with opportunity to engage patients. The general psycho-physical well-being score suggested as simple, applicable PROMs to be eventually combined procedure-specific, disease-specific, or symptom-specific PROMs if needed.

Defining Anastomotic Leaks After Colorectal Surgery: Results of a National Survey

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leaks are a dreaded complication after colorectal surgery. Although anastomotic leak is often used as a metric to compare patient outcomes, a standard definition does not exist.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A web-based survey was developed and distributed to US surgeons. Respondents were queried on the definition of anastomotic leaks using a 5-point Likert scale to rate different scenarios related to colorectal surgery.

RESULTS

Of potential 2209 respondents, 649 (29%) responded to the survey. The majority of respondents was men (76%) and practiced colon and rectal surgery as their primary specialty (89%). Contrast extravasation at the anastomosis, regardless of timing related to the surgery, is the clinical scenario with greatest consensus (>85%). 50% of surgeons do not believe that an abscess near the anastomosis in an asymptomatic patient defines a leak.

CONCLUSIONS

These results highlight the pressing need for standardization of the anastomotic leak definition given the implications on outcomes measurement, research trials, and health care reimbursement.

A systematic review and in-depth analysis of outcome reporting in early phase studies of colorectal cancer surgical innovation

AIM

Early phase studies are essential to evaluate new technologies prior to randomized evaluation. Evaluation is limited, however, by inconsistent measurement and reporting of outcomes. This study examines outcome reporting in studies of innovative colorectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

Systematic searches identified studies of invasive procedures treating primary colorectal adenocarcinoma. Included were a random sample of studies which authors reported as 'new' or 'modified'. Outcomes were extracted verbatim and categorized using an existing framework of 32 domains relevant to early phase studies. Outcomes were classified as 'measured' (where there was an explicit statement to that effect or evidence that data collection had occurred) or 'mentioned but not measured' (where outcomes were discussed but data collection was not evident). Patterns of identified outcomes are described.

RESULTS

Of 8373 records, 816 were potentially eligible. Full-text review of a random sample of 218 studies identified 51 for inclusion of which 34 (66%) were 'new' and 17 (33%) were 'modified'. Some 2073 outcomes were identified, and all mapped to domains. 'Anticipated disadvantages' were most frequently identified [660 (32%) outcomes identified across 50 (98%) studies]. No domain was represented in all studies. Under half (944, 46%) of outcomes were 'measured'. 'Surgeon's/operator's experience of the innovation' was more frequently 'mentioned but not measured' [207 (18%) outcomes across 46 (90%) studies] than 'measured' [17 (2%) outcomes, 11 (22%) studies].

CONCLUSION

There is outcome reporting heterogeneity in studies of early phase colorectal cancer surgery. The adoption of core outcome sets may help to resolve these inconsistencies and enable efficient evaluation of surgical innovations.

An international, consensus-derived Core Outcome Set for Cardiac Arrest effectiveness trials: the COSCA initiative

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Accurate and relevant assessment is essential to determining the impact of ill-health and the relative benefit of healthcare. This review details the recent development of a core outcome set for cardiac arrest effectiveness trials - the COSCA initiative.

RECENT FINDINGS

The reported heterogeneity in outcome assessment and a lack of outcome reporting guidance were key triggers for the development of the COSCA. The historical failure of existing research to adequately capture the perspective of survivors and their family members in defining survival is described. Working collaboratively with international stakeholders - including survivors, family members and advocates - as research partners and participants ensured that a range of perspectives were considered throughout all stages of COSCA development. Three core domains and methods of assessment were recommended: survival - at 30 days or hospital discharge; neurological function assessed at 30 days or hospital discharge with the modified Rankin Scale; and health-related quality of life assessed at 90 days (as a minimum) with one of three generic measures.

SUMMARY

The COSCA recommendation describes a small group of outcomes that should be reported as a minimum across large, randomized clinical effectiveness trials for cardiac arrest.

Development of a core information set for colorectal cancer surgery: a consensus study

OBJECTIVE

'Core information sets' (CISs) represent baseline information, agreed by patients and professionals, to stimulate individualised patient-centred discussions. This study developed a CIS for use before colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery.

DESIGN

Three phase consensus study: (1) Systematic literature reviews and patient interviews to identify potential information of importance to patients, (2) UK national Delphi survey of patients and professionals to rate the importance of the information, (3) international consensus meeting to agree on the final CIS.

SETTING

UK CRC centres.

PARTICIPANTS

Purposive sampling was conducted to ensure CRC centre representation based upon geographical region and caseload volume. Responses were received from 63/81 (78%) centres (90 professionals). Adult patients who had undergone CRC surgery were eligible, and purposive sampling was conducted to ensure representation based on age, sex and cancer location (rectum, left and right colon). Responses were received from 97/267 (35%) patients with a wide age range (29-87), equal sex ratio and cancer location. Attendees of the international Tripartite Colorectal Conference were eligible for the consensus meeting.

OUTCOMES

Phase 1: Information of potential importance to patients was extracted verbatim and operationalised into a Delphi questionnaire. Phase 2: Patients and professionals rated the importance information on a 9-point Likert scale, and resurveyed following group feedback. Information rated of low importance were discarded using predefined criteria. Phase 3: A modified nominal group technique was used to gain final consensus in separate consensus meetings with patients and professionals.

RESULTS

Data sources identified 1216 pieces of information that informed a 98-item questionnaire. Analysis led to 50 and 23 information domains being retained after the first and second surveys, respectively. The final CIS included 11 concepts including specific surgical complications, short and long-term survival, disease recurrence, stoma and quality of life issues.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has established a CIS for professionals to discuss with patients before CRC surgery.

A systematic review of outcome reporting in laser treatments for dermatological diseases

The standardization of outcome reporting is crucial for interpretation and comparison of studies related to laser treatment of skin disorders. In collaboration with the Cochrane Skin-Core Outcome Set Initiative (CS-COUSIN), a procedure has been proposed to find consensus on the most important generic outcome domains (what to measure) for implementation in the international Laser TrEAtment in Dermatology (LEAD) registry. As the first step in the development of a generic outcome set for the LEAD registry, we undertook a systematic review to identify outcomes, outcome measurement instruments, methods and definitions reported in recently published literature of laser treatments for skin disorders. A systematic search was conducted and generated a total of 707 papers. We assessed 150 studies including all types of studies involving laser treatments for the skin. Two researchers independently extracted the type, definition and frequency of all outcomes and used outcome measurement instruments. We identified 105 verbatim outcomes that were categorized into eight domains recommended by the COMET framework: appearance, long-term effects, physician and patient-reported physical signs, satisfaction, health-related quality of life, psychological functioning and adverse events. Heterogeneity in outcome reporting (e.g. categories and outcome measurement instruments) was high, and definitions were insufficiently reported. There was a clear under representation of life impact domains, including satisfaction (23%) quality of life (3%) and psychological functioning (1%). Outcome reporting concerning laser treatments for the skin is heterogeneous. Standardized outcomes are needed for improving evidence synthesis. Results of this review will be used in the next step to reach consensus between stakeholders on the outcome domains to be implemented in the LEAD registry.

Introduction and adoption of innovative invasive procedures and devices in the NHS: an in-depth analysis of written policies and qualitative interviews (the INTRODUCE study protocol)

INTRODUCTION

Innovation is key to improving outcomes in healthcare. Innovative pharmaceutical products undergo rigorous phased research evaluation before they are introduced into practice. The introduction of innovative invasive procedures and devices is much less rigorous and phased research, including randomised controlled trials, is not always undertaken. While the innovator (usually a surgeon) may introduce a new or modified procedure/device within the context of formal research, they may also be introduced by applying for local National Health Service (NHS) organisation approval alone. Written policies for the introduction of new procedures and/or devices often form part of this local clinical governance infrastructure; however, little is known about their content or use in practice. This study aims to systematically investigate how new invasive procedures and devices are introduced in NHS England and Wales.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

An in-depth analysis of written policies will be undertaken. This will be supplemented with interviews with key stakeholders. All acute NHS trusts in England and Health Boards in Wales will be systematically approached and asked to provide written policies for the introduction of new invasive procedures and devices. Information on the following will be captured: (1) policy scope, including when new procedures should be introduced within a formal research framework; (2) requirements for patient information provision; (3) outcome reporting and/or monitoring. Data will be extracted using a standardised form developed iteratively within the study team. Semistructured interviews with medical directors, audit and governance leads, and surgeons will explore views regarding the introduction of new invasive procedures into practice, including knowledge of and implementation of current policies.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

In-depth analysis of written policies does not require ethics approval. The University of Bristol Ethics Committee (56522) approved the interview component of the study. Findings from this work will be presented at appropriate conferences and will be published in peer-reviewed journals.

Reporting of outcomes in gastric cancer surgery trials: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The development of clinical guidelines for the surgical management of gastric cancer should be based on robust evidence from well-designed trials. Being able to reliably compare and combine the outcomes of these trials is a key factor in this process.

OBJECTIVES

To examine variation in outcome reporting by surgical trials for gastric cancer and to identify outcomes for prioritisation in an international consensus study to develop a core outcome set in this field.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic literature searches (Evidence Based Medicine, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) and a review of study protocols of randomised controlled trials, published between 1996 and 2016.

INTERVENTION

Therapeutic surgical interventions for gastric cancer. Outcomes were listed verbatim, categorised into groups (outcome themes) and examined for definitions and measurement instruments.

RESULTS

Of 1919 abstracts screened, 32 trials (9073 participants) were identified. A total of 749 outcomes were reported of which 96 (13%) were accompanied by an attempted definition. No single outcome was reported by all trials. 'Adverse events' was the most frequently reported 'outcome theme' in which 240 unique terms were described. 12 trials (38%) classified complications according to severity, with 5 (16%) using a formal classification system (Clavien-Dindo or Accordion scale). Of 27 trials which described 'short-term' mortality, 15 (47%) used one of five different definitions. 6 out of the 32 trials (19%) described 'patient-reported outcomes'.

CONCLUSION

Reporting of outcomes in gastric cancer surgery trials is inconsistent. A consensus approach to develop a minimum set of well-defined, standardised outcomes to be used by all future trials examining therapeutic surgical interventions for gastric cancer is needed. This should consider the views of all key stakeholders, including patients.

A systematic analysis highlighting deficiencies in reported outcomes for patients with stage IV colorectal cancer undergoing palliative resection of the primary tumour

BACKGROUND

Management of the primary tumour in the presence of unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is controversial. The role of primary tumour resection (PTR) has been investigated by a number of retrospective cohort studies, with a number on going randomised controlled trials. The aim of this study was to identify the clinical and patient-reported outcomes currently reported in studies that evaluate the role of PTR in mCRC.

METHODS

Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE (via OvidSP) (1966-June 2017), EMBASE (via OvidSP) and the Cochrane Library using terms related to colorectal cancer and primary tumour resection. All studies documenting outcomes following palliative PTR were included. Eligible articles were assessed using the Risk of Bias In Non-Randomised Studies of Intervention (ROBINS-I) tool.

RESULTS

Of 11,209 studies screened, 59 non-randomised studies reporting outcomes on 331,157 patients were included. Patient characteristics regarding performance status and co-morbidity were recorded in 26 (44.1%) and 17 (28.8%) studies. The chemotherapy regime used was reported in 27 (45.8%) studies. The operative setting and the operative approach was reported in 42 (71%) and 14 (23.7%) studies. Post-operative mortality and morbidity were reported in 33 (55.9%) and 35 (59.3%) studies. Overall survival was reported in 49 (83.1%) studies, with 5 different definitions identified. Quality of life was only reported in 1 (1.7%) study.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates significant heterogeneity in the selection and definition of outcomes reported following PTR in mCRC. There is significant heterogeneity with a significant under-reporting of important outcomes such as treatment related adverse events and patient reported outcomes.

Reporting of complications after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Consistent measurement and reporting of outcomes, including adequately defined complications, is important for the evaluation of surgical care and the appraisal of new surgical techniques. The range of complications reported after LC has not been evaluated. This study aimed to identify the range of complications currently reported for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), and the adequacy of their definitions.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for prospective studies reporting clinical outcomes of LC, between 2013 and 2016.

RESULTS

In total 233 studies were included, reporting 967 complications, of which 204 (21%) were defined. One hundred and twenty-two studies (52%) did not provide definitions for any of the complications reported. Conversion to open cholecystectomy was the most commonly reported complication, reported in 135 (58%) studies, followed by bile leak in 89 (38%) and bile duct injury in 75 (32%). Mortality was reported in 89 studies (38%).

CONCLUSION

Considerable variation was identified between studies in the choice of measures used to evaluate the complications of LC, and in their definitions. A standardised set of core outcomes of LC should be developed for use in clinical trials and in evaluating the performance of surgical units.

Do ultrasound guided trochanteric bursa injections of corticosteroid for greater trochanteric pain syndrome provide sustained benefit and are imaging features associated with treatment response?

AIM

To assess intra-bursal corticosteroid injections (ICSI) efficacy and duration of action in the management of greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS). The secondary aim was to identify patient and ultrasound (US) features predictive of treatment response.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive prospectively recruited patients undergoing US-guided ICSI therapy for GTPS received baseline pre-injection questionnaires assessing pain at rest and activity, demographics and comorbidities. Baseline US and radiography findings were reported prospectively. Follow-up was performed at 6 weeks and 6 and 12 months, and change in pain scores assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Logistic regression examined associations between demographics, US findings, and a clinically significant reduction in pain score (≥50%).

RESULTS

Over 6 months, 127 patients were recruited with a median age of 63.5 years and 90% were female. The greatest pain reduction was between baseline and 6 weeks at activity (median 8 versus 5, p<0.001). The majority of patients noted a reduction in pain score, but the percentage of patients receiving a ≥50% reduction at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months for pain at rest was 41%, 37%, and 36%, respectively. Regression models suggested only gluteus medius bursitis was weakly associated with pain reduction.

CONCLUSION

ICSIs confer a benefit in pain reduction to a large proportion of patients in the short term, but this may not be reduced by a clinically significant amount. This small effect size and lack of predictive imaging features suggests initial management including subsequent steroid injection could be provided without imaging guidance in the majority of cases.

Standardising the reporting of outcomes in gastric cancer surgery trials: protocol for the development of a core outcome set and accompanying outcome measurement instrument set (the GASTROS study)

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Whilst surgery is the mainstay of curative treatment, it is associated with significant risks. Surgical strategies for treating gastric cancer should be based on evidence from systematic reviews of well-designed randomised controlled trials. However, inconsistencies in the reporting of outcomes from these trials makes evidence synthesis unreliable. We present a protocol for an international consensus study to develop a standardised set of outcomes and measurement tools - a 'core outcome set' (COS) - to be used by all future trials examining therapeutic surgical interventions for gastric cancer. The GASTROS study aims to standardise the reporting of outcomes in gastric cancer surgery trials through an international consensus process of key stakeholders including health care professionals and patients.

METHODS

The first of three stages in the study will identify a 'long-list' of potentially important outcomes to be prioritised. These will be extracted from a systematic review of relevant academic literature and patient interviews. Stage 2 will comprise an eDelphi survey which will consider the views of patients, nurse specialists and surgeons to prioritise the most important outcomes. A meeting of stakeholder representatives will ratify the COS. Stage 3 will focus on identifying appropriate instruments to measure the prioritised outcomes by means of quality assessment of available measurement instruments and stakeholder consultation.

DISCUSSION

This study aims to standardise the reporting of outcomes in future trials examining therapeutic surgical interventions for gastric cancer. It is anticipated that standardisation of outcome reporting in these surgical effectiveness trials will enhance the evidence base for clinical practice. Highlighting outcomes of greatest importance to patients will ensure that their perspectives are central to research in this field.

The COMET Handbook: version 1.0

The selection of appropriate outcomes is crucial when designing clinical trials in order to compare the effects of different interventions directly. For the findings to influence policy and practice, the outcomes need to be relevant and important to key stakeholders including patients and the public, health care professionals and others making decisions about health care. It is now widely acknowledged that insufficient attention has been paid to the choice of outcomes measured in clinical trials. Researchers are increasingly addressing this issue through the development and use of a core outcome set, an agreed standardised collection of outcomes which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all trials for a specific clinical area.Accumulating work in this area has identified the need for guidance on the development, implementation, evaluation and updating of core outcome sets. This Handbook, developed by the COMET Initiative, brings together current thinking and methodological research regarding those issues. We recommend a four-step process to develop a core outcome set. The aim is to update the contents of the Handbook as further research is identified.

Quality and acceptability of measures of exercise adherence in musculoskeletal settings: a systematic review

Objective

To recommend robust and relevant measures of exercise adherence for application in the musculoskeletal field.

Method

A systematic review of measures was conducted in two phases. Phase 1 sought to identify all reproducible measures used to assess exercise adherence in a musculoskeletal setting. Phase 2 identified published evidence of measurement and practical properties of identified measures. Eight databases were searched (from inception to February 2016). Study quality was assessed against the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments guidelines. Measurement quality was assessed against accepted standards.

Results

Phase 1: from 8511 records, 326 full-text articles were reviewed; 45 reproducible measures were identified. Phase 2: from 2977 records, 110 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility; 10 articles provided evidence of measurement/practical properties for just seven measures. Six were exercise adherence-specific measures; one was specific to physical activity but applied as a measure of exercise adherence. Evidence of essential measurement and practical properties was mostly limited or not available. Assessment of relevance and comprehensiveness was largely absent and there was no evidence of patient involvement during the development or evaluation of any measure.

Conclusion

The significant methodological and quality issues encountered prevent the clear recommendation of any measure; future applications should be undertaken cautiously until greater clarity of the conceptual underpinning of each measure is provided and acceptable evidence of essential measurement properties is established. Future research should seek to engage collaboratively with relevant stakeholders to ensure that exercise adherence assessment is high quality, relevant and acceptable.

A systematic examination of preoperative surgery warm-up routines

BACKGROUND

Recent evidence indicates that a preoperative warm-up is a potentially useful tool in facilitating performance. But what factors drive such improvements and how should a warm-up be implemented?

METHODS

In order to address these issues, we adopted a two-pronged approach: (1) we conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify existing studies utilising preoperative simulation techniques; (2) we performed task analysis to identify the constituent parts of effective warm-ups. We identified five randomised control trials, four randomised cross-over trials and four case series. The majority of these studies reviewed surgical performance following preoperative simulation relative to performance without simulation.

RESULTS

Four studies reported outcome measures in real patients and the remainder reported simulated outcome measures. All but one of the studies found that preoperative simulation improves operative outcomes-but this improvement was not found across all measured parameters. While the reviewed studies had a number of methodological issues, the global data indicate that preoperative simulation has substantial potential to improve surgical performance. Analysis of the task characteristics of successful interventions indicated that the majority of these studies employed warm-ups that focused on the visual motor elements of surgery. However, there was no theoretical or empirical basis to inform the design of the intervention in any of these studies.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an urgent need for a more rigorous approach to the development of "warm-up" routines if the potential value of preoperative simulation is to be understood and realised. We propose that such interventions need to be grounded in theory and empirical evidence on human motor performance.

Factors predicting outcome from enhanced recovery programmes in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of published literature for the factors reported to predict outcomes of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programmes following laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND

ERAS programmes and the use of laparoscopy have been widely adopted in colorectal surgery bringing short-term patient benefit. However, there is a minority of patients that do not benefit from these strategies and their identification is not well characterised. The factors that underpin outcomes from ERAS programmes for laparoscopic patients are not understood.

METHODS

A systematic search of the MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases was conducted to identify suitable articles published between 2000 and 2015. The search strategy captured terms for ERAS, colorectal resection, prediction and outcome measures.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies containing 10,861 laparoscopic resections were included. Thirty-one (91 %) studies were confined to elective cases. Predictive analysis of outcome was most frequently based on length of stay (LOS), morbidity and readmission which were the main outcome measures of 29 (85 %), 26 (76 %) and 18 (53 %) of the included studies, respectively. Forty-seven percentage of included studies investigated the impact of ERAS programme compliance on these outcomes. Reduced protocol compliance was the most frequently identified modifiable predictive factor for adverse LOS, morbidity and readmission.

CONCLUSION

Protocol compliance is the most frequently reported predictive factor for outcomes of ERAS programmes following laparoscopic colorectal resection. Reduced compliance increases LOS, morbidity and readmission to hospital. The impact of compliance with individual ERAS protocol elements is insufficiently studied, and the lack of a standardised framework for evaluating ERAS programmes makes it difficult to draw definite conclusions about which factors exert the greatest impact on outcome after laparoscopic colorectal resection.

Prevention of Perioperative Anastomotic Healing Complications: Anastomotic Stricture and Anastomotic Leak

The anastomotic healing complications of postoperative leak and stricture continue to plague surgeons despite many broadly targeted interventions. Evaluation of preventive measure efficacy is difficult due to inconsistent definitions and reporting of these complications. Few interventions have been shown to impact rates of leakage or stricture. However, new evidence is emerging that the intestinal microbiota can play an important role in the development of anastomotic complications. A more holistic approach to understanding the mechanisms of anastomotic complications is needed in order to develop tailored interventions to reduce their frequency. Such an approach may require a more complete definition of the role of the microbiota in anastomotic healing.

Three nested randomized controlled trials of peer-only or multiple stakeholder group feedback within Delphi surveys during core outcome and information set development

BACKGROUND

Methods for developing a core outcome or information set require involvement of key stakeholders to prioritise many items and achieve agreement as to the core set. The Delphi technique requires participants to rate the importance of items in sequential questionnaires (or rounds) with feedback provided in each subsequent round such that participants are able to consider the views of others. This study examines the impact of receiving feedback from different stakeholder groups, on the subsequent rating of items and the level of agreement between stakeholders.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials were nested within the development of three core sets each including a Delphi process with two rounds of questionnaires, completed by patients and health professionals. Participants rated items from 1 (not essential) to 9 (absolutely essential). For round 2, participants were randomized to receive feedback from their peer stakeholder group only (peer) or both stakeholder groups separately (multiple). Decisions as to which items to retain following each round were determined by pre-specified criteria.

RESULTS

Whilst type of feedback did not impact on the percentage of items for which a participant subsequently changed their rating, or the magnitude of change, it did impact on items retained at the end of round 2. Each core set contained discordant items retained by one feedback group but not the other (3-22 % discordant items). Consensus between patients and professionals in items to retain was greater amongst those receiving multiple group feedback in each core set (65-82 % agreement for peer-only feedback versus 74-94 % for multiple feedback). In addition, differences in round 2 scores were smaller between stakeholder groups receiving multiple feedback than between those receiving peer group feedback only. Variability in item scores across stakeholders was reduced following any feedback but this reduction was consistently greater amongst the multiple feedback group.

CONCLUSIONS

In the development of a core outcome or information set, providing feedback within Delphi questionnaires from all stakeholder groups separately may influence the final core set and improve consensus between the groups. Further work is needed to better understand how participants rate and re-rate items within a Delphi process.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The three randomized controlled trials reported here were each nested within the development of a core information or outcome set to investigate processes in core outcome and information set development. Outcomes were not health-related and therefore trial registration was not applicable.

Core Outcomes for Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Consensus Study

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of worldwide morbidity and mortality. Surgical treatment is common, and there is a great need to improve the delivery of such care. The gold standard for evaluating surgery is within well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, the impact of RCTs is diminished by a lack of coordinated outcome measurement and reporting. A solution to these issues is to develop an agreed standard "core" set of outcomes to be measured in all trials to facilitate cross-study comparisons, meta-analysis, and minimize outcome reporting bias. This study defines a core outcome set for CRC surgery.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

The scope of this COS includes clinical effectiveness trials of surgical interventions for colorectal cancer. Excluded were nonsurgical oncological interventions. Potential outcomes of importance to patients and professionals were identified through systematic literature reviews and patient interviews. All outcomes were transcribed verbatim and categorized into domains by two independent researchers. This informed a questionnaire survey that asked stakeholders (patients and professionals) from United Kingdom CRC centers to rate the importance of each domain. Respondents were resurveyed following group feedback (Delphi methods). Outcomes rated as less important were discarded after each survey round according to predefined criteria, and remaining outcomes were considered at three consensus meetings; two involving international professionals and a separate one with patients. A modified nominal group technique was used to gain the final consensus. Data sources identified 1,216 outcomes of CRC surgery that informed a 91 domain questionnaire. First round questionnaires were returned from 63 out of 81 (78%) centers, including 90 professionals, and 97 out of 267 (35%) patients. Second round response rates were high for all stakeholders (>80%). Analysis of responses lead to 45 and 23 outcome domains being retained after the first and second surveys, respectively. Consensus meetings generated agreement on a 12 domain COS. This constituted five perioperative outcome domains (including anastomotic leak), four quality of life outcome domains (including fecal urgency and incontinence), and three oncological outcome domains (including long-term survival).

CONCLUSION

This study used robust consensus methodology to develop a core outcome set for use in colorectal cancer surgical trials. It is now necessary to validate the use of this set in research practice.

Trial outcomes and information for clinical decision-making: a comparative study of opinions of health professionals

Background

Trials are robust sources of data for clinical practice; however, trial outcomes may not reflect what is important to communicate for decision-making. The study compared clinicians’ views of outcomes to include in a core outcome set for colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery, with what clinicians considered important information for clinical practice (core information).

Methods

Potential outcome/information domains were identified through systematic literature reviews, reviews of hospital information leaflets and interviews with patients. These were organized into six categories and used to design a questionnaire survey that asked surgeons and nurses from a sample of CRC centers to rate the importance of each domain as an outcome or as information on a nine-point Likert scale. Respondents were re-surveyed (round 2) following group feedback (Delphi methods). Comparisons were made by calculating the difference in mean scores between the outcomes and information domains, and paired t tests were used to explore the difference between mean scores of the six outcome/information categories.

Results

Data sources identified 1216 outcome/information items for CRC surgery that informed a 94-item questionnaire. First-round questionnaires were returned from 63/81 (78 %) of centers. Clinicians rated 76/94 (84 %) domains of higher importance to measure in trials than information to communicate to patients in round 1. This was reduced to 24/47 (51 %) in round 2. The greatest difference was evident in domains regarding survival, which was rated much more highly as a trial outcome than an important piece of information for decision-making (difference in mean 2.3, 95 % CI 1.9 to 2.8, p <0.0001). Specific complications and quality-of-life domains were rated similarly (difference in mean 0.18, 95 % CI −0.1 to 0.4, p = 0.2 and difference in mean 0.2, 95 % CI −0.1 to 0.5, p = 0.2, respectively).

Conclusions

Whilst clinicians want to measure key outcomes in trials, they rate these as less important to communicate in decision-making with patients. This discrepancy needs to be explored and addressed to maximize the impact of trials on clinical practice.

Synthesis and summary of patient-reported outcome measures to inform the development of a core outcome set in colorectal cancer surgery

AIM

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures (PROMs) are standard measures in the assessment of colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment, but the range and complexity of available PROMs may be hindering the synthesis of evidence. This systematic review aimed to: (i) summarize PROMs in studies of CRC surgery and (ii) categorize PRO content to inform the future development of an agreed minimum 'core' outcome set to be measured in all trials.

METHOD

All PROMs were identified from a systematic review of prospective CRC surgical studies. The type and frequency of PROMs in each study were summarized, and the number of items documented. All items were extracted and independently categorized by content by two researchers into 'health domains', and discrepancies were discussed with a patient and expert. Domain popularity and the distribution of items were summarized.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight different PROMs were identified from the 104 included studies. There were 23 generic, four cancer-specific, 11 disease-specific and 16 symptom-specific questionnaires, and three ad hoc measures. The most frequently used PROM was the EORTC QLQ-C30 (50 studies), and most PROMs (n = 40, 69%) were used in only one study. Detailed examination of the 50 available measures identified 917 items, which were categorized into 51 domains. The domains comprising the most items were 'anxiety' (n = 85, 9.2%), 'fatigue' (n = 67, 7.3%) and 'physical function' (n = 63, 6.9%). No domains were included in all PROMs.

CONCLUSION

There is major heterogeneity of PRO measurement and a wide variation in content assessed in the PROMs available for CRC. A core outcome set will improve PRO outcome measurement and reporting in CRC trials.

Patient-reported outcomes in randomised controlled trials of colorectal cancer: an analysis determining the availability of robust data to inform clinical decision-making

PURPOSE

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the most robust study design measuring outcomes of colorectal cancer (CRC) treatments, but to influence clinical practice trial design and reporting of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) must be of high quality. Objectives of this study were as follows: to examine the quality of PRO reporting in RCTs of CRC treatment; to assess the availability of robust data to inform clinical decision-making; and to investigate whether quality of reporting improved over time.

METHODS

A systematic review from January 2004-February 2012 identified RCTs of CRC treatment describing PROs. Relevant abstracts were screened and manuscripts obtained. Methodological quality was assessed using International Society for Quality of Life Research-patient-reported outcome reporting standards. Changes in reporting quality over time were established by comparison with previous data, and risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

RESULTS

Sixty-six RCTs were identified, seven studies (10 %) reported survival benefit favouring the experimental treatment, 35 trials (53 %) identified differences in PROs between treatment groups, and the clinical significance of these differences was discussed in 19 studies (29 %). The most commonly reported treatment type was chemotherapy (n = 45; 68 %). Improvements over time in key methodological issues including the documentation of missing data and the discussion of the clinical significance of PROs were found. Thirteen trials (20 %) had high-quality reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Whilst improvements in PRO quality reporting over time were found, several recent studies still fail to robustly inform clinical practice. Quality of PRO reporting must continue to improve to maximise the clinical impact of PRO findings.

Quality of reporting on patient and public involvement within surgical research: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Recruitment difficulties are a well-reported concern in surgical literature, which may be improved by patient and public involvement (PPI). PPI within research has been defined as being conducted "with" or "by" patients or members of the public rather than being "about" or "for" them. However, the extent to which PPI is used within surgical research is unknown.

METHODS

Surgical literature was systematically reviewed using EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PubMed. Search terms related to (i) patients, (ii) involvement, (iii) perioperative care, and (iv) impact. Quality of PPI reporting was evaluated using the GRIPP (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and Public checklist and the guidelines developed by Wright and Foster. A patient representative advised on the purpose and analysis of this systematic review.

RESULTS

Eight articles described PPI in surgical trials to improve the identification of research topics, study design, recruitment, retention, and data collection. Quality of PPI reporting was suboptimal, as none of the articles provided a clear account of how PPI was conceptualized. Training and support for patients, their involvement in dissemination, and a critique of the limitations of PPI were not reported. However, it was not clear whether this represents an underutilization of PPI or purely suboptimal reporting in surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a paucity of surgical research reporting upon PPI, and the quality of reporting is low. Further research to define appropriate standards for reporting on PPI activities may facilitate broadening the utilization and impact of PPI in surgical research.

Stapled versus handsewn intestinal anastomosis in emergency laparotomy: a systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal technique for gastrointestinal anastomosis remains controversial in emergency laparotomy. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare outcomes of stapled versus handsewn anastomosis after emergency bowel resection.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed for studies comparing outcomes after emergency laparotomy using stapled versus handsewn anastomosis until July 2014 (PROSPERO registry number: CRD42013006183). The primary endpoint was anastomotic failure, a composite measure of leak, abscess and fistula. Odds ratio (OR; with 95% CI) and weighted mean differences were calculated using meta-analytical techniques. Subgroup analysis was conducted for trauma surgery (TS) and emergency general surgery (EGS) cohorts. Risk of bias for each study was calculated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for cohort studies, and Cochrane Collaboration's tool for randomized trials.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 7 studies of 1,120 patients, with a total of 1,205 anastomoses. There were 5 TS studies and 2 EGS studies. There were no differences in anastomotic failure between handsewn and stapled techniques on an individual anastomosis level (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 0.97-2.43; P = .070), or on an individual patient level (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.92-2.25; P = .110). There were no differences in the individual rates of anastomotic leak, abscess, fistulae, or postoperative deaths between techniques. Subgroup analysis of EGS and TS studies demonstrated no superior operative technique.

CONCLUSION

Available evidence is sparse and at high risk of bias, and neither stapling nor handsewing is justifiably favored in emergency laparotomy. Surgeons might therefore select the technique of their own choice with caution owing to unresolved uncertainty.

Outcome reporting in bariatric surgery: an in-depth analysis to inform the development of a core outcome set, the BARIACT Study

Outcome reporting in bariatric surgery needs a core outcome set (COS), an agreed minimum set of outcomes reported in all studies of a particular condition. The aim of this study was to summarize outcome reporting in bariatric surgery to inform the development of a COS. Outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and large non-randomized studies identified by a systematic review were listed verbatim and categorized into domains, scrutinizing the frequency of outcome reporting and uniformity of definitions. Ninety studies (39 RCTs) identified 1,088 separate outcomes, grouped into nine domains with most (n = 920, 85%) reported only once. The largest outcome domain was 'surgical complications', and overall, 42% of outcomes corresponded to a theme of 'adverse events'. Only a quarter of outcomes were defined, and where provided definitions, which were often contradictory. Percentage of excess weight loss was the main study outcome in 49 studies, but nearly 40% of weight loss outcomes were heterogeneous, thus not comparable. Outcomes of diverse bariatric operations focus largely on adverse events. Reporting is inconsistent and ill-defined, limiting interpretation and comparison of published studies. Thus, we propose and are developing a COS for the surgical treatment of severe and complex obesity.

Pre-operative granulocyte/lymphocyte ratio as a predictive marker of post-operative complications in patients with colorectal cancer

The aim of the present study was to assess the clinical relevance of the pre-operative granulocyte/lymphocyte (G/L) ratio as a predictive marker of post-operative complications in patients with colorectal cancer. In total, 85 patients (59 males and 26 females; mean age, 68.9 years) underwent surgery for colorectal cancer at the Department of Surgery, Ibraki Medical Center, Tokyo Medical University (Ami, Japan), and were divided into post-operative complication and non-complication groups. Clinical data, including age, gender, body mass index, tumor localization, tumor pathological type, cancer staging, surgery time, volume of surgical bleeding, pre-operative G/L ratio and further pre-operative laboratory data, including levels of albumin and C-reactive protein, Glasgow Prognostic Score, white blood cell count and levels of hemoglobin, creatine kinase, lactate dehydrogenase, carcinoembryonic antigen and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 were analyzed between these groups. The total post-operative complication rate was 18.8%. On univariate analysis, the amount of surgical bleeding and the pre-operative G/L ratio were significantly higher in the complication group than in the non-complication group (299.8±361.7 vs. 155.6±268.6 ml, P<0.05; and 6.73±10.38 vs. 3.49±2.78, P<0.05, respectively). Multivariate logistic regression analysis for the risk factors of post-operative complications, determined using univariate analysis, demonstrated that the amount of surgical bleeding and the pre-operative G/L ratio were independent risk factors of post-operative complications in patients with colorectal cancer. In conclusion, the G/L ratio may be a clinically relevant pre-operative predictive marker for post-operative complications.

Selecting and measuring optimal outcomes for randomised controlled trials in surgery

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in surgery are complex to design and conduct and face unique challenges compared to trials in other specialties. The appropriate selection, measurement and reporting of outcomes are one aspect that requires attention. Outcomes in surgical RCTs are often ill-defined, inconsistent and at high risk of bias in their assessment and historically, there has been an undue focus on short-term outcomes and adverse events meaning the value of trial results for clinical practice and decision-making is limited.

PURPOSE

This review addresses three key problems with surgical trial outcomes—choosing the right outcomes for the trial design and purpose, selecting relevant outcomes to measure from the range of possible outcomes, and measuring outcomes with minimal risk of bias. Each obstacle is discussed in turn, highlighting some suggested solutions and current initiatives working towards improvements in these areas. Some examples of good practice in this field are also discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Many of the historical problems with surgical trial outcomes may be overcome with an increased understanding of the trial design and purpose and recognition that pragmatic trials require assessments of outcomes that are patient-centred in addition to measurement of short-term outcomes. The use of core outcome sets developed for specific surgical interventions and the application of novel methods to blind outcome assessors will also improve outcome measurement and reporting. It is recommended that surgeons work together with trial methodologists to integrate these approaches into RCTs in surgery. This will facilitate the appropriate evaluation of surgical interventions with informative outcomes so that results from trials can be useful for clinical practice.