Agreement on what to measure in randomised controlled trials in burn care: study protocol for the development of a core outcome set

Sample size in multistakeholder Delphi surveys: at what minimum sample size do replicability of results stabilize?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The minimum sample size for multistakeholder Delphi surveys remains understudied. Drawing from three large international multistakeholder Delphi surveys, this study aimed to: 1) investigate the effect of increasing sample size on replicability of results; 2) assess whether the level of replicability of results differed with participant characteristics: for example, gender, age, and profession.

METHODS

We used data from Delphi surveys to develop guidance for improved reporting of health-care intervention trials: SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) extension for surrogate end points (n = 175, 22 items rated); CONSORT-SPI [CONSORT extension for Social and Psychological Interventions] (n = 333, 77 items rated); and core outcome set for burn care (n = 553, 88 items rated). Resampling with replacement was used to draw random subsamples from the participant data set in each of the three surveys. For each subsample, the median value of all rated survey items was calculated and compared to the medians from the full participant data set. The median number (and interquartile range) of medians replicated was used to calculate the percentage replicability (and variability). High replicability was defined as ≥80% and moderate as 60% and <80% RESULTS: The average median replicability (variability) as a percentage of total number of items rated from the three datasets was 81% (10%) at a sample size of 60. In one of the datasets (CONSORT-SPI), a ≥80% replicability was reached at a sample size of 80. On average, increasing the sample size from 80 to 160 increased the replicability of results by a further 3% and reduced variability by 1%. For subgroup analysis based on participant characteristics (eg, gender, age, professional role), using resampled samples of 20 to 100 showed that a sample size of 20 to 30 resulted to moderate replicability levels of 64% to 77%.

CONCLUSION

We found that a minimum sample size of 60-80 participants in multistakeholder Delphi surveys provides a high level of replicability (≥80%) in the results. For Delphi studies limited to individual stakeholder groups (such as researchers, clinicians, patients), a sample size of 20 to 30 per group may be sufficient.

Patient-Reported Outcomes of Maxillomandibular Surgery for Obstructive Sleep Apnea Treatment: A Scoping Review

(1) Background: The present scoping review aims to scrutinize all existing patient-reported outcomes and assess the perspectives of obstructive sleep apnea patients after maxillomandibular surgery. (2) Methods: The review was carried out according to the extensions for scoping reviews using the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Several databases were used to carry out the initial search. This study included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, cross-sectional and case-control studies. The included studies considered patients with obstructive sleep apnea who were submitted to orthognathic surgery as the main subjects, and the patient's perception of quality of life, satisfaction, treatment experience and side effects were assessed. (3) Results: From 1407 examined articles, a total of 16 were included. Most of the included studies used more than one questionnaire to assess quality of life, except for five articles. The most commonly referred instruments were the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, SF-36, the Functional Outcomes of Sleep and Ottawa Sleep Apnea. The most commonly assessed outcomes were sleep quality, daytime function, facial aesthetics, dental function and emotional health. (4) Conclusions: The number of variables that can be evaluated from a patient's perspective are endless, as are the tools available to assess them. Not all of these tools, which are generally questionnaires, assess all the various outcomes, and some do not compare the pre- and post-surgical situations. Most of them are generic and lack specificity for obstructive sleep apnea.

Working Towards Holistic Scar Assessment and Improved Shared Decision Making in Global Burn Care

Cutaneous burn scars impact various aspects of life. Scar treatment is mainly evaluated on scar characteristics. Consensus is needed on which other outcomes to capture, ensuring they are relevant to patients, clinicians, and researchers. The aim of this study was to identify, discuss and analyze outcomes related to cutaneous burn scarring, incorporating the voice of patients and views of healthcare professionals. For this, a Delphi process consisting of two survey rounds and a consensus meeting was initiated. Burn scar-related outcomes were identified from an existing comprehensive list of 100 outcomes by an international panel of patients, healthcare professionals and researchers. Fifty-nine outcomes were identified from the Delphi process as related to scarring (≥60% votes). Outcomes less impactful in relation to scar outcomes included psychosocial issues, sense of normality, understanding of treatment, costs and systemic issues. To represent a holistic assessment of outcomes related to cutaneous burn scarring, this Delphi process established a battery of outcomes currently included in scar quality assessment tools, and an expanded set of less frequently considered outcomes. Future work in this area must include the patient voice from developing countries. This is essential to identify globally applicable outcomes related to scarring.

Exploring what is important during burn recovery: a qualitative study investigating priorities of patients and healthcare professionals over time

OBJECTIVES

This qualitative study aimed to investigate: (1) priorities of patients and healthcare professionals during recovery from a burn injury, (2) how priorities change over time and (3) how priorities map to outcomes currently reported in burns research.

DESIGN

Semi-structured interviews were conducted. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.

SETTING, PARTICIPANTS

A total of 53 patients and healthcare professionals were recruited from four National Health Service (NHS) burn services across England and Wales across England and Wales. Patient participants (n=32) included adults, adolescents and parents of paediatric patients, with a variety of burn injuries in terms of severity and cause of burn injury. Healthcare professionals (n=21) were NHS staff members involved in burn care and included professionals with a range of clinical experience and roles (eg, nurses, surgeons, occupational therapists, physiotherapist, administration).

RESULTS

Ten themes relating to priorities (outcomes) during recovery from a burn injury were identified for patients and professionals. Of those, six were identified for patients and professionals ('pain and discomfort', 'psychological well-being', 'healing', 'scarring', 'function', 'infection'), three were unique to professionals ('patient knowledge, understanding and support', 'sense of control', 'survival') and one was unique to patients ('uncertainty'). Results highlighted that importance of these priorities changes over time (eg, 'survival' was only a concern in the short term). Likewise, priorities differed between patients and professionals (eg, 'pain' was important to patients throughout their recovery, but not for professionals). Seven out of 10 themes overlapped with outcomes commonly assessed in burn research.

CONCLUSION

Professionals' and patients' priorities (important outcomes) change over time after burn injury and differ between those groups. Burn care research should consider measuring outcomes at different time points during the recovery from a burn injury to accurately reflect complexity of burn recovery.

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.

Consensus on the health education of home-based negative pressure wound therapy for patients with chronic wounds: a modified Delphi study

Background

The study aimed to develop consensus on the components of health education of home-based negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) for patients with chronic wounds.

Methods

A Delphi method was used to achieve consensus on the components of health education and 75% agreement and coefficient of variation (CV) <0.25 were used as cutoff. Sixteen experts were recruited purposefully to finish this study.

Results

Two rounds of consultation were implemented. Consensus was achieved on 36 of the 42 statements. The final agreed list of statements represented three domains: health education before carrying out home-based NPWT, health education for the treatment day of NPWT at hospital and health education for NPWT at home.

Conclusions

This study was the first attempt to develop consensus on the comprehensive components of health education of home-based NPWT for patients with chronic wounds. According to the established framework and components of health education, wound professionals can safely and effectively implement health education of home-based NPWT for patients with chronic wounds and improve their self-care ability and treatment experience at home.

Secondary analysis of data from a core outcome set for burns demonstrated the need for involvement of lower income countries

Objective

To compare the views of participants from different income-status countries on outcome selection for a burn care Core Outcome Set (COS).

Methods

A retrospective analysis of data collected during a two round Delphi survey to prioritise the most important outcomes in burn care research.

Results

There was considerable agreement between participants from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries (HICs) across outcomes. The groups agreed on 91% of 88 outcomes in round 1 and 92% of 100 in round 2. In cases of discordance, the consensus of participants from LMICs was to include the outcome and for participants from HICs to exclude. There was also considerable agreement between the groups for the top-ten ranking outcomes. Discordance in outcome prioritisation gives an insight into the different values clinicians from LMICs place on outcomes compared to those from HICs. Limitations of the study were that outcome rankings from international patients were not available. Healthcare professionals from LMICs were not involved in the final consensus meeting.

Conclusion

COS developers should consider the need for a COS to be global at protocol stage. Global COS should include equal representation from both LMICs and HICs at all stages of development.

Acute Management of Thermal Hand Burns in Adults: A 10-Year Review of the Literature

INTRODUCTION

Advances in the evidence base of acute thermal hand burns help to guide the management of these common injuries. The aim of this literature review was to evaluate recent evidence in the field over 10 years.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols methodology was used as a guide for this literature review. PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Google Scholar were searched for English language articles related to hand burns published between 2009 and 2018 inclusive, and the Cochrane Library was reviewed. Exclusion criteria were as follows: participants younger than 18 years, scar or contracture management, rehabilitation, outcomes assessment, late reconstruction, and electrical or chemical burns.

RESULTS

An initial search retrieved 6493 articles, which was narrowed to 403 full-text articles that were reviewed independently by 3 of the authors and categorized. Of 202 included articles, there were 8 randomized controlled trials and 2 systematic reviews. Six evidence-based guidelines were reviewed. Referral of hand burns to specialist centers, use of telemedicine, early excision and grafting, and immediate static splintage have been recommended. Enzymatic debridement results in earlier intervention, more accurate burn assessment, preservation of vital tissue, and fewer skin grafts, and ideally requires regional anesthesia. Guidance on escharotomy emphasizes indication, technique and adequate intervention, and potential for enzymatic debridement. Inclusion of topical negative pressure, dermal regenerative templates, acellular dermal matrices, and noncellular skin substitutes in management has helped improve scar and functional outcomes.

DISCUSSION

The results of this literature review demonstrate that multiple national and international societies have published burns guidelines during the decade studied, with aspects directly relevant to hand burns, including the International Society for Burn Injuries guidelines. There are opportunities for evidence-based quality improvement across the field of hand burns in many centers.

CONCLUSIONS

More than 200 articles globally in 10 years outline advances in the understanding of acute management of thermal hand burns. Incorporating the evidence base into practice may facilitate optimization of triage referral pathways and acute management for hand burns.

Systematic review of international Delphi surveys for core outcome set development: representation of international patients

OBJECTIVES

A core outcome set (COS) describes a minimum set of outcomes to be reported by all clinical trials of one healthcare condition. Delphi surveys are frequently used to achieve consensus on core outcomes. International input is important to achieve global COS uptake. We aimed to investigate participant representation in international Delphi surveys, with reference to the inclusion of patients and participants from low and middle income countries as stakeholders (LMICs).

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

EMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, COMET database and hand-searching.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Protocols and studies describing Delphi surveys used to develop an international COS for trial reporting, published between 1 January 2017 and 6 June 2019.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Delphi participants were grouped as patients or healthcare professionals (HCPs). Participants were considered international if their country of origin was different to that of the first or senior author. Data extraction included participant numbers, country of origin, country income group and whether Delphi surveys were translated. We analysed the impact these factors had on outcome prioritisation.

RESULTS

Of 90 included studies, 69% (n=62) were completed and 31% (n=28) were protocols. Studies recruited more HCPs than patients (median 60 (IQR 30-113) vs 30 (IQR 14-66) participants, respectively). A higher percentage of HCPs was international compared with patients (57% (IQR 37-78) vs 20% (IQR 0-68)). Only 31% (n=28) studies recruited participants from LMICs. Regarding recruitment from LMICs, patients were under-represented (16% studies; n=8) compared with HCPs (22%; n=28). Few (7%; n=6) studies translated Delphi surveys. Only 3% studies (n=3) analysed Delphi responses by geographical location; all found differences in outcome prioritisation.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a disproportionately lower inclusion of international patients, compared with HCPs, in COS-development Delphi surveys, particularly within LMICs. Future international Delphi surveys should consider exploring for geographical and income-based differences in outcome prioritisation.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019138519.

Ensuring that the outcome domains proposed for use in burns research are relevant to adult burn patients: a systematic review of qualitative research evidence

Background

There have been several attempts to define core outcome domains for use in research focused on adult burns. Some have been based in expert opinion, whilst others have used primary qualitative research to understand patients' perspectives on outcomes. To date there has not been a systematic review of qualitative research in burns to identify a comprehensive list of patient-centred outcome domains. We therefore conducted a systematic review of qualitative research studies in adult burns.

Methods

We searched multiple databases for English-language, peer-reviewed, qualitative research papers. We used search strategies devised using the SPIDER tool for qualitative synthesis. Our review utilized an iterative three-step approach: (1) outcome-focused coding; (2) development of descriptive accounts of outcome-relevant issues; and (3) revisiting studies and the broader theoretical literature in order to frame the review findings.

Results

Forty-one articles were included. We categorized papers according to their primary focus. The category with the most papers was adaptation to life following burn injury (n = 13). We defined 19 outcome domains across the 41 articles: (1) sense of self; (2) emotional and psychological morbidity; (3) sensory; (4) scarring and scar characteristics; (5) impact on relationships; (6) mobility and range of joint motion; (7) work; (8) activities of daily living and self-care; (9) treatment burden; (10) engagement in activities; (11) wound healing and infection; (12) other physical manifestations; (13) financial impact; (14) impact on spouses and family members; (15) analgesia and side effects; (16) cognitive skills; (17) length of hospital stay; (18) access to healthcare; and (19) speech and communication. We suggest that sense of self is a core concern for patients that, to date, has not been clearly conceptualized in the burns outcome domain literature.

Conclusions

This outcome domain framework identifies domains that are not covered in previous attempts to outline core outcome domains for adult burn research. It does so with reference to existing theoretical perspectives from the sociology and psychology of medicine. We propose that this framework can be used as a basis to ensure that outcome assessment is patient-centred. Sense of self requires further consideration as a core outcome domain.

Obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome: Protocol for the development of a core outcome set

BACKGROUND

Obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) is a common, chronic sleep disease. As the incidence of OSAHS increases, it has seriously threatened people's health. There have been an increasing number of clinical trials of OSAHS in recent years. However, the clinical trials of OSAHS have heterogeneous outcomes, surrogate outcomes, subjective outcomes, and composite outcomes, as well as the lack of endpoints or patient perspectives. The best method is to develop a core outcomes sets (COSs) for OSAHS's clinical trials.

METHODS

The development of COSs of OSAHS will include 5 stages: RESULTS:: The results of our study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

DISCUSSION

The development of the COSs of OSAHS will improve the design and operation of OSAHS clinical trials to conform to international standards and ensure the credibility of the outcomes. In addition, this study will involve different stakeholder groups to help ensure that the developed COSs will be suitable and well accepted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

1544.

Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for reporting outcomes of management of velopharyngeal dysfunction

INTRODUCTION

Velopharyngeal dysfunction (VPD) is present in up to 40% of patients following cleft palate repair. Children with VPD display hypernasal speech, nasal air emission and are at a high risk for developing articulation disorders. The overall result is decreased intelligibility and acceptability of speech, as well as significant functional and social impairments. Although there are several surgical approaches for the management of children with VPD, standard treatment protocols have not been well defined. There is a need for a core outcome set (COS) to reduce outcome reporting bias and heterogeneity across studies of VPD. The COS-VPD Initiative is an international effort to establish a COS for the reporting of studies of the management of VPD.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study has been developed according to the Core Outcome Set-STAandards for Development standards for the design of a COS study and will be carried out according to the guidance of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative. A long list of clinical and patient-reported outcomes will be identified from a systematic review of the literature. A two-stage Delphi consensus process will be used to refine this list into a COS. An international panel of key stakeholders including patients, parents and multidisciplinary clinical and academic experts will be invited to participate in this process. Consensus criteria will be specified a priori and the steering group will ratify the final COS.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has ethical approval through Children's Health Ireland at Crumlin Research and Ethics Committee, Ref: GEN/683/18. The study is registered with the COMET Initiative (http://www.cometinitiative.org/studies/details/1146?result=true). The COS will be disseminated by publication in the peer-reviewed literature, presentation at international research meetings and distribution to patient-representative organisations. This will facilitate the application of the COS in future studies of the management of VPD.

Generic outcome set for the international registry on Laser trEAtments in Dermatology (LEAD): a protocol for a Delphi study to achieve consensus on what to measure

INTRODUCTION

While laser technology has expanded the armamentarium of treatment for various skin diseases during the past years, heterogeneity in study outcomes hampers comparability and appropriate evidence synthesis. Part of these issues can be addressed by developing a generic outcome set. Using the Delphi method, this study aims to seek consensus between key stakeholders on relevant generic outcomes (what to measure) for implementation in the international registry on Laser trEAtments in Dermatology (LEAD). The registry is focused on collecting research data on various laser treatments for skin disorders.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

By reviewing the literature and involvement of key stakeholder groups and adult patients in need or after laser surgery and health professionals, a preliminary list of outcomes will be generated and categorised into domains. Using these outcomes, an international three-round Delphi study will be performed to rate the importance of outcomes in the selection of a generic outcome set. Participants are allowed to provide new outcomes to the preliminary list for revisions during the first Delphi round. Finally, results will be discussed during a consensus meeting to agree on generic outcomes to be used in the LEAD registry.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

An ethics approval was not applicable (W19_290 # 18.336). The study is registered with the Cochrane Skin Core OUtcome Set INitiative) and the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials initiative. Procedures will be conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

Determine what to measure and how to measure in clinical trials for the treatment of pressure injury: A protocol for the development of a core outcome set

BACKGROUND

A core outcome set (COS) is an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be reported in all clinical trials in specific areas of health care. A considerable amount of trials did not report essential outcomes or outcomes measurement methods, which makes it challenging to evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatment strategies for pressure injury (PI) and produced significant heterogeneity of reported outcomes. It is necessary to develop a COS, which can be used for clinical trials in PI treatment.

METHODS/DESIGN

The development of this COS will be guided by an advisory group composed of clinicians, senior nurses, patients, and methodologists. We will search six databases and 2 registry platforms to identify currently reported PI treatment outcomes and outcome measurement instruments in randomized controlled trials, meta-analysis, and systematic reviews. We will also conduct a semi-structured interview with clinicians, nurses, and adult PI patients to collect their opinions on important outcomes. Each outcome of the initial list generated from systematic review and interviews will be scored and reach a consensus through two rounds of international Delphi survey with all key stakeholders. A face-to-face consensus meeting with key stakeholders will be conducted to finish a final COS and recommend measurement instruments for each outcome.

RESULTS

We will develop a COS that should be reported in future clinical trials to evaluate the effectiveness of PI treatment.

DISCUSSION

The COS will follow current guidance to develop a high-quality COS in the field of PI treatment to reduce heterogeneity in trial reporting, facilitate valid comparisons of new therapies, and improve the quality of clinical trials.

Risk of bias and reporting completeness of randomised controlled trials in burn care: protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Burn care represents a healthcare and economic burden to patients internationally. Choice of the most clinically effective treatment strategies requires evidence which is best obtained through high-quality randomised controlled trials (RCT). The number of published RCTs of burn care is increasing. However, trial quality and reporting standards are unclear. This study will assess the risk of bias and adequacy of reporting in recent burn care RCTs using tools endorsed by the Cochrane Collaboration.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A systematic literature review will be undertaken, assessing parallel group RCTs evaluating therapeutic interventions for patients with cutaneous burns. Literature searches will use Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. Separate searches for each database will include medical subject heading and free text terms including 'burn', 'scald', 'thermal injury' and 'RCT'. Two reviewers will independently assess each study for inclusion. Risk of bias (RoB) will be assessed with the revised tool (RoB 2) and reporting completeness with the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 guidelines. We will report a narrative synthesis of all studies, including domain specific, and overall risk of bias for the primary outcome of each trial. Inter-rater agreement for RoB 2 will be reported using Fleiss's Kappa. For adherence to the CONSORT guidelines, we will generate a completeness of reporting index for the five domains.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethics approval is required because published documents will be used. Findings of the study will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018111020.

Protocol for the development of a core indicator set for reporting burn wound infection in trials: ICon-B study

INTRODUCTION

Systematic reviews of high-quality randomised controlled trials are necessary to identify effective interventions to impact burn wound infection (BWI) outcomes. Evidence synthesis requires that BWI is reported in a consistent manner. Cochrane reviews investigating interventions for burns report that the indicators used to diagnose BWI are variable or not described, indicating a need to standardise reporting. BWI is complex and diagnosed by clinician judgement, informed by patient-reported symptoms, clinical signs, serum markers of inflammation and bacteria in the wound. Indicators for reporting BWI should be important for diagnosis, frequently observed in patients with BWI and assessed as part of routine healthcare. A minimum (core) set of indicators of BWI, reported consistently, will facilitate evidence synthesis and support clinical decision-making.

AIMS

The Infection Consensus in Burns study aims to identify a core indicator set for reporting the diagnosis of BWI in research studies.

METHODS

(1) Evidence review: a systematic review of indicators used in trials and observational studies reporting BWI outcomes to identify a long list of candidate indicators; (2) refinement of the long list into a smaller set of survey questions with an expert steering group; (3) a two-round Delphi survey with 100 multidisciplinary expert stakeholders, to achieve consensus on a short list of indicators; (4) a consensus meeting with expert stakeholders to agree on the BWI core indicator set.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Participants will be recruited through professional bodies, such that ethical approval from the National Health Service (NHS) Health Research Authority (HRA) is not needed. The core indicator set will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication, co-production with journal editors, research funders and professional bodies, and presentation at national conferences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018096647.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017060908.

Development of a gastroschisis core outcome set

OBJECTIVE

Outcome reporting heterogeneity impedes identification of gold standard treatments for children born with gastroschisis. Use of core outcome sets (COSs) in research reduces outcome reporting heterogeneity and ensures that studies are relevant to patients. The aim of this study was to develop a gastroschisis COS.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic reviews and stakeholder nomination were used to identify candidate outcomes that were subsequently prioritised by key stakeholders in a three-phase online Delphi process and face-to-face consensus meeting using a 9-point Likert scale. In phases two and three of the Delphi process, participants were shown graphical and numerical representations of their own, and all panels scores for each outcome respectively and asked to review their previous score in light of this information. Outcomes were carried forward to the consensus meeting if prioritised by two or three stakeholder panels in the third phase of the Delphi process. The COS was formed from outcomes where ≥70% of consensus meeting participants scored the outcome 7-9 and <15% of participants scored it 1-3.

RESULTS

71 participants (84%) completed all phases of the Delphi process, during which 87 outcomes were assessed. Eight outcomes, mortality, sepsis, growth, number of operations, severe gastrointestinal complication, time on parenteral nutrition, liver disease and quality of life for the child, met criteria for inclusion in the COS.

CONCLUSIONS

Eight outcomes have been included in the gastroschisis COS as a result of their importance to key stakeholders. Implementing use of the COS will increase the potential for identification of gold standard treatments for the management of children born with gastroschisis.