Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: a systematic review

A review and analysis of outcomes in randomized clinical trials of plasma transfusion in patients with bleeding or for the prevention of bleeding: The BEST collaborative study

BACKGROUND

Previous systematic reviews have revealed an inconsistency of outcome definitions as a major barrier in providing evidence-based guidance for the use of plasma transfusion to prevent or treat bleeding. We reviewed and analyzed outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to provide a methodology for describing and classifying outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

RCTs involving transfusion of plasma published after 2000 were identified from a prior review (Yang 2012) and combined with an updated systematic literature search of multiple databases (July 1, 2011 to January 17, 2023). Inclusion of publications, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were performed in duplicate. (PROSPERO registration number is: CRD42020158581).

RESULTS

In total, 5579 citations were identified in the new systematic search and 22 were included. Six additional trials were identified from the previous review, resulting in a total of 28 trials: 23 therapeutic and five prophylactic studies. An increasing number of studies in the setting of major bleeding such as in cardiovascular surgery and trauma were identified. Eighty-seven outcomes were reported with a mean of 11 (min-max. 4-32) per study. There was substantial variation in outcomes used with a preponderance of surrogate measures for clinical effect such as laboratory parameters and blood usage.

CONCLUSION

There is an expanding literature on plasma transfusion to inform guidelines. However, considerable heterogeneity of reported outcomes constrains comparisons. A core outcome set should be developed for plasma transfusion studies. Standardization of outcomes will motivate better study design, facilitate comparison, and improve clinical relevance for future trials of plasma transfusion.

Developing a core outcome set for evaluating medication adherence interventions for adults prescribed long-term medication in primary care

BACKGROUND

Approximately half of people prescribed medications do not take them as prescribed. There is a significant unmet need regarding the barriers to medication adherence not being addressed in primary care. There is no agreement on which outcomes should be measured and reported in trials of medication adherence interventions.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a core outcome set (COS) for trials of medication adherence interventions in primary care for adults prescribed medications for long-term health conditions.

METHODS

A list of potentially relevant outcomes from the literature was developed. Using a two-round Delphi survey of stakeholder groups representing patients and their carers; primary care staff; and academic researchers with an interest in medication adherence; each outcome was scored in terms of importance for determining the effectiveness of medication adherence interventions in primary care. This was followed by two consensus workshops, where importance, as well as feasibility and acceptability of measurement, were considered in order to finalise the COS.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty people took part in Delphi Round 1 and 101 took part in Round 2. Eight people attended the workshops (four attendees per workshop). Seven outcomes were identified as most important, feasible and acceptable to collect in medication adherence trials: Health-related quality of life, number of doses taken, persistence with medicines, starting (initiating) a medicine, relevance of the medication adherence intervention for an individual, mortality, and adverse medicine events.

CONCLUSIONS

This COS represents the minimum outcomes that should be collected and reported in all medication adherence trials undertaken in primary care. When developing and finalizing the COS, feasibility and acceptability of collection of outcomes has been considered. In addition to the COS, medication adherence trials can choose to include outcomes to suit their specific context such as the health condition associated with their medication adherence intervention.

A core outcome set for trials evaluating self-management interventions in people with severe mental illness and coexisting type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

People with severe mental illness (SMI), such as schizophrenia, have higher rates of type 2 diabetes and worse outcomes, compared to those without SMI and it is not known whether diabetes self-management interventions are effective for people who have both conditions. Research in this area has been impeded by a lack of consensus on which outcomes to prioritise in people with co-existing SMI and diabetes.

AIMS

To develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in effectiveness trials of diabetes self-management interventions in adults with both type 2 diabetes and SMI.

METHODS

The COS was developed in three stages: (i) identification of outcomes from systematic literature review of intervention studies, followed by multi-stakeholder and service user workshops; (ii) rating of outcomes in a two-round online Delphi survey; (iii) agreement of final 'core' outcomes through a stakeholder consensus workshop.

RESULTS

Seven outcomes were selected: glucose control, blood pressure, body composition (body weight, BMI, body fat), health-related quality of life, diabetes self-management, diabetes-related distress and medication adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

This COS is recommended for future trials of effectiveness of diabetes self-management interventions for people with SMI and type 2 diabetes. Its use will ensure trials capture important outcomes and reduce heterogeneity so findings can be readily synthesised to inform practice and policy.

Development of a core outcome set for use in research evaluations of interventions for venous leg ulceration: International eDelphi consensus

INTRODUCTION

Venous leg ulceration (VLU) is a chronic, recurring condition with associated pain, malodour, impaired mobility and susceptibility to infection which in turn significantly impacts an individual's health-related quality of life. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aim to determine the efficacy of interventions to improve outcomes. To be useful, these outcomes should be consistently and fully reported across RCTs. A core outcome set (COS) is an agreed-upon standardised set of outcomes which should be, at a minimum, reported in all RCTs for a given indication including that of VLU.

AIM

To gain consensus on which outcome domains and outcomes should be considered as core and therefore included in all RCTs of interventions in VLU treatment.

METHOD

Two sequential, two round e-Delphi surveys were completed. The first gained consensus on core outcome domains and the second on core outcomes within those domains. Participants included: people with direct experience of having VLUs and their carers, healthcare professionals whose practice included VLU care and researchers within wound care (clinical, academic, industry).

RESULTS

Five outcome domains; healing, pain, quality of life, resource use and adverse events, and 11 outcomes were rated as core by participants. The patient and not the limb or ulcer was the preferred unit of analysis for reporting.

RECOMMENDATIONS

We recommend investigators report on all five outcome domains, regardless of the type of intervention being evaluated. Future research is needed to identify measurement methods for the 11 identified outcomes. We also recommend investigators follow the CONSORT guidelines (http://www.consort-statement.org/).

Core outcome sets for trials of interventions to prevent and to treat multimorbidity in low- and middle-income countries: the COSMOS study

Introduction

The burden of multimorbidity is recognised increasingly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), creating a strong emphasis on the need for effective evidence-based interventions. A core outcome set (COS) appropriate for the study of multimorbidity in LMIC contexts does not presently exist. This is required to standardise reporting and contribute to a consistent and cohesive evidence-base to inform policy and practice. We describe the development of two COS for intervention trials aimed at the prevention and treatment of multimorbidity in LMICs.

Methods

To generate a comprehensive list of relevant prevention and treatment outcomes, we conducted a systematic review and qualitative interviews with people with multimorbidity and their caregivers living in LMICs. We then used a modified two-round Delphi process to identify outcomes most important to four stakeholder groups with representation from 33 countries (people with multimorbidity/caregivers, multimorbidity researchers, healthcare professionals, and policy makers). Consensus meetings were used to reach agreement on the two final COS. Registration: https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1580.

Results

The systematic review and qualitative interviews identified 24 outcomes for prevention and 49 for treatment of multimorbidity. An additional 12 prevention, and six treatment outcomes were added from Delphi round one. Delphi round two surveys were completed by 95 of 132 round one participants (72.0%) for prevention and 95 of 133 (71.4%) participants for treatment outcomes. Consensus meetings agreed four outcomes for the prevention COS: (1) Adverse events, (2) Development of new comorbidity, (3) Health risk behaviour, and (4) Quality of life; and four for the treatment COS: (1) Adherence to treatment, (2) Adverse events, (3) Out-of-pocket expenditure, and (4) Quality of life.

Conclusion

Following established guidelines, we developed two COS for trials of interventions for multimorbidity prevention and treatment, specific to LMIC contexts. We recommend their inclusion in future trials to meaningfully advance the field of multimorbidity research in LMICs.

Minimal clinical datasets for spine-related musculoskeletal disorders in primary and outpatient care settings: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Effective measurement and monitoring of health status in patients with spine-related musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders are essential for providing appropriate care and improving outcomes. Minimal clinical datasets are standardized sets of key data elements and patient-centered outcomes that can be measured and recorded during routine clinical care. Our scoping review aimed to identify and map current evidence on minimal clinical datasets for measuring and monitoring health status in patients with spine-related MSK disorders in primary and outpatient healthcare settings.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We followed the JBI (formerly Joanna Briggs Institute) methodology for scoping reviews. MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Index to Chiropractic Literature, MANTIS, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, and medRxiv preprint repository were searched from database inception to August 1, 2021. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, full-text articles, and charted the evidence. Findings were synthesized and summarized descriptively.

RESULTS

After screening 5,583 citations and 301 full-text articles, 104 studies about 32 individual minimal clinical datasets were included. Most minimal clinical datasets were developed for patient populations with spine-involving inflammatory arthritis, nonspecific or degenerative spinal pain, and MSK disorders in general. The minimal clinical datasets varied substantially in terms of the author-reported time-to-complete (1-48 minutes) and the number of items (5-100 items). Fifty percent of the datasets involved healthcare professionals in their development process, and only 28% involved patients. Health domain items were most frequently linked to the components of activities and participation (43.9%) and body functions (28.6%), according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. There is no standardized definition of minimal clinical datasets to measure and monitor health status of patients with spine-related MSK disorders in routine clinical practice. Common core elements identified were practicality, feasibility in a busy routine practice, time efficiency, and the capability to be used across different healthcare settings.

CONCLUSION

Due to the absence of a standard definition for minimal clinical datasets for patients with spine-related MSK disorders, there is a lack of consistency in the selection of key data elements and patient-centered outcomes that should be included. More research on the implementation and feasibility of minimal clinical datasets in routine care settings is warranted and needed. It is essential to involve all relevant partners in the development process of minimal clinical datasets to ensure successful implementation and adoption in routine primary care.

Assessing the uptake of the type 1 diabetes core outcome set in randomized controlled trials: A Cross-Sectional study

AIMS

This study analyzed uptake of the core outcome set (COS) for type 1 diabetes (T1D) and trends in its use before and after its development in December 2017.

METHODS

On June 26, 2023, ClinicalTrials.gov was systematically searched for T1D randomized controlled trials. The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database provided a COS of eight key outcomes for analysis. Included trials were analyzed for COS uptake before and after its release in December 2017 in a masked, duplicate fashion by independent reviewers. We also calculated the proportion of trials that measured the complete COS and assessed the most frequently reported COS outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 3,792 originally screened articles, 144 RCTs were included in the final sample. Following COS publication, its use steadily decreased. Within the COS, HbA1c and severe hypoglycemia were most frequently implemented as endpoints; other recommended outcomes were rarely used in the published trials.

CONCLUSION

Despite the 2017 T1D COS publication, use has decreased over time. This inconsistency negatively influences evidence-based practices and care. Educating researchers on COS and promoting uptake is crucial. Wider COS adoption in T1D trials could enhance clinical research overall. Further study of barriers and facilitators influencing uptake is essential to support consistent use and reporting.

A protocol for the development of core outcome sets for effectiveness trials and clinical audits in renal cell cancer (R-COS)

Background

There is inconsistency in outcomes collected in renal cell cancer (RCC) intervention effectiveness studies and variability in their definitions. This makes critical summaries of the evidence base difficult and sub-optimally informative for clinical practice guidelines and decision-making by patients and healthcare professionals. A solution is to develop a core outcome set (COS), an agreed minimum set of outcomes to be reported in all trials in a clinical area.

Objectives

To develop three COS for (a) localised, (b) locally advanced and (c) metastatic.

RCC study design participants and methods

The methods are the same for each of our three COS and are structured in two phases. Phase 1 identifies potentially relevant outcomes by conducting both a systematic literature review and patient interviews (N ~ 30 patients). Qualitative data will be analysed using framework analysis. In phase 2, all outcomes identified in phase 1 will be entered in a modified eDelphi, whereby patients and healthcare professionals (50 of each) will score each outcome's importance (Likert scale from 1 [not important] to 9 [critically important]). Outcomes scored in the 7-9 range by ≥70% and 1-3 by ≤15% will be regarded as 'consensus in', and the vice versa of this will constitute 'consensus out'. All other combinations will be regarded as equivocal and discussed at consensus meetings (including 10 patients and 10 healthcare professionals) in order to vote on them and ratify the results of the eDelphi.

Discussion

The R-COS will reduce outcome reporting heterogeneity and improve the evidence base for RCC.

Study registration

The study is registered with the COMET initiative: https://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1406.

Assessment highlights need for improvement in standards of development of core outcome sets for rare genetic diseases

OBJECTIVES

A rare disease is classified as such if it affects less than one person in 2,000. The Core Outcome Set STandards for Development (COS-STAD) is a set of standards that represent the minimum recommendations to be considered in the process of core outcome set (COS) development. The aim of this study was to provide a baseline assessment of COS development standards for rare genetic diseases.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database contains nearly 400 published COS studies according to the latest systematic review. Studies focusing on COS development for rare genetic diseases were eligible for inclusion and were assessed by two independent evaluators.

RESULTS

Nine COS studies were included in the analysis. Eight different rare genetic diseases were investigated. None of the studies met all the standards for development. The number of standards met ranged from 6 to 10, and the median was 7.

CONCLUSION

This study is the first study to assess COS-STAD for rare genetic diseases, and it highlights a great need for improvement. First in terms of numbers of rare diseases considered for COS developments, second in methodology, particularly regarding the consensus process, and third in reporting of the COS development studies.

A systematic review of studies reporting the development of core outcome sets for use in routine care

OBJECTIVES

Core outcome sets (COS) represent the minimum health outcomes to be measured for a given health condition. Interest is growing in using COS within routine care to support delivery of patient-focused care. This review aims to systematically map COS developed for routine care to understand their scope, stakeholder involvement, and development methods.

METHODS

Medline (Ovid), Scopus, and Web of Science Core collection were searched for studies reporting development of COS for routine care. Data on scope, methods, and stakeholder groups were analyzed in subgroups defined by setting.

RESULTS

Screening 25,301 records identified 262 COS: 164 for routine care only and 98 for routine care and research. Nearly half of the COS (112/254, 44%) were developed with patients, alongside input from experts in registries, insurance, legal, outcomes measurement, and performance management. Research publications were often searched to generate an initial list of outcomes (115/198, 58%) with few searching routine health records (47/198, 24%).

CONCLUSION

An increasing number of COS is being developed for routine care. Although involvement of patient stakeholders has increased in recent years, further improvements are needed. Methodology and scope are broadly similar to COS for research but implementation of the final set is a greater consideration during development.

Patient participation impacts outcome domain selection in core outcome sets for research: an updated systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The importance of including patients, carers, and the public in health research is well recognized, including the need to consider outcomes in health care research that reflect the priorities of patients. Core outcome sets (COS) define the minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in research of a given condition, determined through consensus among key stakeholders. The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative undertakes an annual systematic review (SR) to identify newly published COS to update its online database of COS for research. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of patient participation on COS.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

SR methods used in previous updates were applied to identify research studies published or indexed in 2020 and 2021 (conducted as separate reviews) that report development of a COS, regardless of any specifications relating to condition, population, intervention, or setting. Studies were assessed according to published standards for COS development, and core outcomes extracted from study publications were categorized according to an outcome taxonomy and added to an existing database of core outcome classifications of all previously published COS. The effect of patient participation on core domains was examined.

RESULTS

Searches identified 56 new studies published in 2020 and 54 in 2021. All studies met all four minimum standards for scope, and 42 (75%) of the 2020 studies and 45 (83%) of the 2021 studies met all three standards for stakeholders involved. However, only 19 (34%) of the 2020 studies and 18 (33%) of the 2021 studies met all four standards for the consensus process. COS that involved patients or their representatives are more likely to include life impact outcomes (239, 86%) than COS without patient participation (193, 62%). Physiological/clinical outcomes are almost always specified at a granular level, whereas life impact outcomes are often described at a higher level.

CONCLUSION

This study adds to the body of evidence demonstrating the importance and impact of including patients, carers, and the public in COS development, in particular by demonstrating that the impact of interventions on patients' lives is more likely to be represented in COS that involve patients or their representatives. COS developers are encouraged to pay increased attention to methods and reporting relating to the consensus process. Further work is required to understand the appropriateness and rationale for the discrepancy in granularity levels between outcome domains.

How to reach agreement: the impact of different analytical approaches to Delphi process results in core outcomes set development

BACKGROUND

Core outcomes sets are increasingly used to define research outcomes that are most important for a condition. Different consensus methods are used in the development of core outcomes sets; the most common is the Delphi process. Delphi methodology is increasingly standardised for core outcomes set development, but uncertainties remain. We aimed to empirically test how the use of different summary statistics and consensus criteria impact Delphi process results.

METHODS

Results from two unrelated child health Delphi processes were analysed. Outcomes were ranked by mean, median, or rate of exceedance, and then pairwise comparisons were undertaken to analyse whether the rankings were similar. The correlation coefficient for each comparison was calculated, and Bland-Altman plots produced. Youden's index was used to assess how well the outcomes ranked highest by each summary statistic matched the final core outcomes sets. Consensus criteria identified in a review of published Delphi processes were applied to the results of the two child-health Delphi processes. The size of the consensus sets produced by different criteria was compared, and Youden's index was used to assess how well the outcomes that met different criteria matched the final core outcomes sets.

RESULTS

Pairwise comparisons of different summary statistics produced similar correlation coefficients. Bland-Altman plots showed that comparisons involving ranked medians had wider variation in the ranking. No difference in Youden's index for the summary statistics was found. Different consensus criteria produced widely different sets of consensus outcomes (range: 5-44 included outcomes). They also showed differing abilities to identify core outcomes (Youden's index range: 0.32-0.92). The choice of consensus criteria had a large impact on Delphi results.

DISCUSSION

The use of different summary statistics is unlikely to affect how outcomes are ranked during a Delphi process: mean, median, and rates of exceedance produce similar results. Different consensus criteria have a large impact on resultant consensus outcomes and potentially on subsequent core outcomes sets: our results confirm the importance of adhering to pre-specified consensus criteria.

"It's that invisible illness": Patient and clinician perspectives on outcomes in pulmonary arterial hypertension treatment

Knowledge of what outcomes are most meaningful to pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) stakeholders is limited. In this qualitative study, patients and clinicians endorsed personalized physical activity, symptoms, and psychosocial well-being as key outcomes to assess PAH treatment response, yet few are routinely measured in PAH clinical trials.

Outcome reporting in randomized trials in gout: A systematic scoping review from the OMERACT gout working group assessing the uptake of the core outcome set

OBJECTIVE

The selection and reporting of core outcome measures in clinical trials is essential for patients, researchers, and healthcare providers for clinical research to have an impact on healthcare. In this systematic scoping review, we aimed to quantify the extent to which gout clinical trials are collecting and reporting data in accordance with the core outcome domains from Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) published in 2009 applicable for both acute and chronic trials and evaluate the reporting according to the core domains before and after the 2009 OMERACT endorsement.

METHODS

We searched multiple databases PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) allocating people with gout versus an active pharmacological gout treatment or a control comparator (no date limitation). We extracted the data in accordance with the core outcome sets, focusing individually on core outcome domains and the core outcome measurements for acute and chronic trials, respectively. In this study 'Acute trials' reflect studies that describe interventions for short term management of gout flares, and 'chronic trials' describe interventions for long-term urate lowering therapy in the management of gout.

RESULTS

From 8,522 records identified in the database search, 134 full text papers were reviewed, and 71 trials were included, of which 36 were acute and 35 were chronic. Only 3 of 36 (8%) acute trials reported all five core domains and none of the 35 included chronic trials reported all 7 core domains. In the acute trials, twenty-seven unique measurement instruments across the 5 core domains were identified. For chronic trials there were 31 unique measurement instruments used across the 7 core domains. Serum urate was reported in 100% of the chronic trials and gout flares in 80%. However, other core domains were reported in <30% of chronic trials. In particular the patient-important domains such as HR-QOL, patient global assessment and activity limitations were rarely reported. A broad variety of different measurement instruments were used to assess each endorsed core domain, a minority of trials used the OMERACT endorsed instruments. For acute trials, the number reporting on all core domains was consistently low and no change was detected before and after the endorsement of the core domains in 2009. None of the included chronic trials reported on all 7 endorsed core domains at any time.

CONCLUSION

In this study we found a low adherence with the intended endorsed (i.e., core) outcome domains for acute and chronic gout studies which represents a poor uptake of the global OMERACT efforts for the minimum of what should be measured in clinical trials. In addition, there is a significant variation in how the OMERACT endorsed outcome domains have been measured. This systematic review demonstrates the need for continuous encouragement among gout researchers to adhere to OMERACT core domains as well as further guidance on outcome measurements reporting.

REGISTRATION

Prospero: CRD42019151316.

Reported outcomes in transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary adenomas: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Transsphenoidal surgery is an established treatment for pituitary adenomas. We examined outcomes and time points following transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary adenoma to identify reporting heterogeneity within the literature.

METHODS

A systematic review of studies that reported outcomes for transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary adenoma 1990-2021 were examined. The protocol was registered a priori and adhered to the PRISMA statement. Studies in English with > 10 patients (prospective) or > 500 patients (retrospective) were included.

RESULTS

178 studies comprising 427,659 patients were included. 91 studies reported 2 or more adenoma pathologies within the same study; 53 studies reported a single pathology. The most common adenomas reported were growth hormone-secreting (n = 106), non-functioning (n = 101), and ACTH-secreting (n = 95); 27 studies did not state a pathology. Surgical complications were the most reported outcome (n = 116, 65%). Other domains included endocrine (n = 104, 58%), extent of resection (n = 81, 46%), ophthalmic (n = 66, 37%), recurrence (n = 49, 28%), quality of life (n = 25, 19%); and nasal (n = 18, 10%). Defined follow up time points were most reported for endocrine (n = 56, 31%), extent of resection (n = 39, 22%), and recurrence (n = 28, 17%). There was heterogeneity in the follow up reported for all outcomes at different time points: discharge (n = 9), < 30 days (n = 23), < 6 months (n = 64), < 1 year (n = 23), and > 1 year (n = 69).

CONCLUSION

Outcomes and follow up reported for transsphenoidal surgical resection of pituitary adenoma are heterogenous over the last 30 years. This study highlights the necessity to develop a robust, consensus-based, minimum, core outcome set. The next step is to develop a Delphi survey of essential outcomes, followed by a consensus meeting of interdisciplinary experts. Patient representatives should also be included. An agreed core outcome set will enable homogeneous reporting and meaningful research synthesis, ultimately improving patient care.

Delphi study to define core clinical outcomes for inclusion in a complex regional pain syndrome international research registry and data bank

ABSTRACT

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) clinical trials have historically captured a diverse range of outcomes. A minimum set of CRPS patient-reported outcomes has been agreed for inclusion in a future CRPS international clinical research registry and data bank. This study aimed to identify a complementary set of core clinical outcomes. Clinicians and researchers from the international CRPS community informed the content of a 2-round electronic Delphi study. Participation was invited from members of the International Association for the Study of Pain CRPS Special Interest Group and the International Research Consortium for CRPS. In round 1, participants rated the relevance of 59 clinical outcomes in relation to the question "What is the clinical presentation and course of CRPS, and what factors influence it?" (1 = not relevant and 9 = highly relevant). In round 2, participants rerated each outcome in the light of the round 1 median scores. The criterion for consensus was median score ≥7, agreed by 75% of respondents. The core study team considered the feasibility of data collection of each identified outcome in agreeing final selections. Sixty respondents completed both survey rounds, with responses broadly consistent across professions. Nine outcomes met the consensus criterion. Final outcomes recommended for inclusion in the core clinical set were record of medications, presence of posttraumatic stress disorder, extent of allodynia, and skin temperature difference between limbs. Study findings provide robust recommendations for core clinical outcome data fields in the future CPRS international clinical research registry. Alongside patient-reported outcomes, these data will enable a better understanding of CRPS.

Outcome measures in clinical studies of ankle osteoarthritis: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To explore and describe the outcome measures reported in primary research of ankle osteoarthritis (OA) and to propose aligned health-related domains.

METHODS

Six databases were searched, and studies were screened by two independent reviewers. Studies of participants with ankle OA who were> 18 years of age and reported outcome measure data were included. Non-English, animal, cadaveric, reviews, and studies with< 5 participants were excluded. Outcome measures were examined for content and mapped to health-related domains.

RESULTS

1386 studies were identified, of which 547 met selection criteria - reporting 250 outcome measures. Most commonly reported measures were the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society Ankle-Hindfoot Scale (n = 257 studies), plain radiographs to measure ankle alignment (n = 211), numerical rating scale for pain severity (n = 177) and goniometry to measure ankle range of motion (n = 148). Outcome measures were organised into 19 domains. The most common domains were pain severity (315 (58%) studies), ankle alignment (254 (46%)), ankle motion (181 (33%)), disability (169 (31%)) and health-related quality of life (128 (23%)). These domains fell into the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core areas of life impact and pathophysiological manifestations.

CONCLUSION

Many outcome measures are used in ankle OA research, most of which assess joint alignment, pain, and motion. Based on the outcome measures identified, we proposed 19 possible health-related domains, predominantly in the OMERACT core areas of life impact and pathophysiological manifestations of ankle OA. Clinicians and researchers can use this review in guiding selection of outcome measures.

Harmonization of maternal balanced energy-protein supplementation studies for individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses - finding and creating similarities in variables and data collection

BACKGROUND

Public health and clinical recommendations are established from systematic reviews and retrospective meta-analyses combining effect sizes, traditionally, from aggregate data and more recently, using individual participant data (IPD) of published studies. However, trials often have outcomes and other meta-data that are not defined and collected in a standardized way, making meta-analysis problematic. IPD meta-analysis can only partially fix the limitations of traditional, retrospective, aggregate meta-analysis; prospective meta-analysis further reduces the problems.

METHODS

We developed an initiative including seven clinical intervention studies of balanced energy-protein (BEP) supplementation during pregnancy and/or lactation that are being conducted (or recently concluded) in Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, India, Nepal, and Pakistan to test the effect of BEP on infant and maternal outcomes. These studies were commissioned after an expert consultation that designed recommendations for a BEP product for use among pregnant and lactating women in low- and middle-income countries. The initiative goal is to harmonize variables across studies to facilitate IPD meta-analyses on closely aligned data, commonly called prospective meta-analysis. Our objective here is to describe the process of harmonizing variable definitions and prioritizing research questions. A two-day workshop of investigators, content experts, and advisors was held in February 2020 and harmonization activities continued thereafter. Efforts included a range of activities from examining protocols and data collection plans to discussing best practices within field constraints. Prior to harmonization, there were many similar outcomes and variables across studies, such as newborn anthropometry, gestational age, and stillbirth, however, definitions and protocols differed. As well, some measurements were being conducted in several but not all studies, such as food insecurity. Through the harmonization process, we came to consensus on important shared variables, particularly outcomes, added new measurements, and improved protocols across studies.

DISCUSSION

We have fostered extensive communication between investigators from different studies, and importantly, created a large set of harmonized variable definitions within a prospective meta-analysis framework. We expect this initiative will improve reporting within each study in addition to providing opportunities for a series of IPD meta-analyses.

The research status and progress of core outcome set in oral health

The core outcome set (COS) refers to the minimum set of outcomes that should be reported by all clinical trials in a particular health field. The use of COS in clinical studies can reduce the heterogeneity caused by using different outcomes across different clinical studies, facilitate the systematic review of different clinical studies on the same topic, reduce selective reporting bias, and increase the utility of clinical studies. The importance of COS in oral health has recently been recognized. This review summarizes the history, necessity, and key methodological points of COS development, with emphasis on the research status and existing problems in COS development, in the field of oral health.

Social Prescribing Outcomes for Trials (SPOT): Protocol for a modified Delphi study on core outcomes

PURPOSE

This is a study protocol to co-create with knowledge users a core outcome set focused on middle-aged and older adults (40 years+) for use in social prescribing research.

METHODS

We will follow the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) guide and use modified Delphi methods, including collating outcomes reported in social prescribing publications, online surveys, and discussion with our team to finalize the core outcome set. We intentionally center this work on people who deliver and receive social prescribing and include methods to evaluate collaboration. Our three-part process includes: (1) identifying published systematic reviews on social prescribing for adults to extract reported outcomes; and (2) up to three rounds of online surveys to rate the importance of outcomes for social prescribing. For this part, we will invite people (n = 240) who represent the population experienced in social prescribing, including researchers, members of social prescribing organizations, and people who receive social prescribing and their caregivers. Finally, we will (3) convene a virtual team meeting to discuss and rank the findings and finalize the core outcome set and our knowledge mobilization plan.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first study designed to use a modified Delphi method to co-create core outcomes for social prescribing. Development of a core outcome set contributes to improved knowledge synthesis via consistency in measures and terminology. We aim to develop guidance for future research, and specifically on the use of core outcomes for social prescribing at the person/patient, provider, program, and societal-level.

Pediatric core outcome sets had deficiencies and lacked child and family input: A methodological review

OBJECTIVES

The Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD), published in 2017, contains 11 standards (12 criteria) describing minimum design criteria for core outcome set (COS) development. We aimed to identify and appraise all pediatric COS published prior to COS-STAD, and assess methods of child and family involvement in their development.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This methodological review included documents that described the development of pediatric COS up to and including 2017. Reviewers independently assessed each COS against COS-STAD criteria, and methods of involvement were synthesized.

RESULTS

A total of 56 pediatric COS were identified, meeting a median of five COS-STAD criteria. Nearly all met criteria on COS scope specification for setting, health condition, and population; 41% met criteria for intervention. Standards were more often met for the involvement of researchers/health professionals (64%) than for patients or their representatives (29%). Few met standards for achieving COS consensus (4-23%). Methods of child and family engagement varied and were limited.

CONCLUSION

A large proportion of pediatric COS developed prior to COS-STAD recommendations show gaps in design methodology. Updated and newly developed pediatric COS would benefit from the inclusion of the child and family voice, implementing a priori criteria for COS consensus, and clear reporting.

Identifying common core outcome domains from core outcome sets of musculoskeletal conditions: protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Core outcome sets (COSs) aim to reduce outcome heterogeneity in clinical practice and research by suggesting a minimum number of agreed-upon outcomes in clinical trials. Most COSs in the musculoskeletal field are developed for specific conditions. We propose that there are likely to be common core domains within existing musculoskeletal COSs that may be used as a starting point in the development of future COSs. We aim to identify common core domains from existing COSs and to facilitate the development of new COSs for musculoskeletal conditions. As a secondary aim, we will assess the development quality of these COSs.

METHODS

A systematic review including musculoskeletal COSs. We will search Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Methodology Register and International Consortium for Health Outcome Measurement (ICHOM). Studies will be included if related to the development of a COS in adults with musculoskeletal conditions and for any type of intervention. Quality will be assessed using the Core Outcome Set-Standards for Development (COS-STAD) recommendations. Data extracted will include scope of the COS, health condition, interventions and outcome domains. Primary outcomes will be all core domains recommended within each COS. We define a common core outcome domain as one present in at least 67% of all COSs. All findings will be summarized and presented using descriptive statistics.

DISCUSSION

This systematic review of COSs will describe the core domains recommended within each musculoskeletal COS. Common domains found may be used in the initial stages of development of future musculoskeletal COSs.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021239141.

Developing a core outcome set for hospital deprescribing trials for older people under the care of a geriatrician

BACKGROUND

Half of older people are prescribed unnecessary/inappropriate medications that are not routinely deprescribed in hospital hence there is a need for deprescribing trials. We aimed to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for deprescribing trials for older people under the care of a geriatrician during hospital admission.

METHODS

We developed a list of potentially relevant outcomes from the literature. Using a two-round Delphi survey of stakeholder groups representing older people and carers, hospital clinicians, hospital managers, and ageing/deprescribing researchers, each outcome was scored according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation, followed by two consensus workshops to finalise the COS.

RESULTS

Two hundred people completed Round 1 and 114 completed Round 2. Representing all stakeholder groups, 10 people participated in workshop 1 and 10 in workshop 2. Six outcomes were identified as most important, feasible and acceptable to collect in a trial: number of prescribed medicines stopped; number of prescribed medicines with dosage reduced; quality of life; mortality; adverse drug events and number of hospital stays. Three other outcomes were identified as important, but currently too burdensome to collect: number of potentially inappropriate medicines prescribed; burden from medication routine; and medication-related admissions to hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

A COS represents the minimum outcomes that should be collected and reported. Whilst uncommon practice for COS development, the value of considering outcome collection feasibility is demonstrated by the removal of three potential outcomes that, if included, may have compromised COS uptake due to challenges with collecting the data.

Using the Vitiligo Noticeability Scale in clinical trials: construct validity, interpretability, reliability and acceptability

BACKGROUND

Validated outcome measures are needed for vitiligo trials.

OBJECTIVES

To assess construct validity, interpretability, reliability and acceptability of the Vitiligo Noticeability Scale (VNS).

METHODS

We used images of vitiligo before and after treatment, plus outcome data, from the HI-Light Vitiligo trial. We compared outcome assessments made by trial participants with assessments of images by clinicians and people with vitiligo who were not trial participants [Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) panel]. Hypothesis testing assessed psychometric properties of the VNS, with κ statistics to assess agreement between outcomes. Three focus groups and two online discussion groups provided insight into the use of VNS by people with vitiligo.

RESULTS

Our hypothesis of a positive association between VNS and participant-reported global treatment success was supported for trial participants (κ = 0·41 if VNS success was defined as ≥ 4; κ = 0·71 if VNS success was defined as ≥ 3), but not for the blinded PPI panel (κ = 0·28). As hypothesized, the association with participant-reported global success was higher for VNS (κ = 0·41) than for clinician-reported percentage repigmentation (κ = 0·17). Seventy-five per cent of trial participants valued a VNS of 3 (partial response) as a treatment success. Test-retest reliability was good: κ = 0·69 (95% confidence interval 0·63-0·74). Age and skin phototype did not influence interpretation of the VNS scores. To people with vitiligo, the VNS is an acceptable and meaningful patient-reported outcome measure.

CONCLUSIONS

Trial participants may assess their vitiligo differently compared with blinded assessors. A VNS score of 3 may be more highly valued by people undergoing vitiligo treatment than was previously thought. What is already known about this topic? Vitiligo is a common condition, and can have a considerable psychological impact. A Vitiligo Core Outcome Set is being developed, to enable the results of vitiligo trials to be compared and combined more easily. The Vitiligo Noticeability Scale (VNS) is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) developed in partnership with people with vitiligo; initial validation studies have been promising. What does this study add? The VNS shows good construct validity, reliability and acceptability; it can be used in all ages and skin phototypes. All five levels of the VNS scale should be reported for transparency, to aid interpretation of trial findings, and to facilitate meta-analysis in systematic reviews. VNS assessments made by trial participants and independent observers are likely to be qualitatively different, making blinded assessment of VNS by independent observers difficult to interpret. Blinding of participants to trial interventions is recommended whenever possible. What are the clinical implications of the work? The VNS can be used as a PROM to assess the cosmetic acceptability of repigmentation at individual patches of vitiligo. A VNS score of 3 or more is likely to be valued by patients as a treatment success.

Reliability of functional outcome measures in adults with neurofibromatosis 2

Objective:

To determine inter- and intra-rater reliability of functional performance outcome measures in people with neurofibromatosis 2. To ascertain how closely objective and subjective measures align.

Methods:

Twenty-nine people with neurofibromatosis 2 were recorded performing the modified clinical test of sensory integration and balance, four square step test and modified nine-hole peg tests. Three raters scored each measure to determine inter-rater reliability. One rater scored the measures a second time to determine intra-rater reliability. Participants also completed a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire and dynamic visual acuity testing.

Results:

Inter-rater and intra-rater reliability scores (intra-class correlation coefficient) were excellent for all tests (intra-class correlation coefficient r ⩾ 0.9). The four square step test correlated with perceived walking challenges and modified clinical test of sensory integration and balance correlated with perceived balance challenges in a neurofibromatosis 2 quality of life patient report outcome measure.

Conclusion:

The modified clinical test of sensory integration and balance, four square step test and modified nine-hole peg tests are potentially useful measures for monitoring neurofibromatosis 2.

Strengthening Research that Answers Nutrition Questions of Public Health Importance: Leveraging the Experience of the USDA Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review Team

The Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review (NESR) team conducts nutrition- and public health-related systematic reviews and is within the USDA's Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. NESR has collaborated with scientific experts to conduct systematic reviews on nutrition and public health topics for more than a decade and is uniquely positioned to share recommendations with the research community to strengthen research quality and impact, especially the evidence base that supports public health nutrition guidance, including future editions of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Leveraging the expertise of NESR and its systematic review process resulted in the following recommendations for the research community: a) use the strongest study design feasible with sufficient sample size(s); b) enroll study participants who reflect the diversity of the population of interest and report participant characteristics; c) use valid and reliable dietary assessment methods; d) describe the interventions or exposures of interest and use standard definitions to promote consistency; e) use valid and reliable health outcome measures; f) account for variables that may impact the relationship between nutrition-related interventions or exposures and health outcomes; g) carry out studies for a sufficient duration and include repeated measures, as appropriate; and h) report all relevant information to inform accurate interpretation and evaluation of study results. Implementing these recommendations can strengthen nutrition and public health evidence and increase its utility in future public health nutrition systematic reviews. However, implementation will require additional support from the entire research community, including scientific journals and funding agencies.

Minimal clinical data sets for spine-related musculoskeletal disorders in primary care and outpatient settings: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Lack of standardised clinical data collection may lead to reduced quality in musculoskeletal (MSK)-related clinical care and research. Little is known about the availability and characteristics of minimal clinical data sets for spine-related MSK disorders in primary care and outpatient settings and their utility for improving healthcare quality. Our objective is to undertake a scoping review aiming to identify and map current literature on minimal clinical data sets for measuring and monitoring health status in patients with spine-related MSK disorders in primary and outpatient healthcare settings.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The 2020 Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews will guide review conduct. The review will consider studies that describe and report on minimal clinical data sets for spine-related MSK disorders designed for primary care and outpatient clinical practice settings. Quantitative and qualitative study designs will be eligible, including consensus-based studies, interventional, observational, feasibility and linguistic validation studies. Studies published in English, German, French, Italian and Spanish will be included, with no limit on date of publication. MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Index to Chiropractic Literature, MANTIS, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global and medRxiv preprint repository will be searched from database inception to 25 July 2021. Two reviewers will independently screen identified titles, abstracts and relevant full-text records, and then extract data using review-specific data extraction forms. Findings will be synthesised and presented as a descriptive summary using PRISMA ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics review and approval is not required for this scoping review. Our target audience for this review will be clinicians, researchers, patients and other relevant stakeholders involved in the measurement and health status monitoring of patients with spine-related MSK disorders. Results will be shared through peer-reviewed publication and presentations at relevant conferences. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: https://osf.io/fkw5b.

Study Protocol: Core Outcome Set for cranioplasty following stroke or TBI 'COAST Study'

BACKGROUND

Core Outcome sets (COS) are important and necessary as they help standardize reporting in research studies. Cranioplasty following traumatic brain injury or stroke is becoming increasingly common leading to an ever growing clinical and research interest especially regarding the optimal material, cost-effectiveness, and timing of cranioplasty concerning neurological recovery and complications. Consequently, heterogeneous reporting of outcomes from such diverse studies has led to a limited meta-analysis ability, with the ongoing risk of outcome reporting bias.

OBJECTIVE

To define a standardized COS for reporting in all future TBI and stroke cranioplasty studies.

METHODS

An international steering committee has been formed to guide the development of the COS. In addition, recommendations from other clinical initiatives such as COMET (Core Outcomes and Effectiveness Trials) and OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology) have been adhered to. The first phase of the project is data-collection through a systematic review and qualitative study. The second phase will be the COS-formation through a Delphi survey and consensus meeting. A definition of consensus will be decided and agreed upon before the Delphi survey begins to avoid bias, which is planned for the end of 2021.

RESULTS

The development of a cranioplasty COS that can be applied in future research, helping to align future studies, building an increased understanding of cranioplasty and its impact on a patients function and recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

This study should result in consensus on a COS for cranioplasty following TBI or stroke.

CLINICALTRIAL

The study has been registered on the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database for COS development.

Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for evaluating mixed-diagnosis falls prevention interventions for people with Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson’s Disease and stroke

Background: Given the high incidence of falls and their associated negative effects, the development of effective falls prevention interventions for people with Multiple Sclerosis (MS), Parkinson's Disease (PD) and stroke is a priority. Currently the implementation of condition-specific falls prevention interventions is challenging in the community due to lack of participants and resources. Given the similarities in falls risk factors across stroke, PD and MS, the design of mixed-diagnosis interventions for groups comprising of people with these three neurological conditions may solve these implementation challenges. Having a core outcome set (COS) for evaluating these interventions would enable the comparison and combination of data, thereby facilitating progress in this research area. Therefore, the aim of this research study is to develop a COS for evaluating mixed-diagnosis falls prevention interventions for people with MS, PD and stroke. Methods: This will be a mixed-methods, international, multi-perspective Delphi consensus study with five stages. Stage one will involve the identification of potential outcomes through a systematic literature search, patient focus groups, and consultation with our stakeholder group. The second stage will be the development of the Delphi survey using the outcomes elicited from stage one. Stage three will be the prioritisation of outcomes using a two-round online Delphi survey involving patients, clinicians, researchers and policy-makers/service-planners. The fourth stage will be to identify and recommend outcome measures and definitions. The final stage will be a consensus meeting with representatives from each stakeholder group to agree upon the final COS. Discussion: Adoption of this COS in future trials investigating the effectiveness of mixed-diagnosis falls prevention interventions for people with MS, PD and stroke will facilitate the comparison and combination of research findings. This should translate into improved decision-making by service-planners/policy-makers and clinicians regarding the implementation of evidence-based falls prevention interventions into practice.

Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for evaluating mixed-diagnosis falls prevention interventions for people with Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson's Disease and stroke

Background: Given the high incidence of falls and their associated negative effects, the development of effective falls prevention interventions for people with Multiple Sclerosis (MS), Parkinson's Disease (PD) and stroke is a priority. Currently the implementation of condition-specific falls prevention interventions is challenging in the community due to lack of participants and resources. Given the similarities in falls risk factors across stroke, PD and MS, the design of mixed-diagnosis interventions for groups comprising of people with these three neurological conditions may solve these implementation challenges. Having a core outcome set (COS) for evaluating these interventions would enable the comparison and combination of data, thereby facilitating progress in this research area. Therefore, the aim of this research study is to develop a COS for evaluating mixed-diagnosis falls prevention interventions for people with MS, PD and stroke. Methods: This will be a mixed-methods, international, multi-perspective Delphi consensus study with five stages. Stage one will involve the identification of potential outcomes through a systematic literature search, patient focus groups, and consultation with our stakeholder group. The second stage will be the development of the Delphi survey using the outcomes elicited from stage one. Stage three will be the prioritisation of outcomes using a two-round online Delphi survey involving patients, clinicians, researchers and policy-makers/service-planners. The fourth stage will be to identify and recommend outcome measures and definitions. The final stage will be a consensus meeting with representatives from each stakeholder group to agree upon the final COS. Discussion: Adoption of this COS in future trials investigating the effectiveness of mixed-diagnosis falls prevention interventions for people with MS, PD and stroke will facilitate the comparison and combination of research findings. This should translate into improved decision-making by service-planners/policy-makers and clinicians regarding the implementation of evidence-based falls prevention interventions into practice.

Evaluations of training and education interventions for improved infectious disease management in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic literature review

OBJECTIVES

To identify most vital input and outcome parameters required for evaluations of training and education interventions aimed at addressing infectious diseases in low-income and middle-income countries.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed/Medline, Web of Science and Scopus were searched for eligible studies between January 2000 and November 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Health economic and health-outcome studies on infectious diseases covering an education or training intervention in low-income and middle-income countries were included.

RESULTS

A total of 59 eligible studies covering training or education interventions for infectious diseases were found; infectious diseases were categorised as acute febrile infections (AFI), non-AFI and other non-acute infections. With regard to input parameters, the costs (direct and indirect) were most often reported. As outcome parameters, five categories were most often reported including final health outcomes, intermediate health outcomes, cost outcomes, prescription outcomes and health economic outcomes. Studies showed a wide range of per category variables included and a general lack of uniformity across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Further standardisation is needed on the relevant input and outcome parameters in this field. A more standardised approach would improve generalisability and comparability of results and allow policy-makers to make better informed decisions on the most effective and cost-effective interventions.

Substantial heterogeneity found in reporting mortality in Cochrane Systematic Reviews and Core Outcome Sets in COMET Database

OBJECTIVE

To explore mortality outcome usage in Cochrane systematic reviews and Core Outcome Sets for research.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Cochrane PICO searches identified Cochrane reviews (published January 2015-March 2021) including mortality outcomes. These outcomes were categorised according to terminology used: all-cause mortality, cause-specific mortality, infant mortality, maternal mortality, survival. Mortality outcomes in Core Outcome Sets (published until 2019 on the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database) were also extracted and categorised.

RESULTS

In total, 2454 mortality outcomes were reported in 49% (1978/3999) of Cochrane reviews published January 2015-March 2021: all-cause (37%), infant (23%), maternal (11%), survival (10%), cause-specific (9%). Due to reviews not specifying mortality outcome type or including studies reporting no data, 11% (273/2208) remained uncategorised. Infant mortality and maternal mortality were frequently used together in reviews reporting two mortality outcomes. In total, 226 mortality outcomes were reported in 37% (165/449) of Core Outcome Sets: all-cause (48%), survival (27%), cause-specific (12%), infant (9%), maternal (4%). Mortality measurement timing varied.

CONCLUSION

Mortality outcome usage varies in Cochrane reviews and Core Outcome Sets. This is problematic for evidence-based decision-making. Greater standardization is necessary for effective utilization of health research.

Usefulness of Cochrane Reviews in Clinical Guideline Development-A Survey of 585 Recommendations

The Danish Health Authority develops clinical practice guidelines to support clinical decision-making based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system and prioritizes using Cochrane reviews. The objective of this study was to explore the usefulness of Cochrane reviews as a source of evidence in the development of clinical recommendations. Evidence-based recommendations in guidelines published by the Danish Health Authority between 2014 and 2021 were reviewed. For each recommendation, it was noted if and how Cochrane reviews were utilized. In total, 374 evidence-based recommendations and 211 expert consensus recommendations were published between 2014 and 2021. Of the 374 evidence-based recommendations, 106 included evidence from Cochrane reviews. In 28 recommendations, all critical and important outcomes included evidence from Cochrane reviews. In 36 recommendations, a minimum of all critical outcomes included evidence from Cochrane reviews, but not all important outcomes. In 33 recommendations, some but not all critical outcomes included evidence from Cochrane reviews. Finally, in nine recommendations, some of the important outcomes included evidence from Cochrane reviews. In almost one-third of the evidence-based recommendations, Cochrane reviews were used to inform clinical recommendations. This evaluation should inform future evaluations of Cochrane review uptake in clinical practice guidelines concerning outcomes important for clinical decision-making.

How are trial outcomes prioritised by stakeholders from different regions? Analysis of an international Delphi survey to develop a core outcome set in gastric cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

International stakeholder participation is important in the development of core outcome sets (COS). Stakeholders from varying regions may value health outcomes differently. Here, we explore how region, health income and participant characteristics influence prioritisation of outcomes during development of a COS for gastric cancer surgery trials (the GASTROS study).

METHODS

952 participants from 55 countries participating in a Delphi survey during COS development were eligible for inclusion. Recruits were grouped according to region (East or West), country income classification (high and low-to-middle income) and other characteristics (e.g. patients; age, sex, time since surgery, mode of treatment, surgical approach and healthcare professionals; clinical experience). Groups were compared with respect to how they categorised 56 outcomes identified as potentially important to include in the final COS ('consensus in', 'consensus out', 'no consensus'). Outcomes categorised as 'consensus in' or 'consensus out' by all 3 stakeholder groups would be automatically included in or excluded from the COS respectively.

RESULTS

In total, 13 outcomes were categorised 'consensus in' (disease-free survival, disease-specific survival, surgery-related death, recurrence of cancer, completeness of tumour removal, overall quality of life, nutritional effects, all-cause complications, intraoperative complications, anaesthetic complications, anastomotic complications, multiple organ failure, and bleeding), 13 'consensus out' and 31 'no consensus'. There was little variation in prioritisation of outcomes by stakeholders from Eastern or Western countries and high or low-to-middle income countries. There was little variation in outcome prioritisation within either health professional or patient groups.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that there is little variation in opinion within stakeholder groups when participant region and other characteristics are considered. This finding may help COS developers when designing their Delphi surveys and recruitment strategies. Further work across other clinical fields is needed before broad recommendations can be made.

A survey of knowledge, perceptions and use of core outcome sets among clinical trialists

Background

Core outcome sets (COS) are standardised sets of outcomes, which represent the minimum outcomes that should be measured and reported in clinical trials. COS can enhance comparability across health trials by reducing heterogeneity of outcome measurement and reporting and potentially minimising selective outcome reporting. Examining what researchers involved in trials know and think about COS is essential to increase awareness and promote COS uptake. The aim of this study is therefore to examine clinical trialists’ knowledge, perceptions and experiences of COS.

Methods

An online survey design was used. Participants were clinical trialists, operationalised for the current study as researchers named as the contact person on a trial registered on the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Trial repository between 1 January 2019 and 21 July 2020. Survey items assessed clinical trialists’ familiarity with and understanding of COS, along with experiences of COS use and development.

Results

Of 1913 clinical trialists contacted to participate, 62 (3%) completed the survey. Forty (65%) participants were familiar with COS and, of those familiar with COS, 21 (55%) had been involved in a trial that used a COS. Of clinical trialists who used COS in a trial(s), less than half (n = 9, 41%) reported that all COS outcomes were used. The main barriers to using COS are poor knowledge about COS (n = 43, 69%) and difficulties identifying relevant COS (n = 42, 68%). Clinical trialists also reported perceptions of COS as restrictive and often containing too many outcomes. The main enablers to using COS are clear understanding (n = 51, 82%) and perceived importance of COS (n = 44, 71%).

Conclusions

Enhancing clinical trialists’ use of all COS outcomes is needed to reduce outcome heterogeneity and enhance comparability across trial findings. Enhancing awareness of COS importance among researchers and funders is needed to ensure that COS are developed and used by clinical trialists. Education and training may further promote awareness and understanding of COS.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05891-5.

Outcome measures used in clinical research evaluating prehospital blood component transfusion in traumatically injured bleeding patients: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Trial outcomes should be relevant to all stakeholders and allow assessment of interventions' efficacy and safety at appropriate timeframes. There is no consensus regarding outcome measures in the growing field of prehospital trauma transfusion research. Harmonization of future clinical outcome reporting is key to facilitate interstudy comparisons and generate cohesive, robust evidence to guide practice. The objective of this study was to evaluate outcome measures reported in prehospital trauma transfusion trials.

METHODS

Data Sources, Eligibility Criteria, Participants, and InterventionsWe conducted a scoping systematic review to identify the type, number, and definitions of outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials, and prospective and retrospective observational cohort studies investigating prehospital blood component transfusion in adult and pediatric patients with traumatic hemorrhage. Electronic database searching of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, OVID, clinical trials.gov, and the Transfusion Evidence Library was completed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Meta-analyses guidelines.Study Appraisal and Synthesis MethodsTwo review authors independently extracted outcome data. Unique lists of salutogenic (patient-reported health and wellbeing outcomes) and nonsalutogenic focused outcomes were established.

RESULTS

A total of 3,471 records were identified. Thirty-four studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria: 4 military (n = 1,566 patients) and 30 civilian (n = 14,398 patients), all between 2000 and 2020. Two hundred twelve individual non-patient-reported outcomes were identified, which collapsed into 20 outcome domains with varied definitions and timings. All primary outcomes measured effectiveness, rather than safety or complications. Sixty-nine percent reported mortality, with 11 different definitions. No salutogenic outcomes were reported.

CONCLUSION

There is heterogeneity in outcome reporting and definitions, an absence of patient-reported outcome, and an emphasis on clinical effectiveness rather than safety or adverse events in prehospital trauma transfusion trials. We recommend stakeholder consultation and a Delphi process to develop a clearly defined minimum core outcome set for prehospital trauma transfusion trials.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Scoping systematic review, level III.

Systematic review of outcomes in studies of reproductive genetic carrier screening: Towards development of a core outcome set

PURPOSE

Current practice recommendations support the widespread implementation of reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS). These consensus-based recommendations highlight a research gap, with findings from current studies being insufficient to meet the standard required for more rigorous evidence-based recommendations. This systematic review assessed methodological aspects of studies on RGCS to inform the need for a core outcome set.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search to identify peer-reviewed published studies offering population-based RGCS. Study designs, outcomes, and measurement methods were extracted. A narrative synthesis was conducting using an existing outcome taxonomy and criteria used in the evaluation of genetic screening programs as frameworks.

RESULTS

Sixty-five publications were included. We extracted 120 outcomes representing 24 outcome domains. Heterogeneity in outcome selection, measurement methods and time points of assessment was extensive. Quality appraisal raised concerns for bias. We found that reported outcomes had limited applicability to criteria used to evaluate genetic screening programs.

CONCLUSION

Despite a large body of literature, diverse approaches to research have limited the conclusions that can be cumulatively drawn from this body of evidence. Consensus regarding meaningful outcomes for evaluation of RGCS would be a valuable first step in working towards evidence-based practice recommendations, supporting the development of a core outcome set.

The standards of obstetrics and gynecology core outcome sets: A scoping review

Background

Core outcome sets (COSs) are the minimum outcomes which should be measured and reported by researchers investigating a specific condition. The definition of standards of COSs vary across different health-related areas. This investigated the characteristics of COSs regarding obstetrics and gynecology (OG) and examined the reports and designs of standards of OG COSs.

Methods

A comprehensive search was conduced on the COMET database on December 20, 2019 to identify systematic reviews on COSs. Two reviewers independently evaluated whether the reported OG COS met the reporting requirements as stipulated in the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting (COS-STAR) statement checklist and the minimum design recommendations as outlined in the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) checklist.

Results

Forty-four OG COSs related to 26 topics were identified. None of them met all the 25 standards of COS-STAR statement which representing 18 items considered essential for transparent and complete reporting list for all COS studies (range: 6.0-24.0, median: 14.0). The compliance rates to 16 standards of methods and result sections ranged from 27.3%–68.2%. Total COS-STAR compliance items for OG COSs with the prior protocol was significantly higher than without prior protocol (MD = 3.846, 95% CI: 0.835–6.858, P = 0.012). None of the OG COSs met all the 12 criteria in the COS-STAD minimum standards (range: 3.0-11.0, median: 5.0). The compliance rates for all three standards of stakeholders involved and all four standards of the consensus process were lower than 60%.

Conclusions

Methodological and reporting standards of OG COSs should be improved.

Core Outcome Measures for Perioperative and Anaesthetic Care (COMPAC): a modified Delphi process to develop a core outcome set for trials in perioperative care and anaesthesia

BACKGROUND

Outcome selection underpins clinical trial interpretation. Inconsistency in outcome selection and reporting hinders comparison of different trials' results, reducing the utility of research findings.

METHODS

We conducted an iterative consensus process to develop a set of Core Outcome Measures for Perioperative and Anaesthetic Care (COMPAC), following the established Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness Trials (COMET) methodology. First, we undertook a systematic review of RCTs in high-impact journals to describe current outcome reporting trends. We then surveyed patients, carers, researchers, and perioperative clinicians about important outcomes after surgery. Finally, a purposive stakeholder sample participated in a modified Delphi process to develop a core outcome set for perioperative and anaesthesia trials.

RESULTS

Our systematic review revealed widespread inconsistency in outcome reporting, with variable or absent definitions, levels of detail, and temporal criteria. In the survey, almost all patients, carers, and clinicians rated clinical outcome measures critically important, but clinicians rated patient-centred outcomes less highly than patients and carers. The final core outcome set was: (i) mortality/survival (postoperative mortality, long-term survival); (ii) perioperative complications (major postoperative complications/adverse events; complications/adverse events causing permanent harm); (iii) resource use (length of hospital stay, unplanned readmission within 30 days); (iv) short-term recovery (discharge destination, level of dependence, or both); and (v) longer-term recovery (overall health-related quality of life).

CONCLUSIONS

This core set, incorporating important outcomes for both clinicians and patients, should guide outcome selection in future perioperative medicine or anaesthesia trials. Mapping these alongside standardised endpoint definitions will yield a comprehensive perioperative outcome framework.

'When will the doctor be around so that I come by?!' Geo-socio effects on health care supply, access and utilisation: experiences from Kalangala Islands, Uganda

Background

The study set out to give an in-depth intersection of geo, eco-socio exposition of the factors relating to geography, healthcare supply and utilization in an island setting. This analysis is informed by what has emerged to be known as social epidemiology. We provide in-depth explanation of context to health care access, utilization and outcomes. We argue that health care delivery has multiple intersections that are experientially complex, multi-layered and multi-dimensional to the disadvantage of vulnerable population segments of society in the study area.

Methods

We used a cross-sectional qualitative exploratory design. Qualitative methods facilitated an in-depth exploration and understanding of this island dispersed and peripheral setting. Data sources included a review of relevant literature and an ethnographic exploration of the lived experiences of community members while seeking and accessing health care. Data collection methods included in-depth interviews (IDI) from selected respondents, observation, focus group discussions (FGDs) and key informant interviews (KII).

Results

We report based on the health care systems model which posits that, health care activities are diverse but interconnected in a complex way. The identified themes are; the role of geography, access (geographical and financial) to health services, demand and utilization, Supplies, staffing and logistical barriers and a permissive and transient society. When and how to travel for care was beyond a matter of having a health need/ being sick and need arising. A motivated workforce is as critical as health facilities themselves in determining healthcare outcomes.

Conclusion

Geography doesn’t work and affect health outcomes in isolation. Measures that target only individuals will not be adequate to tackle health inequalities because aspects of the collective social group and physical environment may also need to be changed in order to reduce health variations.

Inclusion of participants from low-income and middle-income countries in core outcome sets development: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Our study aims to describe differences or similarities in the scope, participant characteristics and methods used in core outcome sets (COS) development when only participants from high-income countries (HICs) were involved compared with when participants from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) were also involved.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Annual Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials systematic reviews of COS which are updated based on SCOPUS and MEDLINE, searches. The latest systematic review included studies published up to the end of 2019.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

We included studies reporting development of a COS for use in research regardless of age, health condition or setting. Studies reporting the development of a COS for patient-reported outcomes or adverse events or complications were also included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted in relation to scope of the COS study, participant categories and the methods used in outcome selection.

RESULTS

Studies describing 370 COS were identified in the database. Of these, 75 (20%) included participants from LMICs. Only four COS were initiated from an LMIC setting. More than half of COS with LMIC participants were developed in the last 5 years. Cancer and rheumatology were the dominant disease domains. Overall, over 259 (70%) of COS explicitly reported including clinical experts; this was higher where LMIC participants were also included 340 (92%). Most LMIC participants were from China, Brazil and South Africa. Mixed methods for consensus building were used across the two settings.

CONCLUSION

Progress has been made in including LMIC participants in the development of COS, however, there is a need to explore how to enable initiation of COS development from a range of LMIC settings, how to ensure prioritisation of COS that better reflects the burden of disease in these contexts and how to improve public participation from LMICs.

Patient participation in Delphi surveys to develop core outcome sets: systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To describe the design and conduct of core outcome set (COS) studies that have included patients as participants, exploring how study characteristics might impact their response rates.

DESIGN

Systematic review of COS studies published between 2015 and 2019 that included more than one patient, carer or representative as participants (hereafter referred to as patients for brevity) in scoring outcomes in a Delphi.

RESULTS

There were variations in the design and conduct of COS studies that included patients in the Delphi process, including differing: scoring and feedback systems, approaches to recruiting patients, length of time between rounds, use of reminders, incentives, patient and public involvement, and piloting. Minimal reporting of participant characteristics and a lack of translation of Delphi surveys into local languages were found. Additionally, there were indications that studies that recruited patients through treatment centres had higher round two response rates than studies recruiting through patient organisations.

CONCLUSIONS

Variability was striking in how COS Delphi surveys were designed and conducted to include patient participants and other stakeholders. Future research is needed to explore what motivates patients to take part in COS studies and what factors influence COS developer recruitment strategies. Improved reporting would increase knowledge of how methods affect patient participation in COS Delphi studies.

Protocol for developing core outcome sets for evaluation of psychosocial interventions for children and families with experience or at risk of child maltreatment or domestic abuse

INTRODUCTION

Recognition that child maltreatment (CM) and domestic violence and abuse (DVA) are common and have serious and long-term adverse health consequences has resulted in policies and programmes to ensure that services respond to and safeguard children and their families. However, high-quality evidence about how services can effectively intervene is scant. The value of the current evidence base is limited partly because of the variety of outcomes and measures used in evaluative studies. One way of addressing this limitation is to develop a core outcome set (COS) which is measured and reported as a minimum standard in the context of trials and other types of evaluative research. The study described in this protocol aims to develop two discrete COSs for use in future evaluation of psychosocial interventions aimed at improving outcomes for children and families at risk or with experience of (1) CM or (2) DVA.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A two-phase mixed methods design: (1) rapid reviews of evidence, stakeholder workshops and semistructured interviews with adult survivors of CM/DVA and parents of children who have experienced CM/DVA and (2) a three panel adapted E-Delphi Study and consensus meeting. This study protocol adheres to reporting guidance for COS protocols and has been registered on the Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

We will disseminate our findings through peer-reviewed and open access publications, the COMET website and presentations at international conferences. We will engage with research networks, journal editors and funding agencies to promote awareness of the CM-COS and DVA-COS. We will work with advisory and survivor and public involvement groups to coproduce a range of survivor, policy and practice facing outputs.Approval for this study has been granted by the Research Ethics Committee at University College London.

Stakeholder Perceptions of Key Aspects of High-Quality Cancer Care to Assess with Patient Reported Outcome Measures: A Systematic Review

Simple Summary

We conducted a review to identify important symptoms reported by patients on questionnaires (e.g., pain) that can be used to compare cancer centers on how well they provide care. For example, cancer centers could be compared on the percentage of patients with controlled pain after adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics. Standard review methods were used to identify studies through August 2020. Searches generated 1813 articles and 1779 were coded as not relevant. The remaining 34 studies showed that patients, caregivers, clinicians, and healthcare administrators identify psychosocial care (e.g., distress) and symptom management as critical parts of high-quality care. Patients and caregivers also perceive that maintaining physical function and daily activities are important. Clinicians and healthcare administrators perceive control of specific symptoms to be important (e.g., pain, poor sleep, diarrhea). Results were used to inform testing of symptom questionnaires to compare the quality of care provided by six cancer centers.

Abstract

Performance measurement is the process of collecting, analyzing, and reporting standardized measures of clinical performance that can be compared across practices to evaluate how well care was provided. We conducted a systematic review to identify stakeholder perceptions of key symptoms and health domains to test as patient-reported performance measures in oncology. Stakeholders included cancer patients, caregivers, clinicians, and healthcare administrators. Standard review methodology was used, consistent with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify relevant studies through August 2020. Four coders independently reviewed entries and conflicts were resolved by a fifth coder. Efficacy and effectiveness studies, and studies focused exclusively on patient experiences of care (e.g., communication skills of providers) were excluded. Searches generated 1813 articles and 1779 were coded as not relevant, leaving 34 international articles for extraction. Patients, caregivers, clinicians, and healthcare administrators prioritize psychosocial care (e.g., distress) and symptom management for patient-reported performance measures. Patients and caregivers also perceive that maintaining physical function and daily activities are critical. Clinicians and administrators perceive control of specific symptoms to be critical (gastrointestinal symptoms, pain, poor sleep). Results were used to inform testing at six US cancer centers.

Heterogeneity of outcomes for intraoperative music interventions: a scoping review and evidence map

BACKGROUND

Over the past 30 years, numerous studies have been performed that assess the efficacy of intraoperative music as an adjunctive means to regional and local anaesthesia to improve clinical outcomes. Despite an emerging body of evidence and growing adoption of music in surgical settings, the variety of interventions studied, and the heterogeneity of outcomes and outcome measurement tools applied makes difficult the task of aggregating evidence.

OBJECTIVE

This study assesses the state of the field of intraoperative musical interventions by documenting and visualising the breadth of outcomes measured in studies.

DESIGN

Scoping review and evidence map.

METHODS

Three electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and a music-focussed research database, RILM (International Music Literature Repository)) were searched for full-text articles published between January 1991 and July 2019. Results from these searches were screened and relevant data was extracted from full-text articles on type of music intervention and type of anaesthesia; outcomes measured were recorded in an evidence map in order to identify the current state of the field and assess for trends in outcome measurements.

INTERVENTIONS

Music administered to adult patients via headphones or speakers under regional or local sedation in during the intraoperative period.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies with a total of 2283 patients were included. A total of 42 unique outcomes were measured across the 21 studies, with each measuring an average of 6.41±2.63 outcomes. Systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, anxiety, pain, patient satisfaction, respiratory rate and sedation requirements were the most prevalent outcomes reported. Only 15 outcome measures (36%) were used in more than one study, while the remaining 27 outcome measures (64%) were identified in only one study in our review.

CONCLUSIONS

Our scoping review identifies that almost two-thirds of studies in this field used >1 outcome measure unique to that study (not also used in other studies), which hinders opportunities to aggregate data across studies and meta-analyse evidence. Future studies should provide clear documentation regarding the intervention and consider using valid and reliable outcome tools. Researchers should consider standardisation when appropriate and adopting the use of core outcome sets for conditions where these sets have been developed.

Swiss-wide multicentre evaluation and prediction of core outcomes in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: protocol for the ARCR_Pred cohort study

INTRODUCTION

In the field of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR), reporting standards of published studies differ dramatically, notably concerning adverse events (AEs). In addition, prognostic studies are overall methodologically poor, based on small data sets and explore only limited numbers of influencing factors. We aim to develop prognostic models for individual ARCR patients, primarily for the patient-reported assessment of shoulder function (Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS)) and the occurrence of shoulder stiffness 6 months after surgery. We also aim to evaluate the use of a consensus core event set (CES) for AEs and validate a severity classification for these events, considering the patient's perspective.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A cohort of 970 primary ARCR patients will be prospectively documented from several Swiss and German orthopaedic clinics up to 24 months postoperatively. Patient clinical examinations at 6 and 12 months will include shoulder range of motion and strength (Constant Score). Tendon repair integrity status will be assessed by ultrasound at 12 months. Patient-reported questionnaires at 6, 12 and 24 months will determine functional scores (subjective shoulder value, OSS), anxiety and depression scores, working status, sports activities, and quality of life (European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 5 Level questionnaire). AEs will be documented according to a CES. Prognostic models will be developed using an internationally supported regression methodology. Multiple prognostic factors, including patient baseline demographics, psychological, socioeconomic and clinical factors, rotator cuff integrity, concomitant local findings, and (post)operative management factors, will be investigated.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This project contributes to the development of personalised risk predictions for supporting the surgical decision process in ARCR. The consensus CES may become an international reference for the reporting of complications in clinical studies and registries. Ethical approval was obtained on 1 April 2020 from the lead ethics committee (EKNZ, Basel, Switzerland; ID: 2019-02076). All participants will provide informed written consent before enrolment in the study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04321005.

PROTOCOL VERSION

Version 2 (13 December 2019).