Developing a core outcome set for children with protracted bacterial bronchitis

Rasch validation of the short form (8 item) PC-QoL questionnaire and applicability of use as a health state classification system for a new preference-based measure

BACKGROUND

The parent-proxy paediatric chronic cough quality of life questionnaire (PC-QoL) is a commonly used measure of spillover quality of life in parents of children with chronic cough. To date, spillover health utility in these parents is not routinely estimated largely due to the lack of a suitable instrument. Their perspective is not included in economic evaluations of interventions for their children. We explored developing a health state classification system based on the PC-QoL for measuring health utility spill over in this population.

METHODS

This study included PC-QoL 8-item responses of 653 parents participating in a prospective cohort study about paediatric chronic cough. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and Rasch analysis were used to examine dimensionality and select potential items and level structure.

RESULTS

EFA indicated that the PC-QoL had one underlying domain. Rasch analysis indicated threshold disordering in all items which improved when items were collapsed from seven to four levels. Two demonstrated differential item functioning (DIF) by diagnosis or ethnicity and were excluded from the final scale. This scale satisfied Rasch assumptions of local independence and unidimensionality and demonstrated acceptable fit to the Rasch model. It was presented to and modified by an expert panel and a consumer panel. The resulting classification system had six items, each with four levels.

DISCUSSION

The PC-QoL can conform to a Rasch model with minor modifications. It may be a good basis for the classification system of a child cough-specific PBM. A valuation study is required to estimate preference weights for each item and to estimate health utility in parents of children with chronic cough.

Unsupervised home spirometry versus supervised clinic spirometry for respiratory disease: a systematic methodology review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The number of patients completing unsupervised home spirometry has recently increased due to more widely available portable technology and the COVID-19 pandemic, despite a lack of solid evidence to support it. This systematic methodology review and meta-analysis explores quantitative differences in unsupervised spirometry compared with spirometry completed under professional supervision.

METHODS

We searched four databases to find studies that directly compared unsupervised home spirometry with supervised clinic spirometry using a quantitative comparison (e.g. Bland-Altman). There were no restrictions on clinical condition. The primary outcome was measurement differences in common lung function parameters (forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC)), which were pooled to calculate overall mean differences with associated limits of agreement (LoA) and confidence intervals (CI). We used the I2 statistic to assess heterogeneity, the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool to assess risk of bias and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess evidence certainty for the meta-analyses. The review has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021272816).

RESULTS

3607 records were identified and screened, with 155 full texts assessed for eligibility. We included 28 studies that quantitatively compared spirometry measurements, 17 of which reported a Bland-Altman analysis for FEV1 and FVC. Overall, unsupervised spirometry produced lower values than supervised spirometry for both FEV1 with wide variability (mean difference -107 mL; LoA= -509, 296; I2=95.8%; p<0.001; very low certainty) and FVC (mean difference -184 mL, LoA= -1028, 660; I2=96%; p<0.001; very low certainty).

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis under the conditions of the included studies indicated that unsupervised spirometry is not interchangeable with supervised spirometry for individual patients owing to variability and underestimation.

Core Outcome Sets in Child Health: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Developing core outcome sets is essential to ensure that results of clinical trials are comparable and useful. A number of core outcome sets in pediatrics have been published, but a comprehensive in-depth understanding of core outcome sets in this field is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically identify core outcome sets in child health, collate the diseases to which core outcome sets have been applied, describe the methods used for development and stakeholder participation, and evaluate the methodological quality of existing core outcome sets.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were searched using relevant search terms, such as clinical trials, core outcome, and children, along with relevant websites, such as Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET). Four researchers worked in teams of 2, performed literature screening and data extraction, and evaluated the methodological quality of core outcome sets using the Core Outcome Set-Standards for Development (COS-STAD).

FINDINGS

A total of 77 pediatric core outcome sets were identified, mainly developed by organizations or researchers in Europe, North America, and Australia and mostly from the UK (22 [29%]) and the US (22 [29%]). A total of 77 conditions were addressed; the most frequent International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision category was diseases of the digestive system (14 [18%]). Most of the outcomes in pediatric core outcome sets were unordered (34 [44%]) or presented in custom classifications (29 [38%]). Core outcome sets used 1 or more of 8 development methods; the most frequent combination of methods was systematic review/literature review/scoping review, together with the Delphi approach and consensus for decision-making (10 [14%]). Among the 6 main types of stakeholders, clinical experts were the most frequently involved (74 [100%]), while industry representatives were rarely involved (4 [5%]). Only 6 core outcome sets (8%) met the 12 criteria of COS-STAD.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Future quality of pediatric core outcome sets should be improved based on the standards proposed by the COMET initiative, while core outcome sets methodology and reporting standards should be extended to pediatric populations to help improve the quality of core outcome sets in child health. In addition, the COMET outcome taxonomy should also add items applicable to children.

Identifying common health indicators from paediatric core outcome sets: a systematic review with narrative synthesis using the WHO International Classification of Functioning, Health and Disability

BACKGROUND

Indicators of child health have the potential to inform societal conversations, decision-making and prioritisation. Paediatric core outcome sets are an increasingly common way of identifying a minimum set of outcomes for trials within clinical groups. Exploring commonality across existing sets may give insight into universally important and inclusive child health indicators.

METHODS

A search of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trial register from 2008 to 2022 was carried out. Eligible articles were those reporting on core outcome sets focused on children and young people aged 0-18 years old. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) was used as a framework to categorise extracted outcomes. Information about the involvement of children, young people and their families in the development of sets was also extracted.

RESULTS

206 articles were identified, of which 36 were included. 441 unique outcomes were extracted, mapping to 22 outcome clusters present across multiple sets. Medical diagnostic outcomes were the biggest cluster, followed by pain, communication and social interaction, mobility, self-care and school. Children and young people's views were under-represented across core outcome sets, with only 36% of reviewed studies including them at any stage of development.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing paediatric core outcome sets show overlap in key outcomes, suggesting the potential for generic child health measurement frameworks. It is unclear whether existing sets best reflect health dimensions important to children and young people, and there is a need for better child and young person involvement in health indicator development to address this.

Synthesizing Core Outcome Sets for outcomes research in cohort studies: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Life course studies are designed to "collect once, use multiple times" for observational and, increasingly, interventional research. Core Outcome Sets (COS) are minimum sets developed for clinical trials by multi-stakeholder consensus methodologies. We aimed to synthesize published COS that might guide outcomes selection for early life cohorts with an interventional focus.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Medline, COMET, and CROWN for COS published before January 2021 relevant to four life stages (pregnancy, newborns, children <8 years, and parents (adults aged 18-50 years)). We synthesized core outcomes into overarching constructs.

RESULTS

From 46 COS we synthesized 414 core outcomes into 118 constructs. "Quality of life", "adverse events", "medication use", "hospitalization", and "mortality" were consistent across all stages. For pregnancy, common constructs included "preterm birth", "delivery mode", "pre-eclampsia", "gestational weight gain", "gestational diabetes", and "hemorrhage"; for newborns, "birthweight", "small for gestational age", "neurological damage", and "morbidity" and "infection/sepsis"; for pediatrics, "pain", "gastrointestinal morbidity", "growth/weight", "breastfeeding", "feeding problems", "hearing", "neurodevelopmental morbidity", and "social development"; and for adults, "disease burden", "mental health", "neurological function/stroke", and "cardiovascular health/morbidity".

CONCLUSION

This COS synthesis generated outcome constructs that are of high value to stakeholders (participants, health providers, services), relevant to life course research, and could position cohorts for trial capabilities.

IMPACT

We synthesized existing Core Outcome Sets as a transparent methodology that could prioritize outcomes for lifecourse cohorts with an interventional focus. "Quality of life", "adverse events", "medication use", "hospitalization", and "mortality" are important outcomes across pregnancy, newborns, childhood, and early-to-mid-adulthood (the age range relevant to parents). Other common outcomes (such as "birthweight", "cognitive function/ability", "psychological health") are also highly relevant to lifecourse research. This synthesis could assist new early life cohorts to pre-select outcomes that are of high value to stakeholders (participants, health providers, services), are relevant to lifecourse research, and could position them for future trials and interventional capability.