Review finds core outcome set uptake in new studies and systematic reviews needs improvement

OBJECTIVE

To review evidence about the uptake of core outcome sets (COS). A COS is an agreed standardized set of outcomes that should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all clinical trials in a specific area of health or health care.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This article provides an analysis of what is known about the uptake of COS in research. Similarities between COS and outcomes recommended by stakeholders in the evidence ecosystem is reviewed, and actions taken by them to facilitate COS uptake described.

RESULTS

COS uptake is low in most research areas. Common facilitators relate to trialist awareness and understanding. Common barriers were not including in the development process all specialties who might use the COS, and the lack of recommendations for how to measure the outcomes. Increasingly, COS developers are considering strategies for promoting uptake earlier in the process, including actions beyond traditional dissemination approaches. Overlap between COS and outcomes in regulatory documents and health technology assessments is good. An increasing number and variety of organisations are recommending COS be considered.

CONCLUSION

We suggest actions for various stakeholders for improving COS uptake. Research is needed to assess the impact of these actions to identify effective evidence-based strategies.

Identification of outcomes to inform the development of a core outcome set for surgical innovation: a targeted review of case studies of novel surgical devices

OBJECTIVE

Outcome selection and reporting in studies of novel surgical procedures and devices lacks standardisation, hindering safe and effective evaluation. A core outcome set (COS) to measure and report in all studies of surgical innovation is needed. We explored outcomes in a specific sample of innovative surgical device case studies to identify outcome domains specifically relevant to innovation to inform the development of a COS.

DESIGN

A targeted review of 11 purposive selected case studies of innovative surgical devices.

METHODS

Electronic database searches in PubMed (July 2018) identified publications reporting the introduction and evaluation of each device. Outcomes were extracted and categorised into domains until no new domains were conceptualised. Outcomes specifically relevant to evaluating innovation were further scrutinised.

RESULTS

112 relevant publications were identified, and 5926 outcomes extracted. Heterogeneity in study type, outcome selection and reporting was observed across surgical devices. Categorisation of outcomes was performed for 2689 (45.4%) outcomes into five broad outcome domains. Outcomes considered key to the evaluation of innovation (n=66; 2.5%) were further categorised as surgeon/operator experience (n=40; 1.5%), unanticipated events (n=15, 0.6%) and modifications (n=11; 0.4%).

CONCLUSION

Outcome domains unique to evaluating innovative surgical devices have been identified. Findings have been combined with multiple other data sources relevant to the evaluation of surgical innovation to inform the development of a COS to measure and report in all studies evaluating novel surgical procedures/devices.

Safety and transparency in surgical innovation

Advances in healthcare require safe and transparent innovation. Currently in surgery it can be difficult to identify when innovation is occurring because of inconsistent oversight and reporting. New ways of identifying, monitoring and reporting surgical innovation are called for in order to optimise the process.

Development of a new adapted QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI-Two) for rapid application to RCTs underway with enrolment shortfalls—to identify previously hidden barriers and improve recruitment

Background

Many randomised controlled trials (RCTs) struggle to recruit, despite valiant efforts. The QRI (QuinteT Recruitment Intervention) uses innovative research methods to optimise recruitment by revealing previously hidden barriers related to the perceptions and experiences of recruiters and patients, and targeting remedial actions. It was designed to be integrated with RCTs anticipating difficulties at the outset. A new version of the intervention (QRI-Two) was developed for RCTs already underway with enrolment shortfalls.

Methods

QRIs in 12 RCTs with enrolment shortfalls during 2007–2017 were reviewed to document which of the research methods used could be rapidly applied to successfully identify recruitment barriers. These methods were then included in the new streamlined QRI-Two intervention which was applied in 20 RCTs in the USA and Europe during 2018–2019. The feasibility of the QRI-Two was investigated, recruitment barriers and proposed remedial actions were documented, and the QRI-Two protocol was finalised.

Results

The review of QRIs from 2007 to 2017 showed that previously unrecognised recruitment barriers could be identified but data collection for the full QRI required time and resources usually unavailable to ongoing RCTs. The streamlined QRI-Two focussed on analysis of screening/accrual data and RCT documents (protocol, patient-information), with discussion of newly diagnosed barriers and potential remedial actions in a workshop with the RCT team. Four RCTs confirmed the feasibility of the rapid application of the QRI-Two. When the QRI-Two was applied to 14 RCTs underway with enrolment shortfalls, an array of previously unknown/underestimated recruitment barriers related to issues such as equipoise, intervention preferences, or study presentation was identified, with new insights into losses of eligible patients along the recruitment pathway. The QRI-Two workshop enabled discussion of the newly diagnosed barriers and potential remedial actions to improve recruitment in collaboration with the RCT team. As expected, the QRI-Two performed less well in six RCTs at the start-up stage before commencing enrolment.

Conclusions

The QRI-Two can be applied rapidly, diagnose previously unrecognised recruitment barriers, and suggest remedial actions in RCTs underway with enrolment shortfalls, providing opportunities for RCT teams to develop targeted actions to improve recruitment. The effectiveness of the QRI-Two in improving recruitment requires further evaluation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06187-y.

Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic or Open Lobectomy in Early-Stage Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND: There is limited randomized evidence on the comparative outcomes of early-stage lung cancer resection by video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) versus open resection. METHODS: We conducted a parallel-group multicenter randomized trial that recruited participants with known or suspected early-stage lung cancer and randomly assigned them to open or VATS resection of their lesions. The primary outcome was physical function at 5 weeks as a measure of recovery using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer core health-related quality of life questionnaire (QLQ-C30) (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better function; the clinical minimally important difference for improvement is 5 points). We followed the patients for an additional 47 weeks for other outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 503 participants were randomly assigned (247 to VATS and 256 to open lobectomy). At 5 weeks, median physical function was 73 in the VATS group and 67 in the open surgery group, with a mean difference of 4.65 points (95% confidence interval, 1.69 to 7.61). Of the participants allocated to VATS, 30.7% had serious adverse events after discharge compared with 37.8% of those allocated to open surgery (risk ratio, 0.81 [95% confidence interval, 0.66 to 1.00]). At 52 weeks, there were no differences in cancer progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.74 [0.43 to 1.27]) or overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.67 [0.32 to 1.40]). CONCLUSIONS: VATS lobectomy for lung cancer is associated with a better recovery of physical function in the 5 weeks after random assignment compared with open surgery. Long-term oncologic outcomes will require continued follow-up to assess. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme [reference number 13/04/03]; ISRCTN number, ISRCTN13472721.)

Increased transparency was required when reporting imputation of primary outcome data in clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

To explore the transparency of reporting primary outcome data within randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the presence of missing data.

STUDY DESIGN

/ Setting: A cohort examination of RCTs published in the four major medical journals (NEJM, JAMA, BMJ, Lancet) in 2013 and the first quarter of 2018. Data was extracted on reporting quality, the number of randomised participants and the number of participants included within the primary outcome analysis with observed or imputed data.

RESULTS

91/159 (57%) of the studies analysed from 2013 and 19/46 (41%) from 2018 included imputed data within the primary outcome analysis. Of these, only 13/91 (14%) studies from 2013 and 1/19 (5%) studies from 2018 explicitly reported the number of imputed values in the CONSORT diagram. Results tables included levels of imputed data in 12/91 (13%) studies in 2013 and 4/19 (21%) in 2018. Consequently, identification of imputed data was a time-consuming task requiring extensive cross-referencing of all manuscript elements.

CONCLUSION

Imputed primary outcome data is poorly reported. Participant flow diagrams frequently reported participant status which does not necessarily correlate to availability of data. We recommended that the number of imputed values are explicitly reported within CONSORT flow diagrams to increase transparency.

Understanding stage of innovation of invasive procedures and devices: protocol for a systematic review and thematic analysis

INTRODUCTION

Surgical innovation has generally occurred in an unstandardised manner. This has led to unnecessary exposure of patients to harm, research waste and inadequate evidence. The IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term follow-up) Collaboration provided a set of recommendations for evaluating surgical innovations based on their stage of innovation. Despite further refinements and guidance, adoption of the IDEAL recommendations has been slow; an important reason may be that determining the stage of innovation is often difficult. To facilitate evaluation of surgical innovations, there is a need for a detailed insight into what stage of innovation means, and how it can be determined. The aim of this study is to understand the concept of stage of innovation as reported in the literature.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A systematic review is being conducted. Ovid MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from their inception until July 2021 using an iteratively developed strategy based on the concepts of stage of innovation, invasive procedures or devices and guidance. Articles were included if they described an approach to evaluating surgical innovations in stages, described a method for determining stage of innovation, described indicators of stage of innovation, defined stages or described potential sources of stage-related information. Conference abstracts and non-English language articles were excluded. Other articles were detected from citations within included articles and suggestions from experts in surgical innovation. Data will be extracted regarding approaches to evaluating surgical innovations, methods for determining stage of innovation, indicators of stage of innovation, definitions of stages and potential sources of stage-related information. A thematic analysis will be conducted, and findings summarised in a narrative report.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval will not be required. This systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at appropriate conferences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021270812.

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.

Development of a Reliable Surgical Quality Assurance System for 2-stage Esophagectomy in Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to develop a reliable surgical quality assurance system for 2-stage esophagectomy. This development was conducted during the pilot phase of the multicenter ROMIO trial, collaborating with international experts.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

There is evidence that the quality of surgical performance in randomized controlled trials influences clinical outcomes, quality of lymphadenectomy and loco-regional recurrence.

METHODS

Standardization of 2-stage esophagectomy was based on structured observations, semi-structured interviews, hierarchical task analysis, and a Delphi consensus process. This standardization provided the structure for the operation manual and video and photographic assessment tools. Reliability was examined using generalizability theory.

RESULTS

Hierarchical task analysis for 2-stage esophagectomy comprised fifty-four steps. Consensus (75%) agreement was reached on thirty-nine steps, whereas fifteen steps had a majority decision. An operation manual and record were created. A thirty five-item video assessment tool was developed that assessed the process (safety and efficiency) and quality of the end product (anatomy exposed and lymphadenectomy performed) of the operation. The quality of the end product section was used as a twenty seven-item photographic assessment tool. Thirty-one videos and fifty-three photographic series were submitted from the ROMIO pilot phase for assessment. The overall G-coefficient for the video assessment tool was 0.744, and for the photographic assessment tool was 0.700.

CONCLUSIONS

A reliable surgical quality assurance system for 2-stage esophagectomy has been developed for surgical oncology randomized controlled trials.

ETHICAL APPROVAL

11/NW/0895 and confirmed locally as appropriate, 12/SW/0161, 16/SW/0098.Trial registration number: ISRCTN59036820, ISRCTN10386621.

Using qualitative research methods to understand how surgical procedures and devices are introduced into NHS hospitals: the Lotus study protocol

INTRODUCTION

The development of innovative invasive procedures and devices are essential to improving outcomes in healthcare. However, how these are introduced into practice has not been studied in detail. The Lotus study will follow a wide range of 'case studies' of new procedures and/or devices being introduced into NHS trusts to explore what information is communicated to patients, how procedures are modified over time and how outcomes are selected and reported.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This qualitative study will use ethnographic approaches to investigate how new invasive procedures and/or devices are introduced. Consultations in which the innovation is discussed will be audio-recorded to understand information provision practice. To understand if and how procedures evolve, they will be video recorded and non-participant observations will be conducted. Post-operative interviews will be conducted with the innovating team and patients who are eligible for the intervention. Audio-recordings will be audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using constant comparison techniques. Video-recordings will be reviewed to deconstruct procedures into key components and document how the procedure evolves. Comparisons will be made between the different data sources.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol has Health Research Authority (HRA) and Health and Care Research Wales approval (Ref 18/SW/0277). Results will be disseminated at appropriate conferences and will be published in peer-reviewed journals. The findings of this study will provide a better understanding of how innovative invasive procedures and/or devices are introduced into practice.

Reporting Modifications in Surgical Innovation: A Systematic Scoping Review Protocol

INTRODUCTION

Innovation in surgery drives improvements to patient care. New surgical procedures and devices typically undergo a series of modifications as they are developed and refined during their introduction into clinical practice. These changes should ideally be reported and shared between surgeon-innovators to promote efficient, safe and transparent innovation. Currently, agreement on how modifications should be defined, conceptualised and classified, so they can be reported and shared efficiently and transparently, is lacking. The aim of this review is to examine and summarise existing literature on definitions, perceptions and classifications of modifications to surgical procedures/devices, including views on how to measure and report them. The findings will inform future work to standardise reporting and sharing of modifications in surgical innovation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic scoping review will be conducted adhering to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Included articles will focus on review articles and opinion pieces relevant to modifications to new surgical procedures or devices introduced to clinical practice. Methods to identify relevant literature will include systematic searches in MEDLINE (Ovid version), targeted internet searches (Google Scholar) and snowball searches. A two-stage screening process (titles/abstracts/keywords and full-texts) will use specified exclusion/inclusion criteria to identify eligible articles. Data on how modifications are i) defined, ii) perceived, and iii) classified, and iv) views on how modifications should be measured and reported, will be extracted verbatim. Inductive thematic analysis will be applied to extracted data where appropriate. Results will be presented as a narrative summary including descriptive characteristics of included articles. Findings will inform a preliminary conceptual framework to facilitate the systematic reporting and sharing of modifications to novel procedures and devices.

HIGHLIGHTS

This work will generate an in-depth understanding of how modifications are currently defined, perceived and classified, and views on how they may be reported, in the context of surgical innovation.Rigorous and comprehensive search methods will be applied to identify a wide range of diverse data sources for inclusion in the review.A summary of existing relevant literature on modifications is a necessary step to inform development of a framework for transparent, real-time reporting and sharing of modifications in future studies of innovative invasive procedures/devices.

Use of core outcome sets was low in clinical trials published in major medical journals

OBJECTIVES

To examine current practices in late-phase trials published in major medical journals and examine trialists' views about core outcome set (COS) use.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A sequential multi-methods study was conducted. We examined late-phase trials published between October 2019 and March 2020 in JAMA, NEJM, The Lancet, BMJ, and Annals of Internal Medicine. The COMET database was searched for COS potentially relevant to trials not reporting using a COS; overlap of trial and COS outcomes was examined. An online survey examined awareness of, and decisions to search for and use a COS.

RESULTS

Ninety-five trials were examined; 93 (98%) did not report using a COS. Relevant COS were identified for 31 trials (33%). Core outcomes were measured in 9 (23%) studies; all trials measured at least one core outcome. Thirty-one trialists (33%) completed our survey. The most common barrier to COS use was trialist's own outcome preferences and choice (68%). The most common perceived facilitator was awareness and knowledge about COS (90%).

CONCLUSION

COS use in this cohort of trials was low, even when relevant COS were available. Increased use of COS in clinical trials can improve evaluation of intervention effects and evidence synthesis and reduce research waste.

Systematic review of the introduction, early phase study and evaluation of pyrocarbon proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

In 2002 a pyrocarbon interphalangeal joint implant was granted Food and Drug Administration approval with limited evidence of effectiveness. It is important to understand device use and outcomes since this implant entered clinical practice in order to establish incremental evidence, appropriate study design and reporting. This systematic review summarised and appraised studies reporting pyrocarbon proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty.

METHODS

Systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, BIOSIS, CINAHL and CENTRAL from inception to November 2020. All study designs reporting pyrocarbon proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty in humans were included. Data extracted included information about study characteristics, patient selection, regulatory (gaining research ethics approval) and governance issues (reporting of conflicting interests), operator and centre experience, technique description and outcome reporting. Descriptive and narrative summaries were reported.

RESULTS

From 4316 abstracts, 210 full-text articles were screened. A total of 38 studies and 1434 (1-184) patients were included. These consisted of three case reports, 24 case series, 10 retrospective cohort studies and one randomised trial. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were stated in 25 (66%) studies. Most studies (n = 27, 71%) gained research ethics approval to be conducted. Six studies reported conflicting interests. Experience of operating surgeons was reported in nine (24%) and caseload volume in five studies. There was no consensus about the optimal surgical approach. Technical aspects of implant placement were reported frequently (n = 32) but the detail provided varied widely. Studies reported multiple, heterogenous outcomes. The most commonly reported outcome was range of motion (n = 37).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review identified inconsistencies in how studies describing the early use and update of an innovative procedure were reported. Incremental evidence was lacking, risking the implant being adopted without robust evaluation. This review adds to evidence highlighting the need for more rigorous evaluation of how implantable medical devices are used in practice following licencing.

Placebo comparator group selection and use in surgical trials: the ASPIRE project including expert workshop

BACKGROUND

The use of placebo comparisons for randomised trials assessing the efficacy of surgical interventions is increasingly being considered. However, a placebo control is a complex type of comparison group in the surgical setting and, although powerful, presents many challenges.

OBJECTIVES

To provide a summary of knowledge on placebo controls in surgical trials and to summarise any recommendations for designers, evaluators and funders of placebo-controlled surgical trials.

DESIGN

To carry out a state-of-the-art workshop and produce a corresponding report involving key stakeholders throughout.

SETTING

A workshop to discuss and summarise the existing knowledge and to develop the new guidelines.

RESULTS

To assess what a placebo control entails and to assess the understanding of this tool in the context of surgery is considered, along with when placebo controls in surgery are acceptable (and when they are desirable). We have considered ethics arguments and regulatory requirements, how a placebo control should be designed, how to identify and mitigate risk for participants in these trials, and how such trials should be carried out and interpreted. The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Surgical placebos might be most appropriate when there is poor evidence for the efficacy of the procedure and a justified concern that results of a trial would be associated with a high risk of bias, particularly because of the placebo effect.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Feasibility work is recommended to optimise the design and implementation of randomised controlled trials. An outline for best practice was produced in the form of the Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations (ASPIRE) guidelines for those considering the use of a placebo control in a surgical randomised controlled trial.

LIMITATIONS

Although the workshop participants involved international members, the majority of participants were from the UK. Therefore, although every attempt was made to make the recommendations applicable to all health systems, the guidelines may, unconsciously, be particularly applicable to clinical practice in the UK NHS.

FUTURE WORK

Future work should evaluate the use of the ASPIRE guidelines in making decisions about the use of a placebo-controlled surgical trial. In addition, further work is required on the appropriate nomenclature to adopt in this space.

FUNDING

Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health Research as part of the Medical Research Council-National Institute for Health Research Methodology Research programme.

Framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions: gap analysis, workshop and consultation-informed update

BACKGROUND

The Medical Research Council published the second edition of its framework in 2006 on developing and evaluating complex interventions. Since then, there have been considerable developments in the field of complex intervention research. The objective of this project was to update the framework in the light of these developments. The framework aims to help research teams prioritise research questions and design, and conduct research with an appropriate choice of methods, rather than to provide detailed guidance on the use of specific methods.

METHODS

There were four stages to the update: (1) gap analysis to identify developments in the methods and practice since the previous framework was published; (2) an expert workshop of 36 participants to discuss the topics identified in the gap analysis; (3) an open consultation process to seek comments on a first draft of the new framework; and (4) findings from the previous stages were used to redraft the framework, and final expert review was obtained. The process was overseen by a Scientific Advisory Group representing the range of relevant National Institute for Health Research and Medical Research Council research investments.

RESULTS

Key changes to the previous framework include (1) an updated definition of complex interventions, highlighting the dynamic relationship between the intervention and its context; (2) an emphasis on the use of diverse research perspectives: efficacy, effectiveness, theory-based and systems perspectives; (3) a focus on the usefulness of evidence as the basis for determining research perspective and questions; (4) an increased focus on interventions developed outside research teams, for example changes in policy or health services delivery; and (5) the identification of six 'core elements' that should guide all phases of complex intervention research: consider context; develop, refine and test programme theory; engage stakeholders; identify key uncertainties; refine the intervention; and economic considerations. We divide the research process into four phases: development, feasibility, evaluation and implementation. For each phase we provide a concise summary of recent developments, key points to address and signposts to further reading. We also present case studies to illustrate the points being made throughout.

LIMITATIONS

The framework aims to help research teams prioritise research questions and design and conduct research with an appropriate choice of methods, rather than to provide detailed guidance on the use of specific methods. In many of the areas of innovation that we highlight, such as the use of systems approaches, there are still only a few practical examples. We refer to more specific and detailed guidance where available and note where promising approaches require further development.

CONCLUSIONS

This new framework incorporates developments in complex intervention research published since the previous edition was written in 2006. As well as taking account of established practice and recent refinements, we draw attention to new approaches and place greater emphasis on economic considerations in complex intervention research. We have introduced a new emphasis on the importance of context and the value of understanding interventions as 'events in systems' that produce effects through interactions with features of the contexts in which they are implemented. The framework adopts a pluralist approach, encouraging researchers and research funders to adopt diverse research perspectives and to select research questions and methods pragmatically, with the aim of providing evidence that is useful to decision-makers.

FUTURE WORK

We call for further work to develop relevant methods and provide examples in practice. The use of this framework should be monitored and the move should be made to a more fluid resource in the future, for example a web-based format that can be frequently updated to incorporate new material and links to emerging resources.

FUNDING

This project was jointly funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the National Institute for Health Research (Department of Health and Social Care 73514).

Protocol for the UK cohort study to investigate the prevention of parastomal hernia (the CIPHER study)

AIM

Abdominal surgery sometimes necessitates the creation of a stoma, which can cause future complications including parastomal hernia (PSH), an incisional hernia adjacent to and related to the stoma. PSH affects approximately 40% of patients within 2 years of stoma formation. Complications of PSH reduce a patient's quality of life and can be severe (e.g. bowel obstruction). PSHs are difficult to manage and can recur after surgical repair. Therefore, it is very important to prevent a PSH. Surgeons create stomas in different ways and both patient and surgical factors are believed to influence the development of PSH. The aim of the CIPHER study is to investigate the influence of different surgical techniques on the development of PSH.

METHOD

The UK cohort study to investigate the prevention of parastomal hernia (the CIPHER study) aims to recruit 4000 patients undergoing elective or expedited surgery with the intention of forming an ileostomy or colostomy, irrespective of the primary indication for the planned surgery. For each patient, surgeons will describe their methods of trephine formation, mesh reinforcement of the stoma trephine, use of the stoma as a specimen extraction site and wound closure. The primary outcome will be incident PSH during follow-up, defined as symptoms of PSH (custom-designed questionnaire) and anatomical PSH, ascertained by independent reading of usual care CT scans. Secondary outcomes will include surgical site infection, the Comprehensive Complication Index, quality of life (EQ-5D-5L and SF-12), PSH repair and use of NHS resources.

RESULTS

Results of the study will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. All publications relating to the results of CIPHER will use a corporate authorship, 'The CIPHER Study Investigators' with named writing committee members.

CONCLUSION

The CIPHER study will be the first to investigate detailed surgical methods of stoma formation in a large, representative cohort of patients with a range of primary indications, both cancer and noncancer.

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

BACKGROUND

Surgery is the primary treatment that can offer potential cure for gastric cancer, but is associated with significant risks. Identifying optimal surgical approaches should be based on comparing outcomes from well designed trials. Currently, trials report different outcomes, making synthesis of evidence difficult. To address this, the aim of this study was to develop a core outcome set (COS)-a standardized group of outcomes important to key international stakeholders-that should be reported by future trials in this field.

METHODS

Stage 1 of the study involved identifying potentially important outcomes from previous trials and a series of patient interviews. Stage 2 involved patients and healthcare professionals prioritizing outcomes using a multilanguage international Delphi survey that informed an international consensus meeting at which the COS was finalized.

RESULTS

Some 498 outcomes were identified from previously reported trials and patient interviews, and rationalized into 56 items presented in the Delphi survey. A total of 952 patients, surgeons, and nurses enrolled in round 1 of the survey, and 662 (70 per cent) completed round 2. Following the consensus meeting, eight outcomes were included in the COS: disease-free survival, disease-specific survival, surgery-related death, recurrence, completeness of tumour removal, overall quality of life, nutritional effects, and 'serious' adverse events.

CONCLUSION

A COS for surgical trials in gastric cancer has been developed with international patients and healthcare professionals. This is a minimum set of outcomes that is recommended to be used in all future trials in this field to improve trial design and synthesis of evidence.

Methods for conducting international Delphi surveys to optimise global participation in core outcome set development: a case study in gastric cancer informed by a comprehensive literature review

Background

Core outcome sets (COS) should be relevant to key stakeholders and widely applicable and usable. Ideally, they are developed for international use to allow optimal data synthesis from trials. Electronic Delphi surveys are commonly used to facilitate global participation; however, this has limitations. It is common for these surveys to be conducted in a single language potentially excluding those not fluent in that tongue. The aim of this study is to summarise current approaches for optimising international participation in Delphi studies and make recommendations for future practice.

Methods

A comprehensive literature review of current approaches to translating Delphi surveys for COS development was undertaken. A standardised methodology adapted from international guidance derived from 12 major sets of translation guidelines in the field of outcome reporting was developed. As a case study, this was applied to a COS project for surgical trials in gastric cancer to translate a Delphi survey into 7 target languages from regions active in gastric cancer research.

Results

Three hundred thirty-two abstracts were screened and four studies addressing COS development in rheumatoid and osteoarthritis, vascular malformations and polypharmacy were eligible for inclusion. There was wide variation in methodological approaches to translation, including the number of forward translations, the inclusion of back translation, the employment of cognitive debriefing and how discrepancies and disagreements were handled. Important considerations were identified during the development of the gastric cancer survey including establishing translation groups, timelines, understanding financial implications, strategies to maximise recruitment and regulatory approvals. The methodological approach to translating the Delphi surveys was easily reproducible by local collaborators and resulted in an additional 637 participants to the 315 recruited to complete the source language survey. Ninety-nine per cent of patients and 97% of healthcare professionals from non-English-speaking regions used translated surveys.

Conclusion

Consideration of the issues described will improve planning by other COS developers and can be used to widen international participation from both patients and healthcare professionals.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05338-x.

'Overnight, things changed. Suddenly, we were in it': a qualitative study exploring how surgical teams mitigated risks of COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

COVID-19 presents a risk of infection and transmission for operating theatre teams. Guidelines to protect patients and staff emerged and changed rapidly based on expert opinion and limited evidence. This paper presents the experiences and innovations developed by international surgical teams during the early stages of the pandemic to attempt to mitigate risk.

DESIGN

In-depth, semistructured interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically using methods of constant comparison.

PARTICIPANTS

43 participants, including surgeons from a range of specialties (primarily general surgery, otolaryngology, neurosurgery, cardiothoracic and ophthalmology), anaesthetists and those in nursing roles.

SETTING

The UK, Italy, Spain, the USA, China and New Zealand between March and May 2020.

RESULTS

Surgical teams sought to mitigate COVID-19 risks by modifying their current practice with an abundance of strategies and innovations. Communication and teamwork played an integral role in how teams adapted, although participants reflected on the challenges of having to improvise in real time. Uncertainties remained about optimal surgical practice and there were significant tensions where teams were forced to balance what was best for patients while contemplating their own safety.

CONCLUSIONS

The perceptions of risks during a pandemic such as COVID-19 can be complex and context dependent. Management of these risks in surgery must be driven by evidence-based practice resulting from a pragmatic and novel approach to collation of global evidence. The context of surgery has changed dramatically, and surgical teams have developed a plethora of innovations. There is an urgent need for high-quality evidence to inform surgical practice that optimises the safety of both patients and healthcare professionals as the COVID-19 pandemic unfolds.

Building capacity and ensuring equity in clinical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic

e13598

Background: The impact on cancer outcomes from the Covid-19 pandemic has yet to be determined. Concerns persist on screening, delays in diagnosis, treatment interruptions and outcomes of infection in the immunosuppressed. The need for agile working has been exemplified by establishment of Nightingale Hospitals, staff redeployment and sudden integration of virtual consultations into clinical working. With most cancer clinical trials halted, recruitment into COVID-19 research became essential and embedded into the everyday. Here we present how rapid implementation of COVID-19 randomised clinical trials within an NHS organisation during the pandemic was achieved. Methods: A COVID-19 senior facilitation committee was set up to provide oversight, maximise staff capacity and resource and prioritise studies. Specific strategies to maximise access and clinical trials recruitment for patients including children and those with solid tumours were designed. These included presence of a research nurse at clinical ward rounds and team meetings, the promotion of protocol and informed consent training to all including doctors in the acute settings and weekly research meetings to share-best practice. Reflecting on learnings from this time provide an opportunity to consider how we adjust working for our patients in the future. Results: The integration of research into the everyday working of clinical teams looking after patients with COVID-19 has become the norm. The provision of protocol and informed consent training for all levels of staff and the consideration of all patients for trials during clinical ward rounds and multi-disciplinary meetings, have ensured access to trials has become embedded. The integration of research nurses working, upskilling and prompting clinical colleagues has ensured equity of access and provided a research presence and focus during the busy clinical day. The adoption of cross-disciplinary working, sharing best practice and a culture of commitment and support to the trials ensures no patient is denied the opportunity to participate. Three RTCs opened over 7 weeks. At one site 1904 patients were screened for one of the randomised-controlled trials and over 18% of these patients (351) were recruited and 175 patients declined. Conclusions: The pandemic has had a devastating impact across the UK. However, a coordinated and collaborative multi-disciplinary approach has supported high recruitment and equity of access for patients into COVID-19 trials. Learnings from this work may lead to embedding clinical trials and access to translational research for cancer patients in the future as we recover from the full impact of the pandemic. COVID-19 research has demonstrated how increased recruitment accelerates access and implementation of new innovations and novel drug combinations.The full impact of improved access to cancer research in the future during COVID recovery is worthy of more research.

Minimally invasive or open oesophagectomy for localized oesophageal cancer: Results of the ROMIO phase 3 randomized controlled trial

e16057

Background: Patients with localised oesophageal adenocarcinoma or squamous cell cancer are frequently offered surgery, usually with neoadjuvant treatment. Whether minimally invasive surgical approaches are superior to standard open procedures in terms of patient recovery and survival benefit is unclear. Well-designed and well-conducted pragmatic trials are limited. The ROMIO study compared laparoscopic abdominal surgery and thoracotomy (LAO) with open oesophagectomy (OO), to test the hypothesis that LAO allows faster recovery than OO whilst maintaining the survival benefit of surgery. Methods: A pragmatic multi-centre randomised controlled trial (1:1 LAO vs. OO) was conducted in 9 major cancer centres in the UK. Included were patients with localised adenocarcinoma or squamous cell cancer selected by a multi-disciplinary team for oesophagectomy with or without neoadjuvant treatment. Surgery was quality assured by provision of a protocol, pre-operative video assessment of the 40 participating surgeons and intra-operative photographs of key agreed surgical components. The primary outcome was the physical function scale of the EORTC QLQ-C30 assessed during the first 3 months. Results: At enrolment to ROMIO 447 (85%) of 526 participants were male, mean age was 67 years (SD 9), 469 (89%) had an adenocarcinoma, 368 (70%) had a clinically staged T3 or T4a tumour, 295 (56%) had clinically positive nodes, and 438 (83%) underwent neoadjuvant treatment. 263 were randomly allocated to each of the two procedures, with 241 (92%) undergoing their allocated open surgery and 237 (91%) undergoing their allocated LAO (hybrid) surgery. Analyses are underway and this presentation will include the primary outcome measure and other short-term clinical outcomes including key complications and survival during the first 90 days (clinical data >95% complete). Conclusions: ROMIO is the largest multi-centre randomised controlled surgical trial of minimal access versus open surgical approaches for oesophageal cancer. The provision of a surgical quality assessment tool will supplement trial data to provide for the first-time evidence of surgical standards of both approaches. Clinical trial information: ISRCTN10386621.

Video-assisted thoracoscopic versus open lobectomy in patients with early-stage lung cancer: One-year results from a randomized controlled trial (VIOLET)

8504

Background: Video assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) is a popular access for lung cancer resection. However, there is limited information from RCTs from in-hospital to one-year clinical efficacy, safety and oncologic outcomes of a minimal access approach. Methods: VIOLET is a parallel group multi-center RCT conducted in 9 centers in the United Kingdom that recruited participants with known or suspected (cT1-3, N0-1 and M0) lung cancer (ISRCTN13472721). Trial protocol: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/10/e029507.info. Results: From July 2015 to February 2019, 503 participants were randomized to VATS (n=247) or open (n=256) lobectomy. Patients allocated to VATS had less pain with a mean difference (MD) in visual analogue score of -0.54 (95%CI -0.99 to -0.10) despite less analgesic consumption (mean ratio 0.90, 95%CI 0.80 to 1.01). After discharge pain was consistent on multiple sub-scales including overall pain (MD -7.19, -10.59 to -3.80), chest pain (MD -4.66, -7.96 to -1.36) and an 18% relative risk (RR) reduction in incision pain (RR 0.82; 0.72 to 0.94) up to one-year. Better functional recovery continued in VATS arm after discharge with better physical function (primary outcome) with MD of 4.65 (1.69 to 7.61; P=0.002) at 5 weeks and overall improvement in global health status with a MD of 4.21 (1.62 to 6.79; P=0.001). In hospital, VATS arm had fewer complications (RR 0.74, 0.66 to 0.84; P<0.001) with no difference in serious adverse events (RR 0.98, 0.59 to 1.63; P=0.948). Median hospital stay was one day shorter in the VATS arm (4 vs 5 days) corresponding to hazard ratio (HR) for discharge of 1.34, 95%CI 1.09 to 1.65; P=0.006). After discharge VATS arm had 19% less serious adverse events (RR 0.81, 0.66 to 1.00; p=0.053) and lower readmission rates (29.0% vs. 35.9% respectively) to one-year. Of those with lymph node disease, 50.9% in the VATS and 45.9% in open arms received adjuvant treatment. There was no difference in the time to uptake of adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 1.12, 0.62 to 2.02; p=0.716). Recurrence with clinical follow up and CT at one-year was similar with 7.7% versus 8.1% in the VATS and open groups respectively. Progression-free survival (HR 0.74, 0.43 to 1.27; p=0.27) and overall survival HR 0.67, 0.32 to 1.40; p=0.282) was not significantly different. Conclusions: VATS lobectomy for lung cancer is associated with less pain, fewer in-hospital complications and shorter hospital stay, achieved without any compromise to early oncologic outcomes nor serious adverse events. Superior functional recovery continues in the post-operative period with improved physical function, lower re-admission rates and no difference in disease-free and overall survival up to one-year. Clinical trial information: ISRCTN13472721.

Coverage of symptomatic toxicities from the common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) framework within the european organization for research and treatment of cancer (EORTC) item library

e24117

Background: The EORTC Item Library is an online, interactive platform comprised of 950 distinct questions (items) from 67 different EORTC patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires, covering a range of symptomatic toxicities, types of functioning, and impact on quality of life. These PROs provide a patient-centred perspective, complementing clinician adverse event (AE) reporting using classifications like the CTCAE. In order to summarize the coverage of symptomatic toxicities and facilitate the identification of items through use of a standardized framework, a mapping study was carried out, aimed at creating a coding system to classify EORTC items according to the CTCAE and link them to corresponding AEs. Methods: All items were searched for within the CTCAE (v5.0) using a deductive approach. Items were coded as linked if they were described within an AE’s title, description, or grading. Items not suitable for CTCAE coding were inductively assigned a descriptive classification. Descriptive classifications were also applied along with CTCAE codes when they provided additional information. Symptoms described in EORTC items but not located in the CTCAE were coded as missing and additional codes were assigned to highlight EORTC items capturing multiple underlying issues and diagnosis only CTCAE codes. Two raters independently coded 249 items and agreement was calculated. The remaining 701 items were coded by one rater and verified by the second, with a third introduced to discuss any discrepancies until a consensus was reached. Results: Agreement for raters following independent coding was 77.9% for at least one AE per item. In total, 625 (65.8%) items were linked to 208 different AEs. Fatigue was the most commonly linked AE, representing 4.9% of linked AEs. The majority of linked items were associated with one (65.6%) or two (23.5%) AEs, with some linked to three or more (10.9%). Multiple linkage resulted from different symptoms relating to the same issue/diagnosis or one symptom relating to multiple diagnoses. Two symptoms captured by six EORTC items but not found in the CTCAE were identified: bowel urgency and tenesmus. Seven descriptive non-CTCAE classifications emerged, with most of these covering the emotional impact of symptom, diagnosis, or treatment (33.6%) and information/satisfaction with care (31.7%). Nineteen items (2%) were linked to multiple underlying issues, and 43 (4.5%) to diagnosis only CTCAE codes. Conclusions: The EORTC Item Library provides extensive coverage of CTCAE symptomatic toxicities, along with other issues that are important to cancer patients, including emotional well-being and satisfaction with care services. Classifying symptomatic PRO items following the CTCAE clinical framework may facilitate future PRO selection and use in clinical trials and routine care.

What empirical research has been undertaken on the ethics of clinical research in India? A systematic scoping review and narrative synthesis

INTRODUCTION

The post-2005 rise in clinical trials and clinical research conducted in India was accompanied by frequent reports of unethical practices, leading to a series of regulatory changes. We conducted a systematic scoping review to obtain an overview of empirical research pertaining to the ethics of clinical trials/research in India.

METHODS

Our search strategy combined terms related to ethics/bioethics, informed consent, clinical trials/research and India, across nine databases, up to November 2019. Peer-reviewed research exploring ethical aspects of clinical trials/research in India with any stakeholder groups was included. We developed an evidence map, undertook a narrative synthesis and identified research gaps. A consultation exercise with stakeholders in India helped contextualise the review and identify additional research priorities.

RESULTS

Titles/Abstracts of 9699 articles were screened, full text of 282 obtained and 80 were included. Research on the ethics of clinical trials/research covered a wide range of topics, often conducted with little to no funding. Studies predominantly examined what lay (patients/public) and professional participants (eg, healthcare staff/students/faculty) know about topics such as research ethics or understand from the information given to obtain their consent for research participation. Easily accessible groups, namely ethics committee members and healthcare students were frequently researched. Research gaps included developing a better understanding of the recruitment-informed consent process, including the doctor-patient interaction, in multiple contexts and exploring issues of equity and justice in clinical trials/research.

CONCLUSION

The review demonstrates that while a wide range of topics have been studied in India, the focus is largely on assessing knowledge levels across different population groups. This is a useful starting point, but fundamental questions remain unanswered about informed consent processes and broader issues of inequity that pervade the clinical trials/research landscape. A priority-setting exercise and appropriate funding mechanisms to support researchers in India would help improve the clinical trials/research ecosystem.