Variation in the provision and practice of implant-based breast reconstruction in the UK: Results from the iBRA national practice questionnaire

Introduction

The introduction of biological and synthetic meshes has revolutionised the practice of implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) but evidence for effectiveness is lacking. The iBRA (implant Breast Reconstruction evAluation) study is a national trainee-led project that aims to explore the practice and outcomes of IBBR to inform the design of a future trial. We report the results of the iBRA National Practice Questionnaire (NPQ) which aimed to comprehensively describe the provision and practice of IBBR across the UK.

Methods

A questionnaire investigating local practice and service provision of IBBR developed by the iBRA Steering Group was completed by trainee and consultant leads at breast and plastic surgical units across the UK. Summary data for each survey item were calculated and variation between centres and overall provision of care examined.

Results

81 units within 79 NHS-hospitals completed the questionnaire. Units offered a range of reconstructive techniques, with IBBR accounting for 70% (IQR:50–80%) of participating units' immediate procedures. Units on average were staffed by 2.5 breast surgeons (IQR:2.0–3.0) and 2.0 plastic surgeons (IQR:1.0–3.0) performing 35 IBBR cases per year (IQR:20-50). Variation was demonstrated in the provision of novel different techniques for IBBR especially the use of biological (n = 62) and synthetic (n = 25) meshes and in patient selection for these procedures.

Conclusions

The iBRA-NPQ has demonstrated marked variation in the provision and practice of IBBR in the UK. The prospective audit phase of the iBRA study will determine the safety and effectiveness of different approaches to IBBR and allow evidence-based best practice to be explored.

•

Implant breast reconstruction (IBBR) and the range of techniques is poorly evidence based.

•

We aimed to explore the current practice of IBBR in the UK to inform the design of a future definitive study.

•

Significant variation was demonstrated in the availability of techniques and patient selection for IBBR.

•

There is a need for well-designed studies to establish best practice and improve outcomes for patients considering IBBR.

Adaptation of the By-Band randomized clinical trial to By-Band-Sleeve to include a new intervention and maintain relevance of the study to practice

Background

Recruitment into surgical RCTs can be threatened if new interventions available outside the trial compete with those being evaluated. Adapting the trial to include the new intervention may overcome this issue, yet this is not often done in surgery. This paper describes the challenges, rationale and methods for adapting an RCT to include a new intervention.

Methods

The By‐Band study was designed in the UK in 2009–2010 to compare the effectiveness of laparoscopic adjustable gastric band and Roux‐en‐Y gastric bypass for severe obesity. It contained a pilot phase to establish whether recruitment was possible, and the grant proposal specified that an adaptation to include sleeve gastrectomy would be considered if practice changed and recruitment was successful. Information on changing obesity surgery practice, updated evidence and expert opinion about trial design were used to inform the adaptation.

Results

The pilot phase recruited over 13 months in 2013–2014 and randomized 80 patients (79 anticipated). During this time, major changes in obesity practice in the UK were observed, with gastric band reducing from 32·6 to 15·8 per cent and sleeve gastrectomy increasing from 9·0 to 28·1 per cent. The evidence base had not changed markedly. The British Obesity and Metabolic Surgery Society and study oversight committees supported an adaptation to include sleeve gastrectomy, and a proposal to do so was approved by the funder.

Conclusion

Adaptation of a two‐group surgical RCT can allow evaluation of a third procedure and maintain relevance of the RCT to practice. It also optimizes the use of existing trial infrastructure to answer an additional important research question. Registration number: ISRCTN00786323 (http://www.isrctn.com/).

Something to consider

Informed consent in randomised controlled trials: development and preliminary evaluation of a measure of Participatory and Informed Consent (PIC)

BACKGROUND

Informed consent (IC) is an ethical and legal prerequisite for trial participation, yet current approaches evaluating participant understanding for IC during recruitment lack consistency. No validated measure has been identified that evaluates participant understanding for IC based on their contributions during consent interactions. This paper outlines the development and formative evaluation of the Participatory and Informed Consent (PIC) measure for application to recorded recruitment appointments. The PIC allows the evaluation of recruiter information provision and evidence of participant understanding.

METHODS

Published guidelines for IC were reviewed to identify potential items for inclusion. Seventeen purposively sampled trial recruitment appointments from three diverse trials were reviewed to identify the presence of items relevant to IC. A developmental version of the measure (DevPICv1) was drafted and applied to six further recruitment appointments from three further diverse trials to evaluate feasibility, validity, stability and inter-rater reliability. Findings guided revision of the measure (DevPICv2) which was applied to six further recruitment appointments as above.

RESULTS

DevPICv1 assessed recruiter information provision (detail and clarity assessed separately) and participant talk (detail and understanding assessed separately) over 20 parameters (or 23 parameters for three-arm trials). Initial application of the measure to six diverse recruitment appointments demonstrated promising stability and inter-rater reliability but a need to simplify the measure to shorten time for completion. The revised measure (DevPICv2) combined assessment of detail and clarity of recruiter information and detail and evidence of participant understanding into two single scales for application to 22 parameters or 25 parameters for three-arm trials. Application of DevPICv2 to six further diverse recruitment appointments showed considerable improvements in feasibility (e.g. time to complete) with good levels of stability (i.e. test-retest reliability) and inter-rater reliability maintained.

CONCLUSIONS

The DevPICv2 provides a measure for application to trial recruitment appointments to evaluate quality of recruiter information provision and evidence of patient understanding and participation during IC discussions. Initial evaluation shows promising feasibility, validity, reliability and ability to discriminate across a range of recruiter practice and evidence of participant understanding. More validation work is needed in new clinical trials to evaluate and refine the measure further.

Development of a single, practical measure of surgical site infection (SSI) for patient report or observer completion

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are the third most common hospital-associated infection and can lead to significant patient morbidity and healthcare costs. Identification of SSIs is key to surveillance and research but reliable assessment is challenging, particularly after hospital discharge when most SSIs present. Existing SSI measurement tools have limitations and their suitability for post-discharge surveillance is uncertain.

AIMS

This study aimed to develop a single measure to identify SSI after hospital discharge, suitable for patient or observer completion.

METHODS

A three-phase mixed methods study was undertaken: Phase 1, an analysis of existing tools and semi-structured interviews with patients and professionals to establish the content of the measure; Phase 2, development of questionnaire items suitable for patients and professionals; Phase 3, pre-testing the single measure to assess acceptability and understanding to both stakeholder groups. Interviews and pre-testing took place over 12 months in 2014-2015 with patients and professionals from five specialties recruited from two UK hospital Trusts.

FINDINGS

Analyses of existing tools and interviews identified 19 important domains for assessing SSIs. Domains were developed into provisional questionnaire items. Pre-testing and iterative revision resulted in a final version with 16 items that were understood and easily completed by patients and observers (healthcare professionals).

CONCLUSION

A single patient and observer measure for post-discharge SSI assessment has been developed. Further testing of the validity, reliability and accuracy of the measure is underway.

The COMET Handbook: version 1.0

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

Patient experiences of outcomes of bariatric surgery: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis

Although bariatric surgery is the most effective treatment for severe and complex obesity, less is known about its psychosocial impact. This systematic review synthesizes qualitative studies investigating the patient perspective of living with the outcomes of surgery. A total of 2,604 records were screened, and 33 studies were included. Data extraction and thematic synthesis yielded three overarching themes: control, normality and ambivalence. These were evident across eight organizing sub-themes describing areas of life impacted by surgery: weight, activities of daily living, physical health, psychological health, social relations, sexual life, body image and eating behaviour and relationship with food. Throughout all these areas, patients were striving for control and normality. Many of the changes experienced were positive and led to feeling more in control and 'normal'. Negative changes were also experienced, as well as changes that were neither positive nor negative but were nonetheless challenging and required adaptation. Thus, participants continued to strive for control and normality in some aspects of their lives for a considerable time, contributing to a sense of ambivalence in accounts of life after surgery. These findings demonstrate the importance of long-term support, particularly psychological and dietary, to help people negotiate these challenges and maintain positive changes achieved after bariatric surgery.

Core information sets for informed consent to surgical interventions: baseline information of importance to patients and clinicians

Background

Consent remains a crucial, yet challenging, cornerstone of clinical practice. The ethical, legal and professional understandings of this construct have evolved away from a doctor-centred act to a patient-centred process that encompasses the patient’s values, beliefs and goals. This alignment of consent with the philosophy of shared decision-making was affirmed in a recent high-profile Supreme Court ruling in England. The communication of information is central to this model of health care delivery but it can be difficult for doctors to gauge the information needs of the individual patient. The aim of this paper is to describe ‘core information sets’ which are defined as a minimum set of consensus-derived information about a given procedure to be discussed with all patients. Importantly, they are intended to catalyse discussion of subjective importance to individuals.

Main body

The model described in this paper applies health services research and Delphi consensus-building methods to an idea orginally proposed 30 years ago. The hypothesis is that, first, large amounts of potentially-important information are distilled down to discrete information domains. These are then, secondly, rated by key stakeholders in multiple iterations, so that core information of agreed importance can be defined. We argue that this scientific approach is key to identifying information important to all stakeholders, which may otherwise be communicated poorly or omitted from discussions entirely. Our methods apply systematic review, qualitative, survey and consensus-building techniques to define this ‘core information’. We propose that such information addresses the ‘reasonable patient’ standard for information disclosure but, more importantly, can serve as a spring board for high-value discussion of importance to the individual patient.

Conclusion

The application of established research methods can define information of core importance to informed consent. Further work will establish how best to incorporate this model in routine practice.

Peri-operative chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in operable oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma (UK Medical Research Council ST03): primary analysis results of a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 2-3 trial

BACKGROUND

Peri-operative chemotherapy and surgery is a standard of care for patients with resectable oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody against VEGF, improves the proportion of patients responding to treatment in advanced gastric cancer. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of adding bevacizumab to peri-operative chemotherapy in patients with resectable gastric, oesophagogastric junction, or lower oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

In this multicentre, randomised, open-label phase 2-3 trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years and older with histologically proven, resectable oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma from 87 UK hospitals and cancer centres. We randomly assigned patients 1:1 to receive peri-operative epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine chemotherapy or chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, in addition to surgery. Patients in the control group (chemotherapy alone) received three pre-operative and three post-operative cycles of epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine chemotherapy: 50 mg/m2 epirubicin and 60 mg/m2 cisplatin on day 1 and 1250 mg/m2 oral capecitabine on days 1-21. Patients in the investigational group received the same treatment as the control group plus 7·5 mg/kg intravenous bevacizumab on day 1 of every cycle of chemotherapy and for six further doses once every 21 days following chemotherapy, as maintenance treatment. Randomisation was done by means of a telephone call to the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, where staff used a computer programme that implemented a minimisation algorithm with a random element to establish the allocation for the patient at the point of randomisation. Patients were stratified by chemotherapy centre, site of tumour, and tumour stage. The primary outcome for the phase 3 stage of the trial was overall survival (defined as the time from randomisation until death from any cause), analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Here, we report the primary analysis results of the trial; all patients have completed treatment and the required number of primary outcome events has been reached. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN 46020948, and with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00450203.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 31, 2007, and March 25, 2014, 1063 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy alone (n=533) or chemotherapy plus bevacizumab (n=530). At the time of analysis, 508 deaths were recorded (248 in the chemotherapy alone group and 260 in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group). 3-year overall survival was 50·3% (95% CI 45·5-54·9) in the chemotherapy alone group and 48·1% (43·2-52·7) in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·08, 95% CI 0·91-1·29; p=0·36). Apart from neutropenia no other toxic effects were reported at grade 3 or worse severity in more than 10% of patients in either group. Wound healing complications were more prevalent in the bevacizumab group, occurring in 53 (12%) patients in this group compared with 33 (7%) patients in the chemotherapy alone group. In patients who underwent oesophagogastrectomy, post-operative anastomotic leak rates were higher in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group (23 [10%] of 233 in the chemotherapy alone group vs 52 [24%] of 220 in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group); therefore, recruitment of patients with lower oesophageal or junctional tumours planned for an oesophagogastric resection was stopped towards the end of the trial. Serious adverse events for all patients included anastomotic leaks (30 events in chemotherapy alone group vs 69 in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group), and infections with normal neutrophil count (42 events vs 53).

INTERPRETATION

The results of this trial do not provide any evidence for the use of bevacizumab in combination with peri-operative epiribicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine chemotherapy for patients with resectable gastric, oesophagogastric junction, or lower oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Bevacizumab might also be associated with impaired wound healing.

FUNDING

Cancer Research UK, MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, and F Hoffmann-La Roche Limited.

Informing efficient randomised controlled trials: exploration of challenges in developing progression criteria for internal pilot studies

OBJECTIVES

Designing studies with an internal pilot phase may optimise the use of pilot work to inform more efficient randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Careful selection of preagreed decision or 'progression' criteria at the juncture between the internal pilot and main trial phases provides a valuable opportunity to evaluate the likely success of the main trial and optimise its design or, if necessary, to make the decision not to proceed with the main trial. Guidance on the appropriate selection and application of progression criteria is, however, lacking. This paper outlines the key issues to consider in the optimal development and review of operational progression criteria for RCTs with an internal pilot phase.

DESIGN

A structured literature review and exploration of stakeholders' opinions at a Medical Research Council (MRC) Hubs for Trials Methodology Research workshop. Key stakeholders included triallists, methodologists, statisticians and funders.

RESULTS

There is considerable variation in the use of progression criteria for RCTs with an internal pilot phase, although 3 common issues predominate: trial recruitment, protocol adherence and outcome data. Detailed and systematic reporting around the decision-making process for stopping, amending or proceeding to a main trial is uncommon, which may hamper understanding in the research community about the appropriate and optimal use of RCTs with an internal pilot phase. 10 top tips for the development, use and reporting of progression criteria for internal pilot studies are presented.

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic and transparent reporting of the design, results and evaluation of internal pilot trials in the literature should be encouraged in order to facilitate understanding in the research community and to inform future trials.

Weight loss and quality of life in patients surviving 2 years after gastric cancer resection

BACKGROUND

Malnutrition is common in patients undergoing gastric cancer resection, leading to weight loss, although little is known about how this impacts on health-related quality of life (HRQL). This study aimed to explore the association between HRQL and weight loss in patients 2 years after curative gastric cancer resection.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing curative gastric cancer resection and surviving at least 2 years without disease recurrence were recruited. Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the specific module for gastric cancer (STO22) before and 2 years postoperatively and associations between HRQL scores and patients with and without ≥ 10% body weight loss (BWL) were examined.

RESULTS

A total of 76 patients were included, of whom 51 (67%) had BWL ≥10%. At 2 years postoperatively, BWL ≥10% was associated with deterioration of all functional aspects of quality of life, with persistent pain (21.6%), diarrhoea (13.7%) and nausea/vomiting (13.7%). By contrast, none of the patients with BWL <10% experienced severe nausea/vomiting, pain or diarrhoea.

CONCLUSIONS

Disabling symptoms occurred more frequently in patients with ≥10% BWL than in those with <10% BWL, with a relevant negative impact on HRQL. A cause-effect relationship between weight loss and postoperative outcome remains unsolved.

Delivering successful randomized controlled trials in surgery: Methods to optimize collaboration and study design

Randomized controlled trials in surgery are notoriously difficult to design and conduct due to numerous methodological and cultural challenges. Over the last 5 years, several UK-based surgical trial-related initiatives have been funded to address these issues. These include the development of Surgical Trials Centers and Surgical Specialty Leads (individual surgeons responsible for championing randomized controlled trials in their specialist fields), both funded by the Royal College of Surgeons of England; networks of research-active surgeons in training; and investment in methodological research relating to surgical randomized controlled trials (to address issues such as recruitment, blinding, and the selection and standardization of interventions). This article discusses these initiatives more in detail and provides exemplar cases to illustrate how the methodological challenges have been tackled. The initiatives have surpassed expectations, resulting in a renaissance in surgical research throughout the United Kingdom, such that the number of patients entering surgical randomized controlled trials has doubled.

Development of a core outcome set to determine the overall treatment success of acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children: a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, there has been growing interest in alternatives to appendicectomy. In particular, non-operative treatment of appendicitis, with antibiotics alone, has been proposed as a potential treatment. A small number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults and, more recently, children suggest that antibiotic treatment may be a valid alternative to appendicectomy. However, there is currently insufficient data to justify its widespread use. Prior to performing further efficacy studies of the treatment of appendicitis in children, it is imperative to identify the most relevant outcome measures for inclusion in the design of comparative studies. This is of particular importance when evaluating a novel treatment approach since the outcomes of importance may differ from those commonly reported with traditional therapies.A review of the relevant literature and electronic resources failed to identify a core outcome set (COS) for children with appendicitis. We aim to define a COS for the measurement of treatment interventions in children (<18 years) with acute appendicitis.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This project will entail: (1) a systematic review to identify previously reported acute uncomplicated appendicitis treatment outcomes; (2) assembly of stakeholder panels (paediatric and adult surgeons, patients and parents); (3) a three-stage Delphi process; and (4) a final consensus meeting to complete the COS.

ETHICS AND REGISTRATION

COS development is part of CONservative TReatment of Appendicitis in Children - a randomised controlled Trial (Feasibility) (CONTRACT) study, for which full ethical approval for CONTRACT has been granted. The COS development study is registered with the COMET Initiative in May 2017 (http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/987).

A Core Outcome Set for the Benefits and Adverse Events of Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery: The BARIACT Project

BACKGROUND

Bariatric and metabolic surgery is used as a treatment for patients with severe and complex obesity. However, there is a need to improve outcome selection and reporting in bariatric surgery trials. A Core Outcome Set (COS), an agreed minimum set of outcomes reported in all studies of a specific condition, may achieve this. Here, we present the development of a COS for BARIAtric and metabolic surgery Clinical Trials-the BARIACT Study.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Outcomes identified from systematic reviews and patient interviews informed a questionnaire survey. Patients and health professionals were surveyed three times and asked to rate the importance of each item on a 1-9 scale. Delphi methods provided anonymised feedback to participants. Items not meeting predefined criteria were discarded between rounds. Remaining items were discussed at consensus meetings, held separately with patients and professionals, where the COS was agreed. Data sources identified 2,990 outcomes, which were used to develop a 130-item questionnaire. Round 1 response rates were moderate but subsequently improved to above 75% for other rounds. After rounds 2 and 3, 81 and 14 items were discarded, respectively, leaving 35 items for discussion at consensus meetings. The final COS included nine items: "weight," "diabetes status," "cardiovascular risk," "overall quality of life (QOL)," "mortality," "technical complications of the specific operation," "any re-operation/re-intervention," "dysphagia/regurgitation," and "micronutrient status." The main limitation of this study was that it was based in the United Kingdom only.

CONCLUSIONS

The COS is recommended to be used as a minimum in all trials of bariatric and metabolic surgery. Adoption of the COS will improve data synthesis and the value of research data. Future work will establish methods for the measurement of the outcomes in the COS.

Population-based cohort study of variation in the use of emergency cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder diseases

Background

The aims of this prospective population-based cohort study were to identify the patient and hospital characteristics associated with emergency cholecystectomy, and the influences of these in determining variations between hospitals.

Methods

Data were collected for consecutive patients undergoing cholecystectomy in acute UK and Irish hospitals between 1 March and 1 May 2014. Potential explanatory variables influencing the performance of emergency cholecystectomy were analysed by means of multilevel, multivariable logistic regression modelling using a two-level hierarchical structure with patients (level 1) nested within hospitals (level 2).

Results

Data were collected on 4744 cholecystectomies from 165 hospitals. Increasing age, lower ASA fitness grade, biliary colic, the need for further imaging (magnetic retrograde cholangiopancreatography), endoscopic interventions (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography) and admission to a non-biliary centre significantly reduced the likelihood of an emergency cholecystectomy being performed. The multilevel model was used to calculate the probability of receiving an emergency cholecystectomy for a woman aged 40 years or over with an ASA grade of I or II and a BMI of at least 25·0 kg/m2, who presented with acute cholecystitis with an ultrasound scan showing a thick-walled gallbladder and a normal common bile duct. The mean predicted probability of receiving an emergency cholecystectomy was 0·52 (95 per cent c.i. 0·45 to 0·57). The predicted probabilities ranged from 0·02 to 0·95 across the 165 hospitals, demonstrating significant variation between hospitals.

Conclusion

Patients with similar characteristics presenting to different hospitals with acute gallbladder pathology do not receive comparable care.

Patient-Reported Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Robust data on patient-reported outcome measures comparing treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer are lacking. We investigated the effects of active monitoring, radical prostatectomy, and radical radiotherapy with hormones on patient-reported outcomes.

METHODS

We compared patient-reported outcomes among 1643 men in the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) trial who completed questionnaires before diagnosis, at 6 and 12 months after randomization, and annually thereafter. Patients completed validated measures that assessed urinary, bowel, and sexual function and specific effects on quality of life, anxiety and depression, and general health. Cancer-related quality of life was assessed at 5 years. Complete 6-year data were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

The rate of questionnaire completion during follow-up was higher than 85% for most measures. Of the three treatments, prostatectomy had the greatest negative effect on sexual function and urinary continence, and although there was some recovery, these outcomes remained worse in the prostatectomy group than in the other groups throughout the trial. The negative effect of radiotherapy on sexual function was greatest at 6 months, but sexual function then recovered somewhat and was stable thereafter; radiotherapy had little effect on urinary continence. Sexual and urinary function declined gradually in the active-monitoring group. Bowel function was worse in the radiotherapy group at 6 months than in the other groups but then recovered somewhat, except for the increasing frequency of bloody stools; bowel function was unchanged in the other groups. Urinary voiding and nocturia were worse in the radiotherapy group at 6 months but then mostly recovered and were similar to the other groups after 12 months. Effects on quality of life mirrored the reported changes in function. No significant differences were observed among the groups in measures of anxiety, depression, or general health-related or cancer-related quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis of patient-reported outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer, patterns of severity, recovery, and decline in urinary, bowel, and sexual function and associated quality of life differed among the three groups. (Funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Program; ProtecT Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN20141297 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02044172 .).

Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting: The COS-STAR Statement

BACKGROUND

Core outcome sets (COS) can enhance the relevance of research by ensuring that outcomes of importance to health service users and other people making choices about health care in a particular topic area are measured routinely. Over 200 COS to date have been developed, but the clarity of these reports is suboptimal. COS studies will not achieve their goal if reports of COS are not complete and transparent.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

In recognition of these issues, an international group that included experienced COS developers, methodologists, journal editors, potential users of COS (clinical trialists, systematic reviewers, and clinical guideline developers), and patient representatives developed the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting (COS-STAR) Statement as a reporting guideline for COS studies. The developmental process consisted of an initial reporting item generation stage and a two-round Delphi survey involving nearly 200 participants representing key stakeholder groups, followed by a consensus meeting. The COS-STAR Statement consists of a checklist of 18 items considered essential for transparent and complete reporting in all COS studies. The checklist items focus on the introduction, methods, results, and discussion section of a manuscript describing the development of a particular COS. A limitation of the COS-STAR Statement is that it was developed without representative views of low- and middle-income countries. COS have equal relevance to studies conducted in these areas, and, subsequently, this guideline may need to evolve over time to encompass any additional challenges from developing COS in these areas.

CONCLUSIONS

With many ongoing COS studies underway, the COS-STAR Statement should be a helpful resource to improve the reporting of COS studies for the benefit of all COS users.

Conveying Equipoise during Recruitment for Clinical Trials: Qualitative Synthesis of Clinicians' Practices across Six Randomised Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are essential for evidence-based medicine and increasingly rely on front-line clinicians to recruit eligible patients. Clinicians' difficulties with negotiating equipoise is assumed to undermine recruitment, although these issues have not yet been empirically investigated in the context of observable events. We aimed to investigate how clinicians conveyed equipoise during RCT recruitment appointments across six RCTs, with a view to (i) identifying practices that supported or hindered equipoise communication and (ii) exploring how clinicians' reported intentions compared with their actual practices.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Six pragmatic UK-based RCTs were purposefully selected to include several clinical specialties (e.g., oncology, surgery) and types of treatment comparison. The RCTs were all based in secondary-care hospitals (n = 16) around the UK. Clinicians recruiting to the RCTs were interviewed (n = 23) to understand their individual sense of equipoise about the RCT treatments and their intentions for communicating equipoise to patients. Appointments in which these clinicians presented the RCT to trial-eligible patients were audio-recorded (n = 105). The appointments were analysed using thematic and content analysis approaches to identify practices that supported or challenged equipoise communication. A sample of appointments was independently coded by three researchers to optimise reliability in reported findings. Clinicians and patients provided full written consent to be interviewed and have appointments audio-recorded. Interviews revealed that clinicians' sense of equipoise varied: although all were uncertain about which trial treatment was optimal, they expressed different levels of uncertainty, ranging from complete ambivalence to clear beliefs that one treatment was superior. Irrespective of their personal views, all clinicians intended to set their personal biases aside to convey trial treatments neutrally to patients (in accordance with existing evidence). However, equipoise was omitted or compromised in 48/105 (46%) of the recorded appointments. Three commonly recurring practices compromised equipoise communication across the RCTs, irrespective of clinical context. First, equipoise was overridden by clinicians offering treatment recommendations when patients appeared unsure how to proceed or when they asked for the clinician's expert advice. Second, clinicians contradicted equipoise by presenting imbalanced descriptions of trial treatments that conflicted with scientific information stated in the RCT protocols. Third, equipoise was undermined by clinicians disclosing their personal opinions or predictions about trial outcomes, based on their intuition and experience. These broad practices were particularly demonstrated by clinicians who had indicated in interviews that they held less balanced views about trial treatments. A limitation of the study was that clinicians volunteering to take part in the research might have had a particular interest in improving their communication skills. However, the frequency of occurrence of equipoise issues across the RCTs suggests that the findings are likely to be reflective of clinical recruiters' practices more widely.

CONCLUSIONS

Communicating equipoise is a challenging process that is easily disrupted. Clinicians' personal views about trial treatments encroached on their ability to convey equipoise to patients. Clinicians should be encouraged to reflect on personal biases and be mindful of the common ways in which these can arise in their discussions with patients. Common pitfalls that recurred irrespective of RCT context indicate opportunities for specific training in communication skills that would be broadly applicable to a wide clinical audience.

Exploring methods the for selection and integration of stakeholder views in the development of core outcome sets: a case study in reconstructive breast surgery

Background

The development and use of core outcome sets (COSs) in trials may improve data synthesis and reduce outcome reporting bias. The selection of outcomes in COSs is informed by views of key stakeholders, yet little is known about the role and influence of different stakeholders’ views during COS development. We report an exploratory case study examining how stakeholder selection and incorporation of stakeholders’ views may influence the selection of outcomes for a COS in reconstructive breast surgery (RBS). We also make recommendations for future considerations.

Methods

Key stakeholder groups and subgroups were identified from the literature and expert opinion by the COS management group. They included health care professionals, subdivided by profession (breast and plastic surgeons, specialist nurses and psychologists) and patients, subdivided according to type of surgery received, timing of reconstruction, time since surgery and patient age. All participated in a survey in which they were asked to prioritise outcomes. Outcomes were prioritised using a 9-point scale from 1 (not important) to 9 (extremely important). The proportion of (1) all participants, ignoring stakeholder group (single heterogeneous panel analysis), (2) ‘professional’ and ‘patient’ groups separately (two heterogeneous panels), ignoring prespecified subgroups and (3) each participant subgroup separately (multiple homogeneous panel analysis) rating each item ‘extremely important’ was summarised and compared to explore how selection and integration of stakeholder views may influence outcome prioritisation.

Results

There were many overlaps between items rated as most important by all groups. Specific stakeholders, however, prioritised specific concerns and a broader range of outcomes were prioritised when the subgroups were considered separately. For example, two additional outcomes were prioritised when patient and professional groups were considered separately and eight additional outcomes were identified when the views of the individual subgroups were explored. In general, patient subgroups preferentially valued additional clinical outcomes, including unplanned surgery, whereas professional subgroups prioritised additional psychosocial issues including body image.

Conclusion

Stakeholder groups value different outcomes. Selection of groups, therefore, is important. Our recommendations for robust and transparent stakeholder selection and integration of stakeholder views may aid future COS developers in the design and conduct of their studies and improve the validity and value of future COS.

A Systematic Review of Patient-reported Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials of Unplanned General Surgery

Unplanned general surgery represents a major workload and requires comprehensive evaluation with appropriate outcomes. This study aimed to summarize current reporting of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in unplanned general surgery. A systematic review identified RCTs reporting PROs in the commonest six areas of unplanned general surgery. Details of the PRO measures were examined using the CONSORT extension for PRO reporting in RCTs. Extracted information about each PRO domain included the reporting of baseline PROs, rationale for PRO selection and whether PRO findings were used in conjunction with clinical outcomes to inform treatment recommendations. The internal validity of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. 12,519 abstracts were screened and 20 RCTs containing data from 2037 patients included. Included studies used 14 separate PRO measures covering 35 different health domains. A visual analogue assessment of pain was most frequently reported (n = 13). Reporting of baseline PRO data was uncommon (11/35 PRO domains). The rationale for PRO data collection and a PRO-specific hypothesis were provided for 9 (25.7 %) and 5 (14.3 %) domains, respectively. Seventeen RCTs (85.0 %) used the PRO data alongside clinical outcomes to inform treatment recommendations. Of the 116 risk of bias assessments, 77 (66.0 %) were judged as high or unclear. There is a lack of well designed, and conducted RCTs in unplanned general surgery that include PROs. Future work to define relevant PROs and methods for optimal assessment are needed to inform health care decision-making.

'Trial Exegesis': Methods for Synthesizing Clinical and Patient Reported Outcome (PRO) Data in Trials to Inform Clinical Practice. A Systematic Review

Purpose

The CONSORT extension for patient reported outcomes (PROs) aims to improve reporting, but guidance on the optimal integration with clinical data is lacking. This study examines in detail the reporting of PROs and clinical data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in gastro-intestinal cancer to inform design and reporting of combined PRO and clinical data from trials to improve the ‘take home’ message for clinicians to use in practice.

Materials and Methods

The case study was undertaken in gastro-intestinal cancer trials. Well-conducted RCTs reporting PROs with validated instruments were identified and categorized into those combining PRO and clinical data in a single paper, or those separating data into linked primary and supplemental papers. Qualitative methods were developed to examine reporting of the critical interpretation of the trial results (trial exegesis) in the papers in relation of the PRO and clinical outcomes and applied to each publication category. Results were used to inform recommendations for practice.

Results

From 1917 screened abstracts, 49 high quality RCTs were identified reported in 36 combined and 15 linked primary and supplemental papers. In-depth analysis of manuscript text identified three categories for understanding trial exegesis: where authors reported a “detailed”, “general”, or absent PRO rationale and integrated interpretation of clinical and PRO results. A total of 11 (30%) and 6 (16%) combined papers reported “detailed” PRO rationale and integrated interpretation of results although only 2 (14%) and 1 (7%) primary papers achieved the same standard respectively. Supplemental papers provide better information with 11 (73%) and 3 (20%) achieving “detailed” rationale and integrated interpretation of results. Supplemental papers, however, were published a median of 20 months after the primary RCT data in lower impact factor journals (median 16.8 versus 5.2).

Conclusion

It is recommended that single papers, with detailed PRO rationale and integrated PRO and clinical data are published to optimize trial exegesis. Further work to examine whether this improves the use of PRO data to inform practice is needed.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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