The COMET Handbook: version 1.0

Reported outcome measures in necrotising soft tissue infections: a systematic review

Introduction

There are inconsistencies in outcome reporting for patients with necrotising soft tissue infections (NSTI). The aim of this study was to evaluate reported outcome measures in NSTI literature that could inform a core outcome set (COS) such as could be used in a study of hyperbaric oxygen in this indication.

Methods

A systematic review of all NSTI literature identified from Cochrane, Ovid MEDLINE and Scopus databases as well as grey literature sources OpenGrey and the New York Academy of Medicine databases which met inclusion criteria and were published between 2010 and 2020 was performed. Studies were included if they reported on > 5 cases and presented clinical endpoints, patient related outcomes, or resource utilisation in NSTI patients. Studies did not have to include intervention. Two independent researchers then extracted reported outcome measures. Similar outcomes were grouped and classified into domains to produce a structured inventory. An attempt was made to identify trends in outcome measures over time and by study design.

Results

Three hundred and seventy-five studies were identified and included a total of 311 outcome measures. Forty eight percent (150/311) of outcome measures were reported by two or more studies. The four most frequently reported outcome measures were mortality without time specified, length of hospital stay, amputation performed, and number of debridements, reported in 298 (79.5%), 260 (69.3%), 156 (41.6%) and 151 (40.3%) studies respectively. Mortality outcomes were reported in 23 different ways. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were more likely to report 28-day mortality or 90-day mortality. The second most frequent amputation related outcome was level of amputation, reported in 7.5% (28/375) of studies. The most commonly reported patient-centred outcome was the SF-36 which was reported in 1.6% (6/375) of all studies and in 2/10 RCTs.

Conclusions

There was wide variance in outcome measures in NSTI studies, further highlighting the need for a COS.

Development of a Core Outcome Set for Family and Community Nursing: Protocol for a Delphi Study

BACKGROUND

Family and community nurses (FCNs) play a crucial role in delivering primary care to patients within their homes and communities. A key aspect of their role involves various health interventions, which are influenced by their unique competencies, such as health promotion, advanced clinical knowledge, and strong interpersonal skills. However, it is essential to understand which specific health outcomes these interventions impact to better understand the relationship between FCNs' skills and the health results.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to outline the steps we will take to develop a set of core outcomes. These outcomes will be particularly sensitive to the health interventions carried out by FCNs, providing a clearer picture of their practice's impact.

METHODS

A Delphi survey will be used for this research, conducted from January to December 2024. The process will involve 5 steps and input from 3 stakeholder categories. These stakeholders will help identify a preliminary list of outcomes that will form the basis of our core outcome set (COS).

RESULTS

This guideline will be beneficial for a wide range of stakeholders involved in COS development, including COS developers, trialists, systematic reviewers, journal editors, policy makers, and patient groups. As of January 2024, we have successfully completed the first stage of the study, with the stakeholder group approving the reported outcomes and assigning participant lists for each stakeholder group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study will provide a roadmap for identifying the key health outcomes influenced by the interventions of FCNs. The multistakeholder, multiphase approach will ensure a comprehensive and inclusive process. Ultimately, the findings will enhance our understanding of FCNs' impact on health outcomes, leading to more effective primary care strategies and policies.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/51084.

Protocol for a mixed-methods study to develop and feasibility test a digital system for the capture of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients receiving chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies (the PRO-CAR-T study)

INTRODUCTION

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies are novel, potentially curative therapies for haematological malignancies. CAR T-cell therapies are associated with severe toxicities, meaning patients require monitoring during acute and postacute treatment phases. Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs), self-reports of health status provided via online questionnaires, can complement clinician observation with potential to improve patient outcomes. This study will develop and evaluate feasibility of a new ePRO system for CAR-T patients in routine care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Multiphase, mixed-methods study involving multiple stakeholder groups (patients, family members, carers, clinicians, academics/researchers and policy-makers). The intervention development phase comprises a Delphi study to select PRO measures for the digital system, a codesign workshop and consensus meetings to establish thresholds for notifications to the clinical team if a patient reports severe symptoms or side effects. Usability testing will evaluate how users interact with the digital system and, lastly, we will evaluate ePRO system feasibility with 30 CAR-T patients (adults aged 18+ years) when used in addition to usual care. Feasibility study participants will use the ePRO system to submit self-reports of symptoms, treatment tolerability and quality of life at specific time points. The CAR-T clinical team will respond to system notifications triggered by patients' submitted responses with actions in line with standard clinical practice. Feasibility measures will be collected at prespecified time points following CAR T-cell infusion. A qualitative substudy involving patients and clinical team members will explore acceptability of the ePRO system.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Favourable ethical opinion was granted by the Health and Social Care Research Ethics Committee B(HSC REC B) (ref: 23/NI/0104) on 28 September 2023. Findings will be submitted for publication in high-quality, peer-reviewed journals. Summaries of results, codeveloped with the Blood and Transplant Research Unit Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement group, will be disseminated to all interested groups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISCTRN11232653.

Clinical Patient-Relevant Outcome Domains for Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome-A Scoping Review and Expert Panels

Large variation exists in the monitoring of clinical outcome domains in patients with persistent spinal pain syndrome (PSPS). Furthermore, it is unclear which outcome domains are important from the PSPS patient's perspective. The study objectives were to identify patient-relevant outcome domains for PSPS and to establish a PSPS outcomes framework. PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, and EMBASE were searched to identify studies reporting views or preferences of PSPS patients on outcome domains. The Arksey and O'Malley framework was followed to identify outcome domains. An expert panel rated the domains based on the importance for PSPS patients they have treated. A framework of relevant outcome domains was established using the selected outcome domains by the expert panel. No studies were found for PSPS type 1. Five studies with 77 PSPS type 2 patients were included for further analysis. Fourteen outcome domains were identified. An expert panel, including 27 clinical experts, reached consensus on the domains pain, daily activities, perspective of life, social participation, mobility, mood, self-reliance, and sleep. Eleven domains were included in the PSPS type 2 outcomes framework. This framework is illustrative of a more holistic perspective and should be used to improve the evaluation of care for PSPS type 2 patients. Further research is needed on the prioritization of relevant outcome domains.

Target Product Profile for a Machine Learning-Automated Retinal Imaging Analysis Software for Use in English Diabetic Eye Screening: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Diabetic eye screening (DES) represents a significant opportunity for the application of machine learning (ML) technologies, which may improve clinical and service outcomes. However, successful integration of ML into DES requires careful product development, evaluation, and implementation. Target product profiles (TPPs) summarize the requirements necessary for successful implementation so these can guide product development and evaluation.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to produce a TPP for an ML-automated retinal imaging analysis software (ML-ARIAS) system for use in DES in England.

METHODS

This work will consist of 3 phases. Phase 1 will establish the characteristics to be addressed in the TPP. A list of candidate characteristics will be generated from the following sources: an overview of systematic reviews of diagnostic test TPPs; a systematic review of digital health TPPs; and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's Evidence Standards Framework for Digital Health Technologies. The list of characteristics will be refined and validated by a study advisory group (SAG) made up of representatives from key stakeholders in DES. This includes people with diabetes; health care professionals; health care managers and leaders; and regulators and policy makers. In phase 2, specifications for these characteristics will be drafted following a series of semistructured interviews with participants from these stakeholder groups. Data collected from these interviews will be analyzed using the shortlist of characteristics as a framework, after which specifications will be drafted to create a draft TPP. Following approval by the SAG, in phase 3, the draft will enter an internet-based Delphi consensus study with participants sought from the groups previously identified, as well as ML-ARIAS developers, to ensure feasibility. Participants will be invited to score characteristic and specification pairs on a scale from "definitely exclude" to "definitely include," and suggest edits. The document will be iterated between rounds based on participants' feedback. Feedback on the draft document will be sought from a group of ML-ARIAS developers before its final contents are agreed upon in an in-person consensus meeting. At this meeting, representatives from the stakeholder groups previously identified (minus ML-ARIAS developers, to avoid bias) will be presented with the Delphi results and feedback of the user group and asked to agree on the final contents by vote.

RESULTS

Phase 1 was completed in November 2023. Phase 2 is underway and expected to finish in March 2024. Phase 3 is expected to be complete in July 2024.

CONCLUSIONS

The multistakeholder development of a TPP for an ML-ARIAS for use in DES in England will help developers produce tools that serve the needs of patients, health care providers, and their staff. The TPP development process will also provide methods and a template to produce similar documents in other disease areas.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/50568.

Starting position during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Traditional teaching has been to place patients in the left lateral decubitus starting position for colonoscopies. Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared left lateral decubitus starting position to other approaches. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare different starting positions for colonoscopies and their effect on cecal intubation.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to July 2023. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they were RCTs comparing at least two different starting positions for adults undergoing colonoscopy. The main outcome was cecal intubation time. Meta-analysis used an inverse variance random effects model. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Tool for RCTs 2.0.

RESULTS

After screening 1523 citations, 14 RCTs were included. Four studies compared left lateral decubitus to right lateral decubitus, four studies compared left lateral decubitus to left lateral tilt-down, three studies compared left lateral decubitus to prone, and three studies compared left lateral decubitus to supine. There were no statistically significant differences in cecal intubation time in seconds across all comparisons: left lateral decubitus vs. right lateral decubitus (MD 14.9, 95% CI - 111.8 to 141.6, p = 0.82, I2 = 85%); left lateral decubitus vs. left lateral tilt-down (MD - 31.3, 95% CI - 70.8 to 8.3, p = 0.12, I2 = 82%); left lateral decubitus vs. prone (MD 17.2, 95% CI - 174.9 to 209.4, p = 0.86, I2 = 94%); left lateral decubitus vs. supine (MD - 149.9, 95% CI - 443.6 to 143.9, p = 0.32, I2 = 89%).

CONCLUSION

The starting position for colonoscopies likely does not influence cecal intubation time. This study was limited by heterogeneity.

Core outcomes for speech-language services in Ontario schools: a group concept mapping study and guiding framework

BACKGROUND

Establishing the most important outcomes for school-based speech-language therapy is essential to guide future research and program evaluation for these services. Many health disciplines have developed core outcomes sets (COS) for this purpose. A COS encompasses the most important outcomes for particular health services as identified by appropriate interested parties. These interested parties usually represent health care providers and those with the health condition. In this paper, we report the development of a guiding framework for a COS for speech-language therapy services in schools in a Canadian context.

METHODS

Using a group concept mapping method, we identified the outcomes for inclusion in the COS guiding framework through the elicited opinions of key interested parties: speech-language therapists, teachers, and family members of children with speech, language, and communication needs. We extracted 103 statements (potential outcomes) from a previous data set of interview transcripts. We then asked participants to sort the statements into conceptually similar groups, which were aggregated and transformed into a cluster map using multidimensional scaling followed by hierarchical cluster analysis. Participants also rated each statement on 5-point scales for importance and feasibility. We calculated mean ratings for individual statements and for all statements in a cluster, for all participants and for participant groups separately.

RESULTS

We identified seven core outcomes for school-based speech-language services in Ontario, Canada. These included: classroom-based services, a holistic approach, support for teachers, care coordination, accessible services, family supports, and student success. All outcomes were rated highly for importance. Feasibility ratings were consistently below importance ratings. All participant groups concurred that a holistic approach was the most important outcome and accessible services was the least feasible outcome to achieve.

CONCLUSIONS

The seven outcomes identified in this study are recommended to guide the development of a full COS to direct future research and program evaluation for school-based speech-language services. These outcomes have not been widely included in previous research and should be incorporated into future research alongside specific intervention outcomes. Data for some outcomes may be available from non-traditional sources such as administrative data sets. Consequently, their use for program evaluations should be accompanied by appropriate institutional support to allow speech-language therapists to make meaningful use of appropriate outcomes data.

Deaths and cardiopulmonary events following colorectal cancer screening-A systematic review with meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer screening programmes (CRCSPs) are implemented worldwide despite recent evidence indicating more physical harm occurring during CRCSPs than previously thought. Therefore, we aimed to review the evidence on physical harms associated with endoscopic diagnostic procedures during CRCSPs and, when possible, to quantify the risk of the most serious types of physical harm during CRCSPs, i.e. deaths and cardiopulmonary events (CPEs).

METHODS

Systematic review with descriptive statistics and random-effects meta-analyses of studies investigating physical harms following CRCSPs. We conducted a systematic search in the literature and assessed the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

We included 134 studies for review, reporting findings from 151 unique populations when accounting for multiple screening interventions per study. Physical harm can be categorized into 17 types of harm. The evidence was very heterogeneous with inadequate measurement and reporting of harms. The risk of bias was serious or critical in 95% of assessments of deaths and CPEs, and the certainty of the evidence was very low in all analyses. The risk of death was assessed for 57 populations with large variation across studies. Meta-analyses indicated that 3 to 23 deaths occur during CRCSPs per 100,000 people screened. Cardiopulmonary events were assessed for 55 populations. Despite our efforts to subcategorize CPEs into 17 distinct subtypes, 41% of CPE assessments were too poorly measured or reported to allow quantification. We found a tendency towards lower estimates of deaths and CPEs in studies with a critical risk of bias.

DISCUSSION

Deaths and CPEs during CRCSPs are rare, yet they do occur during CRCSPs. We believe that our findings are conservative due to the heterogeneity and low quality of the evidence. A standardized system for the measurement and reporting of the harms of screening is warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Registration number CRD42017058844.

How to select and understand guidelines for patient-reported outcomes: a scoping review of existing guidance

BACKGROUND

Over the past few decades, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been used to understand patient health conditions better. Therefore, numerous PRO measures (questionnaires) and guidelines or guidance have been developed. However, it is challenging to select target guidance from among the many available guidance and to understand the chosen guidance. This study comprehensively collected the existing PRO guidance for clinical trials or studies and practices to support novice PRO users in academia, industry, clinical practice, and regulatory and reimbursement decision-making.

METHODS

For the scoping review, we searched the MEDLINE, Embase, Google Books, WorldCat, and the National Library of Medicine (NLM) Bookshelf databases from 2009 to 2023. The eligibility criteria were PRO guidance for clinical trials, clinical practice, or application such as health technology assessment. Those guidance cover aspects such as quality of life (QOL), PRO, health-related QOL, health state utilities, psychometric requirements, implementation methods, analysis and interpretation, or clinical practice applications. After the systematic search, three researchers individually reviewed the collected data, and the reviewed articles and books were scrutinized using the same criteria.

RESULTS

We collected the PRO guidance published in articles and books between 2009 and 2023. From the database searches, 1,455 articles and 387 books were identified, of which one book and 33 articles were finally selected. The collected PRO guidance was categorized into the adoption of PRO measures, design and reporting of trials or studies using PROs, implementation of PRO evaluation in clinical trials or studies or clinical practice, analysis and interpretation of PROs, and application of PRO evaluation. Based on this categorization, we suggest the following for novices: When selecting guidance, novices should clarify the "place" and "purpose" where the guidance will be used. Additionally, they should know that the terminology related to PRO and the scope and expectations of PROs vary by "places" and "purposes".

CONCLUSIONS

From this scoping review of existing PRO guidance, we provided summaries and caveats to assist novices in selecting guidance that fits their purpose and understanding it.

The methodological quality of systematic reviews regarding the Core Outcome Set (COS) development

BACKGROUND

The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) working group proposed core outcome sets (COS) to address the heterogeneity in outcome measures in clinical studies. According to the recommendations of COMET, performing systematic reviews (SRs) usually was the first step for COS development. However, the SRs that serve as a basis for COS are not specifically appraised by organizations such as COMET regarding their quality. Here, we investigated the status of SRs related to development of COS and evaluated their methodological quality.

METHODS

We conducted a search on PubMed to identify SRs related to COS development published from inception to May 2022. We qualitatively summarized the disease included in SR topics, and the studies included in the SRs. We evaluated the methodological quality of the SRs using AMSTAR 2.0 and compared the overall quality of SRs with and without protocols using the Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

We included 175 SRs from 23 different countries or regions, and they mainly focused on five diseases: musculoskeletal system or connective tissue disease (n = 19, 10.86%), injury, poisoning, or certain other consequences of external causes (n = 18, 10.29%), digestive system disease (n = 16, 9.14%), nervous system disease (n = 15, 8.57%), and genitourinary system disease (n = 15, 8.57%). Although 88.00% of SRs included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), only a few SRs (23.38%) employed appropriate tools to assess the risk of bias in RCTs. The assessment results on the basis of AMSTAR 2.0 indicated that most SRs (93.71%) were rated as ''critically low'' to ''low'' in terms of overall confidence. The overall confidence of SRs with protocols was significantly higher than that without protocols (P <.001). Compared to the SRs with protocols on Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET), SRs with protocols on PROSPERO were of better overall confidence (P = .017).

CONCLUSION

The overall quality of published SRs regarding COS development was poor. Our findings emphasize the need for researchers to carefully select the disease topic and strictly adhere to the requirements of optimal methodology when conducting a SR for the establishment of a COS.

Harmonising outcome measurement for child focused domestic abuse interventions. Reflections on the development and implementation of a core outcome set

There is appetite in the UK to better measure the impact of domestic violence and abuse (DVA) interventions on children. The spread of outcomes-based commissioning means outcome measurement is no longer just the territory of academic researchers but is now firmly within the purview of practitioners and policy makers. However, outcomes measured in trials only partially represent the views of those delivering and using services with respect to how success should be defined and captured. Even within trials there is huge inconsistency in the definition and measurement of important endpoints. This yields a body of evidence that is difficult to make sense of, defeating the ends for which it was produced - to improve the response to children and families who have experienced abuse. Development of Core Outcome Sets (COS) is seen as a solution to this problem, by establishing consensus across key stakeholder groups regarding a minimum standard for outcome measurement in trials, and increasingly in service delivery contexts. To date COS development has addressed outcomes relating to health conditions or interventions, with limited application to public health challenges. We reflect on our efforts to develop a COS to evaluate psychosocial interventions for children and families experiencing DVA. We highlight the value of COS development as a mechanism for improving evidence quality and the response to families experiencing abuse. Finally, we make recommendations to researchers and COS guideline developers to support this broader application of COS methodology.

ICON 2020-International Scientific Tendinopathy Symposium Consensus: the development of a core outcome set for gluteal tendinopathy

Gluteal tendinopathy (GT) is common and can be debilitating and challenging to manage. A lack of condition specific and appropriate outcome measures compromise evidence synthesis for treatment and limits clinical guideline development. Our objective was to develop a core outcome measurement set for GT (COS-GT). Participants were patients with GT and expert health professionals (HPs). A scoping review identified measures used in GT research, which were mapped to the nine International Scientific Tendinopathy Symposium Consensus core domains, and included in two surveys of HPs. The first survey identified the feasible and true measures for each domain. The second survey refined the list which a patient focus group then considered. Meeting online, HPs reached consensus (agreement ≥70%) on the most appropriate COS-GT measures. 34 HPs and seven patients were recruited. 57 measures were mapped to the nine core domains. Six measures did not proceed past survey one. Of those that progressed, none had adequate clinimetric properties for a COS-GT. Thus, participants decided on interim measures: the global rating of change, pain at night, time to pain onset with single limb stance, pain with stair walking, pain self-efficacy and hip abduction strength. HP participants additionally recommended that pain over the last week, the European Quality of Life-5 dimensions-5 levels and the Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Gluteal be considered in clinical trials, as they currently provide best easures of the relevant tendinopathy domains. In conclusion this interim COS-GT should guide outcome measure selection in clinical practice and future research trials in patients with GT.

Primary outcome reporting in clinical trials for older adults with depression

BACKGROUND

Findings from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are synthesised through meta-analyses, which inform evidence-based decision-making. When key details regarding trial outcomes are not fully reported, knowledge synthesis and uptake of findings into clinical practice are impeded.

AIMS

Our study assessed reporting of primary outcomes in RCTs for older adults with major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHOD

Trials published between 2011 and 2021, which assessed any intervention for adults aged ≥65 years with a MDD diagnosis, and that specified a single primary outcome were considered for inclusion in our study. Outcome reporting assessment was conducted independently and in duplicate with a 58-item checklist, used in developing the CONSORT-Outcomes statement, and information in each RCT was scored as 'fully reported', 'partially reported' or 'not reported', as applicable.

RESULTS

Thirty-one of 49 RCTs reported one primary outcome and were included in our study. Most trials (71%) did not fully report over half of the 58 checklist items. Items pertaining to outcome analyses and interpretation were fully reported by 65% or more of trials. Items reported less frequently included: outcome measurement instrument properties (varied from 3 to 30%) and justification of the criteria used to define clinically meaningful change (23%).

CONCLUSIONS

There is variability in how geriatric depression RCTs report primary outcomes, with omission of details regarding measurement, selection, justification and definition of clinically meaningful change. Outcome reporting deficiencies may hinder replicability and synthesis efforts that inform clinical guidelines and decision-making. The CONSORT-Outcomes guideline should be used when reporting geriatric depression RCTs.

The empty pelvis syndrome: a core data set from the PelvEx collaborative

BACKGROUND

Empty pelvis syndrome (EPS) is a significant source of morbidity following pelvic exenteration (PE), but is undefined. EPS outcome reporting and descriptors of radicality of PE are inconsistent; therefore, the best approaches for prevention are unknown. To facilitate future research into EPS, the aim of this study is to define a measurable core outcome set, core descriptor set and written definition for EPS. Consensus on strategies to mitigate EPS was also explored.

METHOD

Three-stage consensus methodology was used: longlisting with systematic review, healthcare professional event, patient engagement, and Delphi-piloting; shortlisting with two rounds of modified Delphi; and a confirmatory stage using a modified nominal group technique. This included a selection of measurement instruments, and iterative generation of a written EPS definition.

RESULTS

One hundred and three and 119 participants took part in the modified Delphi and consensus meetings, respectively. This encompassed international patient and healthcare professional representation with multidisciplinary input. Seventy statements were longlisted, seven core outcomes (bowel obstruction, enteroperineal fistula, chronic perineal sinus, infected pelvic collection, bowel obstruction, morbidity from reconstruction, re-intervention, and quality of life), and four core descriptors (magnitude of surgery, radiotherapy-induced damage, methods of reconstruction, and changes in volume of pelvic dead space) reached consensus-where applicable, measurement of these outcomes and descriptors was defined. A written definition for EPS was agreed.

CONCLUSIONS

EPS is an area of unmet research and clinical need. This study provides an agreed definition and core data set for EPS to facilitate further research.

Development of a mobile app for the evaluation of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis

OBJECTIVE

To develop a mobile application with a standardized routine, to be used by general otolaryngologists for evaluating patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.

METHODS

A systematic review was made to identify outcomes, recommendations and what tests that would be used in the routine evaluation of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis; establish an expert consensus on items to be included in this routine evaluation of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis using the Delphi method; development of an application for use on a mobile device, with the routine evaluation of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.

RESULTS

Based on the systematic review, the outcomes used in studies about chronic rhinosinusitis were identified, as well as guidelines recommendations, which showed discrepancies between them. These recommendations and outcomes were presented to specialists in chronic rhinosinusitis, until a consensus was reached. As a result of the Delphi method, the flowchart of the routine evaluation of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis was defined, and then was used for the development of the mobile application.

CONCLUSION

The creation of the mobile application for evaluating patients with chronic rhinosinusitis followed an adequate methodology of elaboration made by specialists in the field of chronic rhinosinusitis, standardizing the investigation of these patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 5.

COHESION: a core outcome set for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy

BACKGROUND

Heterogeneity in outcomes reported in trials of interventions for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy (NE) makes evaluating the effectiveness of treatments difficult. Developing a core outcome set for NE treatment would enable researchers to measure and report the same outcomes in future trials. This would minimise waste, ensure relevant outcomes are measured and enable evidence synthesis. Therefore, we aimed to develop a core outcome set for treating NE.

METHODS

Outcomes identified from a systematic review of the literature and interviews with parents were prioritised by stakeholders (n = 99 parents/caregivers, n = 101 healthcare providers, and n = 22 researchers/ academics) in online Delphi surveys. Agreement on the outcomes was achieved at online consensus meetings attended by n = 10 parents, n = 18 healthcare providers, and n = 13 researchers/ academics.

RESULTS

Seven outcomes were included in the final core outcome set: survival; brain injury on imaging; neurological status at discharge; cerebral palsy; general cognitive ability; quality of life of the child, and adverse events related to treatment.

CONCLUSION

We developed a core outcome set for the treatment of NE. This will allow future trials to measure and report the same outcomes and ensure results can be compared. Future work should identify how best to measure the COS.

IMPACT

We have identified seven outcomes that should be measured and reported in all studies for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy. Previously, a core outcome set for neonatal encephalopathy treatments did not exist. This will help to reduce heterogeneity in outcomes reported in clinical trials and other studies, and help researchers identify the best treatments for neonatal encephalopathy.

Study protocol: a core outcome set for perioperative exercise clinical effectiveness trials for lung cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Outcome assessment in perioperative exercise trials for lung cancer is heterogeneous, often omitting those that are important and patient-relevant. This heterogeneity hinders the synthesis of evidence. To address this issue, a core outcome set, an agreed-upon standardized set of outcomes to be measured and reported, is required to reduce heterogeneity among outcome measurements. This study protocol describes the methodology, aiming to develop a core outcome set for perioperative exercise intervention trials for lung cancer in clinical practice.

METHODS

The project will follow the standard methodology recommended by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative, which is divided into four steps. Stage I: Conducting a scoping review of outcomes reported in clinical trials and protocols to develop a list of potential outcome domains. Stage II: Conducting semi-structured interviews to obtain important outcomes for patients. Stage III: Choosing the most important outcomes by conducting two rounds of the Delphi exercise. Stage IV: Achieving a consensus in a face-to-face meeting to discuss the final core outcome set.

DISCUSSION

This is the first project identified for the core outcome set of perioperative exercise trials in lung cancer, which will enhance the quality, comparability, and usability of future trials and positively impact perioperative exercise and the care of patients with lung cancer.

TRIALS REGISTRATION

Core Outcome Measurement in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative database registration: https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2091.

Recommendations to address respondent burden associated with patient-reported outcome assessment

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in healthcare research to provide evidence of the benefits and risks of interventions from the patient perspective and to inform regulatory decisions and health policy. The use of PROs in clinical practice can facilitate symptom monitoring, tailor care to individual needs, aid clinical decision-making and inform value-based healthcare initiatives. Despite their benefits, there are concerns that the potential burden on respondents may reduce their willingness to complete PROs, with potential impact on the completeness and quality of the data for decision-making. We therefore conducted an initial literature review to generate a list of candidate recommendations aimed at reducing respondent burden. This was followed by a two-stage Delphi survey by an international multi-stakeholder group. A consensus meeting was held to finalize the recommendations. The final consensus statement includes 19 recommendations to address PRO respondent burden in healthcare research and clinical practice. If implemented, these recommendations may reduce PRO respondent burden.

Core outcome measurement set for research and clinical practice in post-COVID-19 condition (long COVID) in children and young people: an international Delphi consensus study "PC-COS Children"

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic substantially impacted different age groups, with children and young people not exempted. Many have experienced enduring health consequences. Presently, there is no consensus on the health outcomes to assess in children and young people with post-COVID-19 condition. Furthermore, it is unclear which measurement instruments are appropriate for use in research and clinical management of children and young people with post-COVID-19. To address these unmet needs, we conducted a consensus study, aiming to develop a core outcome set (COS) and an associated core outcome measurement set (COMS) for evaluating post-COVID-19 condition in children and young people. Our methodology comprised of two phases. In phase 1 (to create a COS), we performed an extensive literature review and categorisation of outcomes, and prioritised those outcomes in a two-round online modified Delphi process followed by a consensus meeting. In phase 2 (to create the COMS), we performed another modified Delphi consensus process to evaluate measurement instruments for previously defined core outcomes from phase 1, followed by an online consensus workshop to finalise recommendations regarding the most appropriate instruments for each core outcome. In phase 1, 214 participants from 37 countries participated, with 154 (72%) contributing to both Delphi rounds. The subsequent online consensus meeting resulted in a final COS which encompassed seven critical outcomes: fatigue; post-exertion symptoms; work/occupational and study changes; as well as functional changes, symptoms, and conditions relating to cardiovascular, neuro-cognitive, gastrointestinal and physical outcomes. In phase 2, 11 international experts were involved in a modified Delphi process, selecting measurement instruments for a subsequent online consensus workshop where 30 voting participants discussed and independently scored the selected instruments. As a result of this consensus process, four instruments met a priori consensus criteria for inclusion: PedsQL multidimensional fatigue scale for "fatigue"; PedsQL gastrointestinal symptom scales for "gastrointestinal"; PedsQL cognitive functioning scale for "neurocognitive" and EQ-5D for "physical functioning". Despite proposing outcome measurement instruments for the remaining three core outcomes ("cardiovascular", "post-exertional malaise", "work/occupational and study changes"), a consensus was not achieved. Our international, consensus-based initiative presents a robust framework for evaluating post-COVID-19 condition in children and young people in research and clinical practice via a rigorously defined COS and associated COMS. It will aid in the uniform measurement and reporting of relevant health outcomes worldwide.

Pathophysiological, immunological, and inflammatory features of long COVID

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to cause severe global disruption, resulting in significant excess mortality, overwhelming healthcare systems, and imposing substantial social and economic burdens on nations. While most of the attention and therapeutic efforts have concentrated on the acute phase of the disease, a notable proportion of survivors experience persistent symptoms post-infection clearance. This diverse set of symptoms, loosely categorized as long COVID, presents a potential additional public health crisis. It is estimated that 1 in 5 COVID-19 survivors exhibit clinical manifestations consistent with long COVID. Despite this prevalence, the mechanisms and pathophysiology of long COVID remain poorly understood. Alarmingly, evidence suggests that a significant proportion of cases within this clinical condition develop debilitating or disabling symptoms. Hence, urgent priority should be given to further studies on this condition to equip global public health systems for its management. This review provides an overview of available information on this emerging clinical condition, focusing on the affected individuals' epidemiology, pathophysiological mechanisms, and immunological and inflammatory profiles.

Systematic review for the development of a core outcome set for monofocal intraocular lenses for cataract surgery

Introduction

The aim of the study was to define a core outcome set (COS) to be measured following cataract surgery for the postoperative evaluation of monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs). Compared to current COSs, the present work provides updates considering the advances in the technology due to the development of new generation monofocal IOLs, which are characterized by a safety profile comparable to standard monofocal IOLs but with an extended range of intermediate vision.

Methods

Healthcare professionals (ophthalmologist surgeons) and patients were involved in the selection of outcomes to be included in the COS, starting from a list of indicators retrieved from a systematic literature search. The search considered observational studies with both a retrospective or prospective design, case studies and classic randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A mixed methodology integrating a Delphi-driven and an expert panel approach was adopted to reach an agreement among clinicians, while patients were involved in the completion of a questionnaire.

Results

The final COS included 15 outcomes. Eleven outcomes, all clinical, were considered for inclusion after a joint discussion among ophthalmologists; seven outcomes were linked to visual acuity, while the remaining to contrast sensitivity, refractive errors, aberrations and adverse events. Measurement metrics, method of aggregation and measurement time point of these outcomes were specified. The most important aspects for the patients were (1) quality of life after cataract surgery, (2) the capacity to perform activities requiring good near vision (e.g., reading), (3) spectacle independence, and (4) safety of movements without fear of getting hurt or falling (intermediate vision).

Discussion

In a context with limited healthcare resources, it is important to optimize their use considering also the preferences of end-users, namely patients. The proposed COS, developed involving both ophthalmologists and patients, provides an instrument for the postoperative evaluation of different technologies in the context of monofocal IOLs, which can be used not only in clinical trials but also in clinical practice to increase the body of real-world evidence.

Development of a Core Outcome Set for Dysphagia Interventions in Parkinson's disease (COS-DIP): study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Current clinical trials on swallowing disorders (dysphagia) in Parkinson's disease (PD) apply a high variety of outcomes and different outcome measures making comparative effectiveness research challenging. Furthermore, views of patients and dysphagia clinicians when selecting trial outcomes have not been considered in the past, thus study results may have little importance to them. This study aims to develop an agreed standardised Core Outcome Set for Dysphagia Interventions in Parkinson's disease (COS-DIP), systematically measured and reported as a minimum for all clinical trials. It will also comprise guidance on outcome definitions, outcome measures and time points of measurement.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The COS-DIP development will comprise five stages following established methodology: (1) a recent scoping review on all applied outcomes, their definitions, methods and time points of measurement in clinical trials in dysphagia in PD, (2) online surveys and focus groups with clinicians, patients, caregivers and family members to identify outcomes that are important to them, (3) an identified list of outcomes based on results of stage 1 and 2, (4) three round online Delphi survey with up to 200 key stakeholders to determine core outcomes and (5) two online consensus meetings with up to 40 representative key stakeholders to agree on all outcomes, definitions, methods and time points of measurement in the final COS-DIP.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Full ethical approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee, School of Linguistic, Speech and Communication Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, on 15 May 2023 (HT27). Dissemination of the COS-DIP will be enhanced through presentations at (inter-) national conferences and through peer-reviewed, open access publications of related manuscripts. Lay and professional information sheets and infographics will be circulated through relevant patient and professional organisations and networks.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The COS-DIP study was registered prospectively with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database on 24 September 2021 (www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1942).

Protocol of a scoping review of outcome domains in dermatology

INTRODUCTION

Core outcome sets (COSs) are agreed outcomes (domains (subdomains) and instruments) that should be measured as a minimum in clinical trials or practice in certain diseases or clinical fields. Worldwide, the number of COSs is increasing and there might be conceptual overlaps of domains (subdomains) and instruments within disciplines. The aim of this scoping review is to map and to classify all outcomes identified with COS projects relating to skin diseases.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a scoping review of outcomes of skin disease-related COS initiatives to identify all concepts and their definitions. We will search PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library. The search dates will be 1 January 2010 (the point at which Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) was established) to 1 January 2024. We will also review the COMET database and C3 website to identify parts of COSs (domains and/or instruments) that are being developed and published. This review will be supplemented by querying relevant stakeholders from COS organisations, dermatology organisations and patient organisations for additional COSs that were developed. The resulting long lists of outcomes will then be mapped into conceptually similar concepts.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was supported by departmental research funds from the Department of Dermatology at Northwestern University. An ethics committee review was waived since this protocol was done by staff researchers with no involvement of patient care. Conflicts of interests, if any, will be addressed by replacing participants with relevant conflicts or reassigning them. The results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals, social media posts and promotion by COS organisations.

Beating the empty pelvis syndrome: the PelvEx Collaborative core outcome set study protocol

INTRODUCTION

The empty pelvis syndrome is a significant source of morbidity following pelvic exenteration surgery. It remains poorly defined with research in this field being heterogeneous and of low quality. Furthermore, there has been minimal engagement with patient representatives following pelvic exenteration with respect to the empty pelvic syndrome. 'PelvEx-Beating the empty pelvis syndrome' aims to engage both patient representatives and healthcare professionals to achieve an international consensus on a core outcome set, pathophysiology and mitigation of the empty pelvis syndrome.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A modified-Delphi approach will be followed with a three-stage study design. First, statements will be longlisted using a recent systematic review, healthcare professional event, patient and public engagement, and Delphi piloting. Second, statements will be shortlisted using up to three rounds of online modified Delphi. Third, statements will be confirmed and instruments for measurable statements selected using a virtual patient-representative consensus meeting, and finally a face-to-face healthcare professional consensus meeting.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The University of Southampton Faculty of Medicine ethics committee has approved this protocol, which is registered as a study with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative. Publication of this study will increase the potential for comparative research to further understanding and prevent the empty pelvis syndrome.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05683795.

A Decade of Efforts to Add Value to Child Health Research Practices

OBJECTIVE

To identify practices that add value to improve the design, conduct, and reporting of child health research and reduce research waste.

STUDY DESIGN

In order to categorize the contributions of members of Standards for Research (StaR) in Child Health network, we developed a novel Child Health Improving Research Practices (CHIRP) framework comprised of 5 domains meant to counteract avoidable child health research waste and improve quality: 1) address research questions relevant to children, their families, clinicians, and researchers; 2) apply appropriate research design, conduct and analysis; 3) ensure efficient research oversight and regulation; 4) Provide accessible research protocols and reports; and 5) develop unbiased and usable research reports, including 17 responsible research practice recommendations. All child health research relevant publications by the 48 original StaR standards' authors over the last decade were identified, and main topic areas were categorized using this framework.

RESULTS

A total of 247 publications were included in the final sample: 100 publications (41%) in domain 1 (3 recommendations), 77 publications (31%) in domain 2 (3), 35 publications (14%) in domain 3 (4), 20 publications (8%) in domain 4 (4), and 15 publications (6%) in domain 5 (3). We identified readily implementable "responsible" research practices to counter child health research waste and improve quality, especially in the areas of patients and families' engagement throughout the research process, developing Core Outcome Sets, and addressing ethics and regulatory oversight issues.

CONCLUSION

While most of the practices are readily implementable, increased awareness of methodological issues and wider guideline uptake is needed to improve child health research. The CHIRP Framework can be used to guide responsible research practices that add value to child health research.

Outcomes measured in studies assessing health systems interventions for type 1 diabetes management: A scoping review

AIMS

Describe the outcomes reported in research on health systems interventions for type 1 diabetes management in comparison to the outcomes proposed by a core outcome set (COS) for this condition, an essential list of outcomes that studies should measure.

METHODS

Systematic search of studies published between 2010 and 2021 reporting health systems interventions directed to improve the management of type 1 diabetes using PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL. Information on the outcomes was extracted and classified according to a COS: self-management, level of clinical engagement, perceived control over diabetes, diabetes-related quality of life, diabetes burden, diabetes ketoacidosis, severe hypoglycemia, and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C).

RESULTS

187 studies were included. Most of the studies included either children (n = 82/187) or adults (n = 82/187) living with type 1 diabetes. The most common outcome measured was HbA1C (n = 149/187), followed by self-management (n = 105/187). While the least measured ones were diabetes ketoacidosis (n = 15/187), and clinical engagement (n = 0/187). None of the studies measured all the outcomes recommended in the COS. Additionally, different tools were found to be used in measuring the same outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a description of what researchers are measuring when assessing health systems interventions to improve type 1 diabetes management. In contrast to a COS, it was found that there is a predominance of clinical-based outcomes over patient-reported outcome measures.

Tailoring CONSORT-SPI to improve the reporting of smoking cessation intervention trials: An expert consensus study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Inadequate reporting of smoking cessation intervention trials is common and leads to significant challenges for researchers. The aim of this study was to tailor CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials)-SPI (Social and Psychological Interventions) guidelines to improve reporting of trials of behavioural interventions to promote smoking cessation.

METHOD

Informed by missing data from the IC-SMOKE (Intervention and Comparison group support provided in SMOKing cEssation) systematic review project, this study used a multi-stage Delphi process to examine which items could be added or modified to improve the reporting of smoking cessation trials. The first stage involved an on-line survey of 17 international experts in smoking cessation and trial methodology voting on the importance of items for inclusion in the updated guidelines. This was followed by a face-to-face expert consensus meeting attended by 15 of these experts, where the final inclusion and exclusion of new items and modifications were agreed upon. A nine-point Likert scale was used to establish consensus, with suggested modifications requiring agreement of 75% or more. Disagreements in the first stage were presented again at the second stage for discussion and a second round of voting. Only items which reached the threshold for agreement were included.

RESULTS

The experts agreed on the inclusion of 10 new items and the specification of 12 existing items. This included modifications that could apply to trials more widely (e.g. the rationale for the comparator), but also modifications that were very specific to smoking cessation trials (e.g. the reporting of smoking cessation outcomes).

CONCLUSIONS

A Delphi study has developed a modified CONSORT-SPI guideline (CONSORT-SPI-SMOKE) to improve the reporting of trials of behavioural interventions to promote smoking cessation.

Guidelines for reporting pediatric and child health clinical trial protocols and reports: study protocol for SPIRIT-Children and CONSORT-Children

BACKGROUND

Despite the critical importance of clinical trials to provide evidence about the effects of intervention for children and youth, a paucity of published high-quality pediatric clinical trials persists. Sub-optimal reporting of key trial elements necessary to critically appraise and synthesize findings is prevalent. To harmonize and provide guidance for reporting in pediatric controlled clinical trial protocols and reports, reporting guideline extensions to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines specific to pediatrics are being developed: SPIRIT-Children (SPIRIT-C) and CONSORT-Children (CONSORT-C).

METHODS

The development of SPIRIT-C/CONSORT-C will be informed by the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research Quality (EQUATOR) method for reporting guideline development in the following stages: (1) generation of a preliminary list of candidate items, informed by (a) items developed during initial development efforts and child relevant items from recent published SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions; (b) two systematic reviews and environmental scan of the literature; (c) workshops with young people; (2) an international Delphi study, where a wide range of panelists will vote on the inclusion or exclusion of candidate items on a nine-point Likert scale; (3) a consensus meeting to discuss items that have not reached consensus in the Delphi study and to "lock" the checklist items; (4) pilot testing of items and definitions to ensure that they are understandable, useful, and applicable; and (5) a final project meeting to discuss each item in the context of pilot test results. Key partners, including young people (ages 12-24 years) and family caregivers (e.g., parents) with lived experiences with pediatric clinical trials, and individuals with expertise and involvement in pediatric trials will be involved throughout the project. SPIRIT-C/CONSORT-C will be disseminated through publications, academic conferences, and endorsement by pediatric journals and relevant research networks and organizations.

DISCUSSION

SPIRIT/CONSORT-C may serve as resources to facilitate comprehensive reporting needed to understand pediatric clinical trial protocols and reports, which may improve transparency within pediatric clinical trials and reduce research waste.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The development of these reporting guidelines is registered with the EQUATOR Network: SPIRIT-Children ( https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-clinical-trials-protocols/#35 ) and CONSORT-Children ( https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-clinical-trials/#CHILD ).

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

Introduction

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Exploring the feasibility of evaluating a community alliance welfare advice programme co-located in primary care in Bradford: an uncontrolled before and after study

BACKGROUND

Welfare advice services co-located in health settings are known to improve financial security. However, little is known on how to effectively evaluate these services. This study aims to explore the feasibility of evaluating a welfare advice service co-located in a primary care setting in a deprived and ethnically diverse population. It seeks to investigate whether the proposed evaluation tools and processes are acceptable and feasible to implement and whether they are able to detect any evidence of promise for this intervention on the mental health, wellbeing and financial security of participants.

METHODS

An uncontrolled before and after study design was utilised. Data on mental health, wellbeing, quality of life and financial outcomes were collected at baseline prior to receiving welfare advice and at three months follow-up. Multiple logistic and linear regression models were used to explore individual differences in self-reported financial security and changes to mental health, wellbeing and quality of life scores before and after the provision of welfare advice.

RESULTS

Overall, the majority of key outcome measures were well completed, indicating participant acceptability of the mental health, wellbeing, quality of life and financial outcome measures used in this population. There was evidence suggestive of an improvement in participant financial security and evidence of promise for improvements in measured wellbeing and health-related quality of life for participants accessing services in a highly ethnically diverse population. Overall, the VCS Alliance welfare advice programme generated a total of £21,823.05 for all participants, with participants gaining an average of £389.70 per participant for participants with complete financial outcome data.

CONCLUSIONS

This research demonstrates the feasibility of evaluating a welfare advice service co-located in primary care in a deprived and ethnically diverse setting utilising the ascribed mental health, wellbeing and quality of life and financial outcome tools. It provides evidence of promise to support the hypothesis that the implementation of a welfare advice service co-located in a health setting can improve health and wellbeing and reduce health inequalities.

Protocol for the development of a Core Outcome Set (COS) for Adolescents and Young Adults (AYAs) with cancer

BACKGROUND

Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer, defined as individuals aged 15-39 years at initial cancer diagnosis, form a unique population; they face age-specific issues as they transition to adulthood. This paper presents the protocol for the development of a core outcome set (COS) for AYAs with cancer.

METHODS

The methodological standards from the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) and the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) for COS development will guide the development of the COS for AYAs with cancer. The project will consist of the following phases: (1) define the scope of the COS; (2) establish the need for a COS in this field (3) assemble an international, multi-stakeholder working group; (4) develop a detailed protocol; (5) determine "what to measure" (i.e., outcomes); (6) determine "how to measure" (i.e., measures); and (7) determine "case-mix" variables.

CONCLUSIONS

The development of a COS for AYAs with cancer will facilitate the implementation of efficient and relevant standards for data collection, both for clinical trials and in routine healthcare, thereby increasing the usefulness of these data to improve the value of the care given to these underserved young cancer patients.

A core outcome domain set to assess cutaneous neurofibromas related to neurofibromatosis type 1 in clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Cutaneous neurofibromas (cNF) are considered one of the highest burdens of neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1). To date, no medical treatment can cure cNF or prevent their development. In that context, there is an urgent need to prepare and standardize the methodology of future trials targeting cNF.

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to develop a core outcome domain set suitable for all clinical trials targeting NF1-associated cNF.

METHODS

The validated approach of this work consisted of a three-phase methodology: (i) generating the domains [systematic literature review (SLR) and qualitative studies]; (ii) agreeing (three-round international e-Delphi consensus process and working groups); and (iii) voting.

RESULTS

(i) The SLR and the qualitative studies (three types of focus groups and a French e-survey with 234 participants) resulted in a preliminary list of 31 candidate items and their corresponding definitions. (ii) A total of 229 individuals from 29 countries participated in the first round of the e-Delphi process: 71 patients, relatives or representatives (31.0%), 130 healthcare professionals (HCPs, 56.8%) and 28 researchers, representatives of a drug regulatory authority, industry or pharmaceutical company representatives or journal editors (12.2%). The overall participation rate was 74%. After round 2, five candidate items were excluded. Between rounds 2 and 3, international workshops were held to better understand the disagreements among stakeholders. This phase led to the identification of 19 items as outcome subdomains. (iii) The items were fused to create four outcome domains ('clinical assessment', 'daily life impact', 'patient satisfaction' and 'perception of health') and prioritized. The seven items that did not reach consensus were marked for the research agenda. The final core outcome domain set reached 100% of the votes of the steering committee members.

CONCLUSIONS

Although numerous outcomes can be explored in studies related to cNF in NF1, the present study offers four outcome domains that should be reported in all trial studies, agreed on by international patients, relatives and representatives of patients; HCPs; researchers, representatives of drug regulatory authorities or pharmaceutical companies and journal editors. The next step will include the development of a set of core outcome measurement instruments to further standardize how these outcomes should be assessed.

Harmonization of outcomes in epidermolysis bullosa: report of the Core Outcome Sets for Epidermolysis Bullosa (COSEB) kick-off meeting

The COSEB kick-off meeting was organized in April 2023, and highlighted the stakeholder perspectives on the unmet and urgent need to work towards reasonable harmonization of outcome measurement in epidermolysis bullosa (EB) by developing core outcome sets for the different EB types. Standardized and uniform outcome assessment holds great promise to reduce selective reporting, improve the comparability and pooling of treatment outcomes, and enhance the efficacy of future research in EB.

Perceptions regarding the concept and definition of patient-reported outcomes among healthcare stakeholders in Japan with relation to quality of life: a cross-sectional study

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are frequently used in a variety of settings, including clinical trials and clinical practice. The definition of PRO and quality of life (QOL) and their relationship have been concluded through discussions among experts that has been the premise of PRO guidelines are not clearly stated in the guidelines. Therefore, the definition of PRO, especially in relation to QOL, is sometimes explained simply, as "PRO includes QOL," but this complicated matters. This study investigated the perceptions of PRO among various stakeholders (including patients and their families, the industry, clinicians, regulatory or health technology assessment personnel, and academic researchers) in Japan to clarify its definitions and that of QOL, including their relationship.We conducted a two-step survey: a qualitative interview survey and a web-based survey to ensure the validity of the survey. During the interviews, eight stakeholders described their perceptions and thoughts on PRO and its relationship to QOL, and their experience of using PRO. Overall 253 clinicians, 249 company employees, and 494 patients participated in the web survey to confirm how the findings of the interview survey supported the results.In the interview survey, patient advocates described various perspectives of PRO and QOL, including unexpected dynamic relationships, while the most other stakeholders explained PRO and QOL with the language used in the guidelines, but their responses were split. The web-based survey revealed that all stakeholders had a lower awareness of PRO than QOL. The most common perception of PRO, especially in the relationship to QOL, was "they did not fully overlap." Although there were differences in perceptions of the relationship between PRO and QOL among clinicians, company employees, and patients, all perceived PRO as a tool to facilitate communication in clinical practice.The present results are inconsistent with the simplified explanation of PRO, but consistent with the original PRO guideline definitions, which also considered the role of PRO in clinical practice. To make PRO a more potent tool, all stakeholders using PRO should confirm its definition and how it differs from QOL, have a unified recognition in each PRO use, and avoid miscommunication.

Protocol of the development of a core outcome set for stroke in multidimensional value assessment of traditional Chinese medicine

INTRODUCTION

Stroke is the most common cause of death in China. In Chinese clinical practise, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and integrative medicine have been widely used as adjuvant therapies for the treatment of stroke. However, their clinical effectiveness, particularly their clinical value, has been inconsistent in the literature mainly because various outcome measures have been used and reported in clinical research. Hence, obtaining a comprehensive list of outcomes for TCM value assessment is crucial for a multidimensional value assessment. Therefore, the main objective of this protocol was to develop an outcome set used in health technology assessment (HTA) decision-making for TCM treatment of stroke.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The outcome set will be developed in four phases: (1) we will perform a systematic literature review to identify candidate outcomes that have been previously measured in published studies; (2) we will develop a comprehensive list of outcome measures by conducting a multistakeholder semistructured interview; (3) we will conduct two-round Delphi surveys to prioritise outcomes for each HTA domain; and (4) we will finalise the outcome sets by holding a ratification meeting with multiple stakeholder groups. The developed outcome set should be measured and reported as the minimum set of outcomes for HTA assessment for the TCM treatment of acute ischaemic stroke (AIS).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Minhang Hospital of Fudan University. Our findings will be shared at academic conferences and in peer-reviewed publications.

Data resource profile: the virtual international care homes trials archive (VICHTA)

Introduction

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in care home settings address a range of health conditions impacting older people, but often include a common core of data about residents and the care home environment. These data can be used to inform service provision, but accessing these data can be challenging.

Methods

The Virtual International Care Home Trials Archive (VICHTA) collates care home RCTs conducted since 2010, with >100 participants, across multiple conditions, with documented eligibility criteria, initially identified from a scoping review. A Steering Committee comprising contributing trialists oversees proposed uses of fully anonymised data. We characterised available demography and outcomes to inform potential analyses. Data are accessible via application to the Virtual Trials Archives, through a secure online analysis platform. Trial recruitment is ongoing and future expansion will include international studies.

Results

The first phase of VICHTA includes data from six UK RCTs, with individual participant data (IPD) on 5,674 residents across 308 care homes. IPD include age, sex, dementia status, length of stay, quality of life, clinical outcome measures, medications, resource use, and care home characteristics, such as funding, case mix, and occupancy. Follow-up ranges between four and sixteen months.

Conclusions

VICHTA collates and makes accessible data on a complex and under-represented research population for novel analyses, and to inform design of future studies. Planned expansion to international care home RCTs will facilitate a wider range of research questions. Interested collaborators can submit trial data or request data at http://www.virtualtrialsarchives.org.

Assessing the quality and value of metabolic chart data for capturing core outcomes for pediatric medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase (MCAD) deficiency

BACKGROUND

Generating rigorous evidence to inform care for rare diseases requires reliable, sustainable, and longitudinal measurement of priority outcomes. Having developed a core outcome set for pediatric medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase (MCAD) deficiency, we aimed to assess the feasibility of prospective measurement of these core outcomes during routine metabolic clinic visits.

METHODS

We used existing cohort data abstracted from charts of 124 children diagnosed with MCAD deficiency who participated in a Canadian study which collected data from birth to a maximum of 11 years of age to investigate the frequency of clinic visits and quality of metabolic chart data for selected outcomes. We recorded all opportunities to collect outcomes from the medical chart as a function of visit rate to the metabolic clinic, by treatment centre and by child age. We applied a data quality framework to evaluate data based on completeness, conformance, and plausibility for four core MCAD outcomes: emergency department use, fasting time, metabolic decompensation, and death.

RESULTS

The frequency of metabolic clinic visits decreased with increasing age, from a rate of 2.8 visits per child per year (95% confidence interval, 2.3-3.3) among infants 2 to 6 months, to 1.0 visit per child per year (95% confidence interval, 0.9-1.2) among those ≥ 5 years of age. Rates of emergency department visits followed anticipated trends by child age. Supplemental findings suggested that some emergency visits occur outside of the metabolic care treatment centre but are not captured. Recommended fasting times were updated relatively infrequently in patients' metabolic charts. Episodes of metabolic decompensation were identifiable but required an operational definition based on acute manifestations most commonly recorded in the metabolic chart. Deaths occurred rarely in these patients and quality of mortality data was not evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

Opportunities to record core outcomes at the metabolic clinic occur at least annually for children with MCAD deficiency. Methods to comprehensively capture emergency care received at outside institutions are needed. To reduce substantial heterogeneous recording of core outcome across treatment centres, improved documentation standards are required for recording of recommended fasting times and a consensus definition for metabolic decompensations needs to be developed and implemented.

European Society of Coloproctology: Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of cryptoglandular anal fistula

AIM

The primary aim of the European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) Guideline Development Group (GDG) was to produce high-quality, evidence-based guidelines for the management of cryptoglandular anal fistula with input from a multidisciplinary group and using transparent, reproducible methodology.

METHODS

Previously published methodology in guideline development by the ESCP has been replicated in this project. The guideline development process followed the requirements of the AGREE-S tool kit. Six phases can be identified in the methodology. Phase one sets the scope of the guideline, which addresses the diagnostic and therapeutic management of perianal abscess and cryptoglandular anal fistula in adult patients presenting to secondary care. The target population for this guideline are healthcare practitioners in secondary care and patients interested in understanding the clinical evidence available for various surgical interventions for anal fistula. Phase two involved formulation of the GDG. The GDG consisted of 21 coloproctologists, three research fellows, a radiologist and a methodologist. Stakeholders were chosen for their clinical and academic involvement in the management of anal fistula as well as being representative of the geographical variation among the ESCP membership. Five patients were recruited from patient groups to review the draft guideline. These patients attended two virtual meetings to discuss the evidence and suggest amendments. In phase three, patient/population, intervention, comparison and outcomes questions were formulated by the GDG. The GDG ratified 250 questions and chose 45 for inclusion in the guideline. In phase four, critical and important outcomes were confirmed for inclusion. Important outcomes were pain and wound healing. Critical outcomes were fistula healing, fistula recurrence and incontinence. These outcomes formed part of the inclusion criteria for the literature search. In phase five, a literature search was performed of MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, Embase (Ovid) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews by eight teams of the GDG. Data were extracted and submitted for review by the GDG in a draft guideline. The most recent systematic reviews were prioritized for inclusion. Studies published since the most recent systematic review were included in our analysis by conducting a new meta-analysis using Review manager. In phase six, recommendations were formulated, using grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations, in three virtual meetings of the GDG.

RESULTS

In seven sections covering the diagnostic and therapeutic management of perianal abscess and cryptoglandular anal fistula, there are 42 recommendations.

CONCLUSION

This is an up-to-date international guideline on the management of cryptoglandular anal fistula using methodology prescribed by the AGREE enterprise.

The outcomes measured and reported in intracranial meningioma clinical trials: A systematic review

Background

Meningioma clinical trials have assessed interventions including surgery, radiotherapy, and pharmacotherapy. However, agreement does not exist on what, how, and when outcomes of interest should be measured. To do so would allow comparative analysis of similar trials. This systematic review aimed to summarize the outcomes measured and reported in meningioma clinical trials.

Methods

Systematic literature and trial registry searches were performed to identify published and ongoing intracranial meningioma clinical trials (PubMed, Embase, Medline, CINAHL via EBSCO, and Web of Science, completed January 22, 2022). Reported outcomes were extracted verbatim, along with an associated definition and method of measurement if provided. Verbatim outcomes were deduplicated and the resulting unique outcomes were grouped under standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the taxonomy proposed by the "Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials" (COMET) initiative.

Results

Thirty published articles and 18 ongoing studies were included, describing 47 unique clinical trials: Phase 2 n = 33, phase 3 n = 14. Common interventions included: Surgery n = 13, radiotherapy n = 8, and pharmacotherapy n = 20. In total, 659 verbatim outcomes were reported, of which 84 were defined. Following de-duplication, 415 unique verbatim outcomes remained and were grouped into 115 standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the COMET taxonomy into 29 outcome domains and 5 core areas.

Conclusions

Outcome measurement across meningioma clinical trials is heterogeneous. The standardized outcome terms identified will be prioritized through an eDelphi survey and consensus meeting of key stakeholders (including patients), in order to develop a core outcome set for use in future meningioma clinical trials.

Mapping and ranking outcomes for the evaluation of seasonal influenza vaccine efficacy and effectiveness: a delphi study

BACKGROUND

Protection provided by seasonal influenza vaccination (SIV) may be measured against numerous outcomes, and their heterogeneity may hamper decision-making. The aim of this study was to explore outcomes used for estimation of SIV efficacy/effectiveness (VE) and obtain expert consensus on their importance.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

An umbrella review was first conducted to collect and map outcomes considered in systematic reviews of SIV VE. A Delphi study was then performed to reach expert convergence on the importance of single outcomes, measured on a 9-point Likert scale, in principal target groups, namely children, working-age adults, older adults, subjects with co-morbidities and pregnant women.

RESULTS

The literature review identified 489 outcomes. Following data reduction, 20 outcomes were selected for the Delphi process. After two Delphi rounds and a final consensus meeting, convergence was reached. All 20 outcomes were judged to be important or critically important. More severe outcomes, such as influenza-related hospital encounters and mortality with or without laboratory confirmation, were generally top-ranked across all target groups (median scores ≥8 out of 9).

CONCLUSIONS

Rather than focusing on laboratory-confirmed infection per se, experimental and observational VE studies should include more severe influenza-related outcomes because they are expected to exercise a greater impact on decision-making.

Intermethod agreement of self-reports compared to register data collection for return to work and sickness absence: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To determine the intermethod agreement of self-reported vs. register data of 'sickness absence' (SA) and 'return to work' (RTW) outcome measurements.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a systematic review and a meta-analysis of studies reporting mean differences (MDs) and sensitivity and specificity for self-report vs. register data and an inductive analysis of the self-report question formulations. An information specialist searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO for studies published from inception to November 2022. Screening and data extraction was done by two authors independently.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies were included of which eighteen with an overall high risk of bias. Self-reports had a pooled MD of 1.84 SA days (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26-3.41, I2 98%, 18 studies, 38,716 participants) compared to registries which varied among studies from 204 more to 17 days less. The median average sick leave in studies in the self-report group was 8 days (interquartile range 4-23 days). Being absent from work measured with self-report had a sensitivity of 0.83 (0.76-0.88 95% CI) and a specificity of 0.92 (0.88-0.94 95% CI) compared to registry data. The high heterogeneity amongst the studies could not be explained by recall time, gender, register type, prospective or retrospective self-reports, health problem, SA at baseline or risk of bias. Studies lacked standard outcome reporting, had unclearly formulated questions in self-reports and there was little information on the registers' quality.

CONCLUSION

Current self-reports may differ from register-based absence data but in an inconsistent way. Due to inconsistency and high risk of bias the evidence is judged to be of very low certainty. Further research is needed to develop clear standard questions which can be used for SA and RTW self-reports. Quality of registers needs to be better evaluated. Percentage positive and negative agreement, MDs and 2 × 2 tables should be reported for studies investigating agreement between SA and RTW outcome measures.

Patient-Centered Research and Outcomes in Cancer and Kidney Transplantation

Cancer has been identified by kidney transplant recipients as a critically important outcome. The co-occurrence of cancer and kidney transplantation represents a complex intersection of diseases, symptoms, and competing priorities for treatments. Research that focuses on biochemical parameters and clinical events may not capture the priorities of patients. Patient-centered research can improve the relevance and efficiency of research and is particularly pertinent in the setting of cancer and kidney transplantation to facilitate shared decision-making in complex clinical situations. In addition, patient-reported outcomes can facilitate the assessment of patients' experiences, symptom burden, treatment side effects, and quality of life. This review discusses patient-centered research in the context of kidney transplantation and cancer, including consumer involvement in research and patient-centered outcomes and their measures and inclusion in core outcome sets.

Assessment of the acute subjective psychedelic experience: A review of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical research on classical psychedelics

BACKGROUND

The classical psychedelics psilocybin, peyote, ayahuasca/ N, N-dimethyltryptamine, and lysergic acid diethylamide can temporarily produce altered states of consciousness, characterized by changes in sensory perception, thought, mood, and the sense of self-reality and meaning. It is important to have reliable instruments for quantifying these altered states in trials, due to a plausible link between the acute subjective experience and treatment outcome.

METHODS

We conducted a review of outcome measures applied in research on classical psychedelics to assess one or more dimensions of the acute subjective psychedelic experience. Three relevant databases were searched electronically. Two reviewers independently conducted article selection and data extraction regarding the instruments, dimensions, geography, population, and psychedelic substance investigated in the included studies. We identified the five most utilized instruments for the most recent 6 years, as well as the five most utilized instruments for each psychedelic.

RESULTS

We included 93 papers, which reported on 93 unique trials and utilized 17 different rating scales. Of these, the most utilized were the Five-Dimensional Altered States of Consciousness Questionnaire, visual analog or Likert scales specially developed for the trials, the Hallucinogen Rating Scale, the States of Consciousness Questionnaire, and the Abnormer Psychischer Zustand.

DISCUSSION

Considerable variability was found in the instruments utilized in clinical trials on classical psychedelics. We advise and encourage the development of a core outcome set for psychedelic research to enable altered state comparisons across compounds, participants, and settings. We further advise that instruments be designed to assess the "setting" of a psychedelic experience.

The outcomes measured and reported in observational studies of incidental and untreated intracranial meningioma: A systematic review

Background

The clinical management of patients with incidental intracranial meningioma varies markedly and is often based on clinician choice and observational data. Heterogeneous outcome measurement has likely hampered knowledge progress by preventing comparative analysis of similar cohorts of patients. This systematic review aimed to summarize the outcomes measured and reported in observational studies.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed to identify published full texts describing active monitoring of adult cohorts with incidental and untreated intracranial meningioma (PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CINAHL via EBSCO, completed January 24, 2022). Reported outcomes were extracted verbatim, along with an associated definition and method of measurement if provided. Verbatim outcomes were de-duplicated and the resulting unique outcomes were grouped under standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the taxonomy proposed by the "Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials" (COMET) initiative.

Results

Thirty-three published articles and 1 ongoing study were included describing 32 unique studies: study designs were retrospective n = 27 and prospective n = 5. In total, 268 verbatim outcomes were reported, of which 77 were defined. Following de-duplication, 178 unique verbatim outcomes remained and were grouped into 53 standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the COMET taxonomy into 9 outcome domains and 3 core areas.

Conclusions

Outcome measurement across observational studies of incidental and untreated intracranial meningioma is heterogeneous. The standardized outcome terms identified will be prioritized through an eDelphi survey and consensus meeting of key stakeholders (including patients), in order to develop a Core Outcome Set for use in future observational studies.

Health-Related Quality of Life Outcome Measures in Individuals With Hereditary Hemorrhagic Telangiectasia: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Studies evaluating health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT) have expanded rapidly in the past decade. These studies have evaluated QOL aspects ranging from the general QOL for patients living with HHT to intervention-specific outcomes. However, few tools have been fully validated across the spectrum of disease manifestations and interventions in HHT.

OBJECTIVE

In this scoping review, we aim to map the literature on HHT-QOL metrics, identify gaps, inform future QOL research, and facilitate future metric development.

METHODS

We analyzed articles in English that assessed at least 1 measure of general HRQOL, including physical health, mental health, social health, or intervention-specific QOL in patients with HHT. Searches across 2 bibliographic databases (PubMed and Scopus) yielded 186 articles after duplicates were removed. Sixty-three studies met eligibility criteria: 22 prospective studies (34.9%), 20 retrospective studies (31.7%), 12 cross-sectional studies (17.5%), 6 randomized controlled trials or secondary analyses of a randomized controlled trials (9.5%), 2 qualitative studies (3.2%), and 1 case-control study (1.6%). Two additional studies-1 prospective and 1 cross-sectional study-were identified at the October 2022 14th International HHT Conference and included, making a total of 65 studies.

RESULTS

The 65 eligible studies used 30 QOL instruments. Twenty studies characterized baseline HRQOL, and 45 studies evaluated QOL before and after treatment. Of those 45 studies, 37 evaluated HRQOL before and after therapies targeting epistaxis and nasal symptoms, 4 targeted therapies for liver arteriovenous malformations and high-output heart failure, 3 evaluated therapies for both epistaxis and gastrointestinal bleeding, and 1 evaluated treatment targeting gastrointestinal bleeding alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Comparison of results across studies remains challenging given the heterogeneity in outcomes measures. Further development of HHT-specific patient-reported outcomes instruments that capture the global illness experience of HHT is needed.

Current status and implementation strategies of patient education in core outcome set development

OBJECTIVE

Patient participation is essential for Core Outcome Set (COS) development studies. Patient education during participation may help patients better express their views in COS studies. This study aimed to investigate the current status of patient participation and the specified educational information in COS studies.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of COS development studies. Information on patient participation in COS research, and especially details of patient education, was analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 146 COS development studies were included in this review. Of these, 125 studies (85.6%) mentioned patient participation. Most studies did not provide explicit information on patient participation. Some studies mentioned recruiting patients, but ultimately, none of them responded. Six studies reported conducting patient education through workshops, creating patient forums, or providing videos and slides. However, these studies did not provide details on education. Twenty-three studies used the plain language to explain patient outcomes.

CONCLUSION

COS developers are increasingly focusing on patient participation. However, only a few COS studies have explicitly reported conducting measures related to patient education. Further patient education is necessary when they participate in the development of a new Core Outcome Set.

PRACTICE IMPLICATION

This article provides implementation strategies related to patient education for future COS development studies.

Development of core outcome sets for studies relating to awareness and clinical management of reduced fetal movement

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to create core outcome sets (COSs) for use in research studies relating to the awareness and clinical management of reduced fetal movement (RFM).

DESIGN

Delphi survey and consensus process.

SETTING

International.

POPULATION

A total of 128 participants (40 parents, 19 researchers and 65 clinicians) from 16 countries.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify outcomes in studies of interventions relating to the awareness and the clinical management of RFM. Using these outcomes as a preliminary list, stakeholders rated the importance of these outcomes for inclusion in COSs for studies of: (i) awareness of RFM; and (ii) clinical management of RFM.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Preliminary lists of outcomes were discussed at consensus meetings where two COSs (one for studies of RFM awareness and one for studies of clinical management of RFM).

RESULTS

The first round of the Delphi survey was completed by 128 participants, 66% of whom (n = 84) completed all three rounds. Fifty outcomes identified by the systematic review, after multiple definitions were combined, were voted on in round one. Two outcomes were added in round one, and as such 52 outcomes were voted on in two lists in rounds two and three. The COSs for studies of RFM awareness and clinical management are comprised of eight outcomes (four maternal and four neonatal) and 10 outcomes (two maternal and eight neonatal), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

These COSs provide researchers with the minimum set of outcomes to be measured and reported in studies relating to the awareness and the clinical management of RFM.

A core outcome set for bronchiectasis in children and adolescents for use in clinical research: an international consensus study

Improving the treatment of non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis in children and adolescents requires high-quality research with outcomes that meet study objectives and are meaningful for patients and their parents and caregivers. In the absence of systematic reviews or agreement on the health outcomes that should be measured in paediatric bronchiectasis, we established an international, multidisciplinary panel of experts to develop a core outcome set (COS) that incorporates patient and parent perspectives. We undertook a systematic review from which a list of 21 outcomes was constructed; these outcomes were used to inform the development of separate surveys for ranking by parents and patients and by health-care professionals. 562 participants (201 parents and patients from 17 countries, 361 health-care professionals from 58 countries) completed the surveys. Following two consensus meetings, agreement was reached on a ten-item COS with five outcomes that were deemed to be essential: quality of life, symptoms, exacerbation frequency, non-scheduled health-care visits, and hospitalisations. Use of this international consensus-based COS will ensure that studies have consistent, patient-focused outcomes, facilitating research worldwide and, in turn, the development of evidence-based guidelines for improved clinical care and outcomes. Further research is needed to develop validated, accessible measurement instruments for several of the outcomes in this COS.