Core Outcome Set-STAndardised Protocol Items: the COS-STAP Statement

Core Outcome Sets Relevant to Maternity Service Users: A Scoping Review

INTRODUCTION

Variation in outcomes reported in maternity-related clinical trials and practice stifles data synthesis and contributes to ineffective or harmful treatments and interventions. Variation can be addressed using core outcome sets (COSs), minimum agreed sets of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials in a specific area of health or health care. This scoping review identified studies that developed maternity-related COSs; evaluated the extent, scope, quality, and consistency of outcomes across similar COSs; and identified current gaps in evidence.

METHODS

A multifaceted search of 2 COS registers (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials, Core Outcomes in Women's and Newborn Health), the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement website, electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL), and hand search was conducted. Published, English-language studies describing maternal and neonatal COSs for any health condition and published from inception to January 2020 were included. COS development process was evaluated against recently published COS Standards for Development: scope, stakeholder involvement, and consensus process.

RESULTS

Thirty-two articles relating to 26 COSs were included (maternal: 18 articles that addressed 17 COSs; neonatal: 14 articles that addressed 9 COSs) and covered a range of obstetric and neonatal conditions. COSs were published between 2006 and 2020, 58% since 2017. Maternal COSs included more outcomes (median, 17; range, 50) than neonatal COSs (median, 8; range, 20). Overlap in COSs was seen for maternity care and gestational diabetes. Overlap in outcomes was seen across similar COSs, which were mostly inconsistent or poorly defined. No included COS met all minimum standards for development. Two COSs extended recommendations for how and when to measure outcomes.

DISCUSSION

Growth in COS development in the last 3 years signifies increasing commitment to address variation and improve data synthesis. Although the quality of the development process has improved in the last 3 years, there is a need for improvement. This article presents an urgent need to minimize overlap in outcomes and standardize outcome measurement, case definitions, and timing of measurement between COSs.

COHESION: core outcomes in neonatal encephalopathy (protocol)

BACKGROUND

Neonatal encephalopathy is a complex syndrome in infants that predominantly affects the brain and other organs. The leading cause is a lack of oxygen in the blood reaching the brain. Neonatal encephalopathy can result in mortality or complications later in life, including seizures, movement disorders and cerebral palsy. Treatment options for neonatal encephalopathy are limited mainly to therapeutic hypothermia, although other potential treatments are emerging. However, evaluations of the effectiveness of treatments are challenging because of heterogeneity and inconsistency in outcomes measured and reported between trials. In this paper, we detail how we will develop a core outcome set to standardise outcomes measured and reported upon for interventions for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy.

METHODS

We will systematically review the literature to identify outcomes reported previously in randomised trials and systematic reviews of randomised trials. We will identify outcomes important to parents or caregivers of infants diagnosed with and who have received treatment for neonatal encephalopathy. We will do this by conducting in person or by video teleconferencing interviews with parents or caregivers in high-income and low- to middle-income countries. Stakeholders with expertise in neonatal encephalopathy (parents/caregivers, healthcare providers and researchers) will rate the importance of identified outcomes in an online Delphi survey using either a three-round Delphi survey or a "Real-Time" Delphi survey to which stakeholders will be allocated at random. Consensus meetings will take place by video conference to allow for an international group of stakeholder representatives to discuss and vote on the outcomes to include in the final core outcome set (COS).

DISCUSSION

More research is needed on treatments for neonatal encephalopathy. Standardising outcomes measured and reported in evaluations of the effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy will improve evidence synthesis and improve results reported in systematic reviews and meta-analysis in this area. Overall, this COS will allow for improved treatments to be identified, heterogeneity in research to be reduced, and overall patient care to be enhanced.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered in the Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness (COMET) database http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1270 .

Core outcomes set for research on the treatment of opioid use disorder (COS-OUD): the National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network protocol for an e-Delphi consensus study

BACKGROUND

A lack of consensus on the optimal outcome measures to assess the efficacy and effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) has hampered the pooling of research data for evidence synthesis and clinical guidelines. A core outcome set (COS) is a minimum set of outcome measures that are recommended for all studies of a particular condition. The National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) Core Outcome Set for OUD (COS-OUD) is a development study to identify core constructs, meaningful outcomes, and their optimal measurement for all efficacy and effectiveness studies of OUD treatment and service delivery.

METHODS/DESIGN

Overseen by an expert workgroup, a modified, stepwise, e-Delphi methodology will be used to gain consensus among a panel of clinical practitioners and researchers involved in the treatment of OUD, who are members of the CTN. Sequential rounds of anonymous, online questionnaires will be used to identify, rate the importance of, and refine a core outcome set. A consensus threshold will be achieved if at least 70% of the panel rate the measure as critical for inclusion in the COS-OUD. Where consensus is not reached or there are suggestions for new measures, these will be brought forward to a further round of review prior to a consensus meeting. Products from this study will be communicated via peer-reviewed scientific journals and conferences.

DISCUSSION

This initiative will develop a COS for OUD intervention trials, treatment studies, and service delivery and will support the pooling of research and clinical practice data and efforts to develop measurement-based care within the OUD treatment cascade.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1579.

Uptake of core outcome sets by clinical trialists publishing in major medical journals: Protocol

Background: Outcome heterogeneity, selective reporting, and choosing outcomes that do not reflect needs and priorities of stakeholders, limit the examination of health intervention effects, particularly in late phase trials. Core outcome sets (COS) are a proposed solution to these issues. A COS is an agreed-upon, standardised set of outcomes that should be measured and reported as a minimum in all trials in a specific area of health or healthcare. COS are intended to increase standardisation of outcome measurement and reporting to better enable comparisons between, and synthesis of findings of trials in a particular health area.  Methods: This study will examine late phase trials, published between October 2019 and March 2020 (inclusive), in the following five medical journals: New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, BMJ, and Annals of Internal Medicine. Trials will be examined to determine if they refer to a COS, and whether they use a COS. Trialists for each identified trial will subsequently be contacted to complete an online survey examining trialists' awareness of, and decisions to search for and use a COS. Discussion: This study will provide important information on uptake of COS by later phase trialists in major medical journals, and the views of these trialists on COS use in trials. These findings will inform approaches to increasing awareness and uptake of COS in future health trials.

Methodology in core outcome set (COS) development: the impact of patient interviews and using a 5-point versus a 9-point Delphi rating scale on core outcome selection in a COS development study

BACKGROUND

As the development of core outcome sets (COS) increases, guidance for developing and reporting high-quality COS continues to evolve; however, a number of methodological uncertainties still remain. The objectives of this study were: (1) to explore the impact of including patient interviews in developing a COS, (2) to examine the impact of using a 5-point versus a 9-point rating scale during Delphi consensus methods on outcome selection and (3) to inform and contribute to COS development methodology by advancing the evidence base on COS development techniques.

METHODS

Semi-structured patient interviews and a nested randomised controlled parallel group trial as part of the Pelvic Girdle Pain Core Outcome Set project (PGP-COS). Patient interviews, as an adjunct to a systematic review of outcomes reported in previous studies, were undertaken to identify preliminary outcomes for including in a Delphi consensus survey. In the Delphi survey, participants were randomised (1:1) to a 5-point or 9-point rating scale for rating the importance of the list of preliminary outcomes.

RESULTS

Four of the eight patient interview derived outcomes were included in the preliminary COS, however, none of these outcomes were included in the final PGP-COS. The 5-point rating scale resulted in twice as many outcomes reaching consensus after the 3-round Delphi survey compared to the 9-point scale. Consensus on all five outcomes included in the final PGP-COS was achieved by participants allocated the 5-point rating scale, whereas consensus on four of these was achieved by those using the 9-point scale.

CONCLUSIONS

Using patient interviews to identify preliminary outcomes as an adjunct to conducting a systematic review of outcomes measured in the literature did not appear to influence outcome selection in developing the COS in this study. The use of different rating scales in a Delphi survey, however, did appear to impact on outcome selection. The 5-point scale demonstrated greater congruency than the 9-point scale with the outcomes included in the final PGP-COS. Future research to substantiate our findings and to explore the impact of other rating scales on outcome selection during COS development, however, is warranted.

Outcomes Evaluated in Controlled Clinical Trials on the Management of COVID-19: A Methodological Systematic Review

It is crucial that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) evaluate the outcomes that are critical to patients and clinicians, to facilitate relevance, interpretability, and comparability. This methodological systematic review describes the outcomes evaluated in 415 RCTs on the management of COVID-19, that were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, by 5 May 2020, and the instruments used to measure these outcomes. Significant heterogeneity was observed in the selection of outcomes and instruments. Mortality, adverse events and treatment success or failure are only evaluated in 64.4%, 48.4% and 43% of the included studies, respectively, while other outcomes are selected less often. Studies focusing on more severe presentations (hospitalized patients or requiring intensive care) most frequently evaluate mortality (72.5%) and adverse events (55.6%), while hospital admission (50.8%) and viral detection/load (55.6%) are most frequently assessed in the community setting. Outcome measurement instruments are poorly reported and heterogeneous. Follow-up does not exceed one month in 64.3% of these earlier trials, and long-term COVID-19 burden is rarely assessed. The methodological issues identified could delay the introduction of potentially life-saving treatments in clinical practice. Our findings demonstrate the need for greater consistency, to enable decision makers to compare and contrast studies.

Developing a core outcome set for the treatment of pregnant women with pregestational diabetes-a study protocol

BACKGROUND

Pregestational diabetes mellitus (PGDM) is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes including increased rates of caesarean section birth, macrosomia, congenital malformation, prematurity, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit and stillbirth. As a result, there has been an increase in interventions to improve outcomes in both mother and infant. To date, meaningful comparisons between these studies are limited due to heterogeneity in outcome selection and reporting. The aim of this study is to develop a core outcome set (COS) for randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of pregnant women with PGDM.

METHODS

The study consists of three steps. The first step is a systematic review of the literature to assess outcomes reported in randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of pregnant women with PGDM. The second step is a three round, online Delphi survey to prioritise these outcomes. In this step, stakeholders (including women with PGDM, healthcare workers, researchers and policymakers) will be asked to rank the importance of outcomes for inclusion in the COS using a 9-point Likert type scale. Outcomes that meet the inclusion criteria after completion of the Delphi surveys will be brought to the consensus meeting. The consensus meeting will be the third and final step, where the COS will be finalised. The consensus meeting will include members from each stakeholder group.

DISCUSSION

This paper describes the process used to develop a COS for the reporting of studies evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in pregnant women with PGDM. The COS will enable greater comparison between and information synthesis across RCTs in the treatment of PGDM. In addition, this COS will also help improve trial reporting and minimise research waste by prioritising the collection and reporting of outcomes that matter to all relevant stakeholder groups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This COS has been registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative ( http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1425 ) on the 4th of November 2019. The systematic review component of this study has also been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020173549 ).

Core Outcome Sets for Studies of Diabetes in Pregnancy: A Review

Core Outcome Sets (COS) contain an agreed minimum set of outcomes to be measured and reported in all studies in a specific area, with the objective of standardizing outcome reporting. COS may minimize research waste by identifying outcomes important to key stakeholders, allowing for improved evidence synthesis, and facilitating translation of research findings to clinical practice. Over the past 5 years, there has been significant progress in developing COS relevant to studies of diabetes in pregnancy. This review summarizes work in this area, reviews the role of patient and public involvement in COS development, and suggests areas for future research.

COVID-19 Clinical trials: Quality matters more than quantity

Despite the ferment aroused in the scientific community by the COVID-19 outbreak and the over 11,000 papers listed in PubMed, published evidence on safe and effective drugs has not progressed yet at the same speed of the pandemic. However, clinical research is rapidly progressing, as shown by the hundreds of registered clinical trials on candidate drugs for COVID-19. Unfortunately, information on protocols of individual studies differs from registry to registry. Furthermore, study designs, criteria for stratification of patients and choice of outcomes are quite heterogeneous. All this makes data sharing and secondary analysis difficult. At last, small single centre studies and the use of drugs on a compassionate basis should be replaced by highly powered, multi-centre, multi-arm clinical trials, in order to provide the required evidence of safety and efficacy of novel or repurposed candidate drugs. Hopefully, the efforts of clinical researchers in the fight against the SARS Cov-2 will result into the identification of effective treatments. To make this possible, clinical research should be oriented by guidelines for more harmonized high-quality studies and by a united commitment of the scientific community to share personal knowledge and data. Allergists and clinical immunologists should have a leading role in this unprecedent challenge.

Core outcome sets in cancer and their approaches to identifying and selecting patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Issues arising from a lack of outcome standardisation in health research may be addressed by the use of core outcome sets (COS), which represent agreed-upon recommendations regarding what outcomes should be measured as a minimum in studies of a health condition. This review investigated the scope, outcomes, and development methods of consensus-based COS for cancer, and their approaches and criteria for selecting instruments to assess core patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

METHODS

Studies that used a consensus-driven approach to develop a COS containing PROs, for use in research with cancer populations, were sought via MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Library, and grey literature.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria. Most COS (82%) were specific to a cancer type (prostate, esophageal, head and neck, pancreatic, breast, ovarian, lung, or colorectal) and not specific to an intervention or treatment (76%). Conducting a systematic review was the most common approach to identifying outcomes (88%) and administering a Delphi survey was the most common approach to prioritising outcomes (71%). The included COS contained 90 PROs, of which the most common were physical function, sexual (dys) function, pain, fatigue, and emotional function. Most studies (59%) did not address how to assess the core PROs included in a set, while 7 studies (41%) recommended specific instruments. Their approaches to instrument appraisal and selection varied.

CONCLUSION

Efforts to standardise outcome assessment via the development of COS may be undermined by a lack of recommendations on how to measure core PROs. To optimise COS usefulness and adoption, valid and reliable instruments for the assessment of core PROs should be recommended with the aid of resources designed to facilitate this process.

Core outcome set for the management of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the COS-AECOPD ERS Task Force study protocol

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the management of COPD exacerbations evaluate heterogeneous outcomes, often omitting those that are clinically important and patient relevant. This limits their usability and comparability. A core outcome set (COS) is a consensus-based minimum set of clinically important outcomes that should be evaluated in all RCTs in specific areas of health care. We present the study protocol of the COS-AECOPD ERS Task Force, aiming to develop a COS for COPD exacerbation management, that could remedy these limitations. For the development of this COS we follow standard methodology recommended by the COMET initiative. A comprehensive list of outcomes is assembled through a methodological systematic review of the outcomes reported in relevant RCTs. Qualitative research with patients with COPD will also be conducted, aiming to identify additional outcomes that may be important to patients, but are not currently addressed in clinical research studies. Prioritisation of the core outcomes will be facilitated through an extensive, multi-stakeholder Delphi survey with a global reach. Selection will be finalised in an international, multi-stakeholder meeting. For every core outcome, we will recommend a specific measurement instrument and standardised time points for evaluation. Selection of instruments will be based on evidence-informed consensus. Our work will improve the quality, usability and comparability of future RCTs on the management of COPD exacerbations and, ultimately, the care of patients with COPD. Multi-stakeholder engagement and societal support by the European Respiratory Society will raise awareness and promote implementation of the COS.

Core outcomes sets for studies evaluating critical illness and patient recovery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Given the growing body of critical care clinical research publications, core outcome sets (COSs) are important to help mitigate heterogeneity in outcomes assessed and measurement instruments used, and have potential to reduce research waste. This article provides an update on COS projects in critical care medicine, and related resources and tools for COS developers.

RECENT FINDINGS

We identified 28 unique COS projects, of which 15 have published results as of May 2020. COS topics relevant to critical care medicine include mechanical ventilation, cardiology, stroke, rehabilitation, and long-term outcomes (LTOs) after critical illness. There are four COS projects for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with a 'meta-COS' summarizing common outcomes across these projects. To help facilitate COS development, there are existing resources, standards, guidelines, and tools available from the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative (www.comet-initiative.org/) and the National Institutes of Health-funded Improve LTO project (www.improvelto.com/).

SUMMARY

Many COS projects have been completed in critical care, with more on-going COS projects, including foci from across the spectrum of acute critical care, COVID-19, critical care rehabilitation, and patient recovery and LTOs. Extensive resources are accessible to help facilitate rigorous COS development.

Assessing the relevance and uptake of core outcome sets (an agreed minimum collection of outcomes to measure in research studies) in Cochrane systematic reviews: a review

OBJECTIVES

A core outcome set (COS) is an agreed standardised minimum collection of outcomes that should be measured and reported in research in a specific area of health. Cochrane systematic reviews ('reviews') are rigorous reviews on health-related topics conducted under the auspices of Cochrane. This study examines the use of existing COS to inform the choice of outcomes in Cochrane systematic reviews ('reviews') and investigates the views of the coordinating editors of Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) on this topic.

METHODS

A cohort of 100 recently published or updated Cochrane reviews were assessed for reference to a COS being used to inform the choice of outcomes for the review. Existing COS, published 2 or more years before the review publication, were then identified to assess how often a reviewer could have used a relevant COS if it was available. We asked 52 CRG coordinating editors about their involvement in COS development, how outcomes are selected for reviews in their CRG and their views of the advantages and challenges surrounding the standardisation of outcomes within their CRG.

RESULTS

In the cohort of reviews from 2019, 40% (40/100) of reviewers noted problems due to outcome inconsistency across the included studies. In 7% (7/100) of reviews, a COS was referenced in relation to the choice of outcomes for the review. Relevant existing COS could be considered for a review update in 35% of the others (33/93). Most editors who responded (31/36, 86%) thought that COS should definitely or possibly be used to inform the choice of outcomes in a review.

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic reviewers are continuing to note outcome heterogeneity but are starting to use COS to inform their reviews. There is potential for greater uptake of COS in Cochrane reviews.

Obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome: Protocol for the development of a core outcome set

BACKGROUND

Obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) is a common, chronic sleep disease. As the incidence of OSAHS increases, it has seriously threatened people's health. There have been an increasing number of clinical trials of OSAHS in recent years. However, the clinical trials of OSAHS have heterogeneous outcomes, surrogate outcomes, subjective outcomes, and composite outcomes, as well as the lack of endpoints or patient perspectives. The best method is to develop a core outcomes sets (COSs) for OSAHS's clinical trials.

METHODS

The development of COSs of OSAHS will include 5 stages: RESULTS:: The results of our study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

DISCUSSION

The development of the COSs of OSAHS will improve the design and operation of OSAHS clinical trials to conform to international standards and ensure the credibility of the outcomes. In addition, this study will involve different stakeholder groups to help ensure that the developed COSs will be suitable and well accepted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

1544.

A Scoping Review of Constructs Measured Following Intervention for School Refusal: Are We Measuring Up?

Reviews of the effectiveness of interventions for school refusal (SR) rely upon well-conducted primary studies. Currently there are no guidelines for those conducting primary studies about the measurement of outcome following intervention for SR. Most people would agree that it is important to measure school attendance as an outcome but there has been little discussion about other constructs that warrant measurement. To facilitate this discussion and support the development of guidelines, we conducted a scoping review of constructs measured in studies evaluating intervention for SR. We screened the title and abstract of 3,213 publications found in peer-reviewed journals between 1980 and 2019. After full text review of 271 publications, 50 publications describing 51 studies were included. Results address the frequency with which constructs were measured, along with instruments used, informants, and time-points for measurement. Based on the results, we offer guidelines for choosing constructs to measure following intervention for SR and considerations for how to measure the constructs. Guidelines can increase consistency across primary studies, with benefits for future meta-analyses and international comparisons. They also provide support for practitioners contemplating routine evaluation of their interventions for SR. Ultimately, a core outcome set for SR can be developed.

Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for reporting outcomes of management of velopharyngeal dysfunction

INTRODUCTION

Velopharyngeal dysfunction (VPD) is present in up to 40% of patients following cleft palate repair. Children with VPD display hypernasal speech, nasal air emission and are at a high risk for developing articulation disorders. The overall result is decreased intelligibility and acceptability of speech, as well as significant functional and social impairments. Although there are several surgical approaches for the management of children with VPD, standard treatment protocols have not been well defined. There is a need for a core outcome set (COS) to reduce outcome reporting bias and heterogeneity across studies of VPD. The COS-VPD Initiative is an international effort to establish a COS for the reporting of studies of the management of VPD.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study has been developed according to the Core Outcome Set-STAandards for Development standards for the design of a COS study and will be carried out according to the guidance of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative. A long list of clinical and patient-reported outcomes will be identified from a systematic review of the literature. A two-stage Delphi consensus process will be used to refine this list into a COS. An international panel of key stakeholders including patients, parents and multidisciplinary clinical and academic experts will be invited to participate in this process. Consensus criteria will be specified a priori and the steering group will ratify the final COS.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has ethical approval through Children's Health Ireland at Crumlin Research and Ethics Committee, Ref: GEN/683/18. The study is registered with the COMET Initiative (http://www.cometinitiative.org/studies/details/1146?result=true). The COS will be disseminated by publication in the peer-reviewed literature, presentation at international research meetings and distribution to patient-representative organisations. This will facilitate the application of the COS in future studies of the management of VPD.

IMMPACT-recommended outcome measures and tools of assessment in burning mouth syndrome RCTs: an international Delphi survey protocol

Background

A core outcome set (COS) represents the agreed minimum set of domains and measurement instruments that should be measured and reported in any clinical trial for a given condition. In BMS randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the outcomes identified in the existing literature regarding the efficacy of therapeutic interventions are numerous and diverse. Although the standardized IMMPACT core outcome domains has been developed for measurement of outcomes in chronic pain RCTs, no BMS-specific COS have been adopted and validated. With the evolving landscape of BMS management end points and the development of new therapies, a consensus on a COS for use in future BMS trials is paramount to reduce heterogeneity in outcome reporting. The aim of this study was to reach a consensus for adopting the standardized Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) outcome domains, and their tools of assessment, for burning mouth syndrome (BMS) clinical trials and clinical practice.

Methods

A BMS-specific COS will be developed using the method recommended by the Core Outcome Measures in Effective Trials (COMET) initiative (Registration: http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1357). Selection of questionnaire outcome measures was informed by the IMMPACT consensus and previous systematic review of RCTs in BMS conducted by the consortium. An international group of clinicians and researchers will be invited to participate in several rounds of a Delphi survey. A consensus meeting will be held with the objective of ratifying the outcomes for inclusion in the COS. A finalized COS explanatory document will be drafted, including all outcomes and measurements as determined by the Delphi rounds and consensus meeting.

Discussion

A COS for the management of BMS will improve the quality of future RCTs, reduce outcome reporting heterogeneity, and facilitate more vigorous data synthesis of management interventions for systematic reviews and meta-analysis. This would ensure enhanced quality evidence for clinical management of the condition.

Uptake of core outcome sets by clinical trialists publishing in major medical journals: Protocol

Background: Outcome heterogeneity, selective reporting, and choosing outcomes that do not reflect needs and priorities of stakeholders, limit the examination of health intervention effects, particularly in late phase trials. Core outcome sets (COS) are a proposed solution to these issues. A COS is an agreed-upon, standardised set of outcomes that should be measured and reported as a minimum in all trials in a specific area of health or healthcare. COS are intended to increase standardisation of outcome measurement and reporting to better enable comparisons between, and synthesis of findings of trials in a particular health area.  Methods: This study will examine late phase trials, published between October 2019 and March 2020 (inclusive), in the following five medical journals: New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, BMJ, and Annals of Internal Medicine. Trials will be examined to determine if they refer to a COS, and whether they use a COS. Trialists for each identified trial will subsequently be contacted to complete an online survey examining trialists' awareness of, and decisions to search for and use a COS. Discussion: This study will provide important information on uptake of COS by later phase trialists in major medical journals, and the views of these trialists on COS use in trials. These findings will inform approaches to increasing awareness and uptake of COS in future health trials.

Development of a core outcome set for studies on prevention and management of pregnancy-associated venous thromboembolism (COSPVenTE): a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Pregnancy and post partum are times of heightened risk for the development of venous thromboembolism (VTE), which in turn is one of the leading causes of maternal mortality and long-term morbidity. The current research aimed at improving health guidelines for women with pregnancy-associated VTE is limited by inconsistency in outcome reporting preventing comparison across studies, and lack of input from patients with respect to outcomes they propose are most important to measure. A suggested solution is the development of a core outcome set (COS) that defines the minimum criteria for outcome reporting in clinical trials and prospective studies. COSs function to facilitate data harmonisation and increase homogeneity in outcome reporting while incorporating the voice of women in this population in the planning of research to inform their ongoing care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The development of a COS for studies on pregnancy-associated VTE will comprise five steps. First, a systematic review of the published literature will identify currently reported outcomes, their definitions and measurements if applicable. This will be followed by in-person interviews with patients, clinicians, researchers, hospital administrators and policy-makers to identify outcomes they consider important. Third, the long list of outcomes obtained from steps I and II will be condensed through online Delphi surveys involving an international group of relevant stakeholders including patients. This will be followed by a face-to-face consensus meeting with representatives of all stakeholder groups to arrive at a consensus on the final COS. Lastly, to determine how the identified core outcomes should be measured, another literature review and Delphi process will be carried out as necessary.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Mount Sinai Hospital Research Ethics Board (REB 18-0314-E). Study results will be published in open-access journals and presented at obstetrics, maternal-fetal medicine and haematology conferences. All progress will be documented on the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) and Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials databases.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019111479.

Core outcome set for studies on pregnant women with vasa previa (COVasP): a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Vasa previa is a condition where fetal blood vessels run unprotected in the membranes, outside the umbilical cord, and cross the internal opening of the cervix. During rupture of membranes, these vessels can rupture and put the baby at serious risk of severe blood loss and death. Numerous studies are being conducted to improve diagnostic modalities and establish clear management plans to improve pregnancy outcomes. However, the lack of a standardised set of outcomes for studies on vasa previa makes it difficult to compare study findings and draw meaningful conclusions. Through this project, we will be developing a core outcome set for studies on pregnant women with vasa previa (COVasP).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The development of COVasP will involve five steps. The first will be a systematic review, in which we will generate a long list of outcomes based on published studies in pregnancies complicated with vasa previa. The second will involve in-depth interviews with current and former patients, their family members and healthcare providers who care for these patients. This will be followed by a two-round Delphi survey, which will aim to narrow down the long list of outcomes into those considered important by four groups of 'stakeholders': (1) patients, family members and patient advocates/representatives, (2) healthcare providers, (3) researchers, epidemiologists and methodologists and (4) other stakeholders directly or indirectly involved in the management of these pregnancies such as administrators, guideline developers and policymakers. The fourth step will involve a face-to-face consensus meeting using a nominal group approach to establish a finalised core outcome set. The final step will involve measuring and defining the identified outcomes using a combination of systematic reviews and Delphi surveys.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study as well as consent forms for stakeholder participation have received approval from the Mount Sinai Hospital Research Ethics Board (REB number 18-0173-E) on 05 September 2018 and the Human Research Ethics Committee at The University of Technology Sydney, Australia on 30 July 2019 (UTS HREC reference number ETH19-3718). All progress will be documented on the international prospective register of systematic reviews and Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials databases. REGISTRATION DETAILS: http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1117.

Methods used to assess outcome consistency in clinical studies: A literature-based evaluation

Evaluation studies of outcomes used in clinical research and their consistency are appearing more frequently in the literature, as a key part of the core outcome set (COS) development. Current guidance suggests such evaluation studies should use systematic review methodology as their default. We aimed to examine the methods used. We searched the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database (up to May 2019) supplementing it with additional resources. We included evaluation studies of outcome consistency in clinical studies across health subjects and used a subset of A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 (items 1-9) to assess their methods. Of 93 included evaluation studies of outcome consistency (90 full reports, three summaries), 91% (85/93) reported performing literature searches in at least one bibliographic database, and 79% (73/93) was labelled as a "systematic review". The evaluations varied in terms of satisfying AMSTAR 2 criteria, such that 81/93 (87%) had implemented PICO in the research question, whereas only 5/93 (6%) had included the exclusions list. None of the evaluation studies explained how inconsistency of outcomes was detected, however, 80/90 (88%) concluded inconsistency in individual outcomes (66%, 55/90) or outcome domains (20%, 18/90). Methods used in evaluation studies of outcome consistency in clinical studies differed considerably. Despite frequent being labelled as a "systematic review", adoption of systematic review methodology is selective. While the impact on COS development is unknown, authors of these studies should refrain from labelling them as "systematic review" and focus on ensuring that the methods used to generate the different outcomes and outcome domains are reported transparently.

Core outcome set measurement for future clinical trials in acute myeloid leukemia: the HARMONY study protocol using a multi-stakeholder consensus-based Delphi process and a final consensus meeting

Background

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is the most common acute leukemia in adults and has an unacceptably low cure rate. In recent years, a number of new treatment strategies and compounds were developed for the treatment of AML. There were several randomized controlled clinical trials with the objective to improve patients’ management and patients’ outcome in AML. Unfortunately, these trials are not always directly comparable since they do not measure the same outcomes, and currently there are no core outcome sets that can be used to guide outcome selection and harmonization in this disease area. The HARMONY (Healthcare Alliance for Resourceful Medicine Offensive against Neoplasms in Hematology) Alliance is a public-private European network established in 2017 and currently includes 53 partners and 32 associated members from 22 countries. Amongst many other goals of the HARMONY Alliance, Work Package 2 focuses on defining outcomes that are relevant to each hematological malignancy. Accordingly, this pilot study will be performed to define a core outcome set in AML.

Methods

The pilot study will use a three-round Delphi survey and a final consensus meeting to define a core outcome set. Participants will be recruited from different stakeholder groups, including patients, clinicians, regulators and members of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations. At the pre-Delphi stage, a literature research was conducted followed by several semi-structured interviews of clinical public and private key opinion leaders. Subsequently, the preliminary outcome list was discussed in several multi-stakeholder face-to-face meetings. The Delphi survey will reduce the preliminary outcome list to essential core outcomes. After completion of the last Delphi round, a final face-to-face meeting is planned to achieve consensus about the core outcome set in AML.

Discussion

As part of the HARMONY Alliance, the pilot Delphi aims to define a core outcome set in AML on the basis of a multi-stakeholder consensus. Such a core outcome set will help to allow consistent comparison of future clinical trials and real-world evidence research and ensures that appropriate outcomes valued by a range of stakeholders are measured within future trials.

Increasing the Patient-Centeredness of Health Economics and Outcomes Research Through Patient Engagement in Core Outcome Set Development

Core outcome sets (COS) are becoming increasingly popular in clinical research and can provide important inputs for further health economics and outcomes research (HEOR) studies. Use of standard, consistently reported outcomes can demonstrate and allow differentiation of the effectiveness and value of different treatments. Incorporating patient values during COS development increases the patient centeredness of evidence available across decision-making contexts. However, the approach to meaningful patient engagement in the COS process is evolving and poses both unique challenges and opportunities. We describe an approach to patient-centered COS development and discuss challenges and adaptations to improve engagement across COS projects. We provide examples from our experience in patient engagement for COS development using three completed COS projects. This approach includes patient engagement in terms of partnering with patient organizations, orientation and training, and the consensus process. Including COS in clinical development programs and HEOR will ensure that relevant, consistent outcomes are available for healthcare decision making and should result in faster access to high-value and novel therapies for patients. Patient-centered COS development increases the likelihood that further HEOR studies and decisions made using the COS are relevant to patients.

Protocol for the development of a core domain set for hand eczema trials

BACKGROUND

Clinical hand eczema trials measure a variety of outcome domains to determine the success of interventions. This considerably limits the comparability and overall confidence in the study results, and thereby the strength of recommendations for clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

The Hand Eczema Core Outcome Set (HECOS) initiative aims to develop a core outcome set (COS) for the standardized evaluation of interventions in future hand eczema trials and reviews. This COS will define the minimum that should be measured and reported in controlled and randomized-controlled trials of therapeutic hand eczema interventions. The objective of this protocol is to specify the methods to develop a core domain set.

METHODS

In Phase 1, a list of candidate domains will be derived from a systematic literature review concerning previously measured outcomes in hand eczema trials, from qualitative patient interviews and from expert interviews. In Phase 2, a consensus study about core domains will be conducted by an online 3-round Delphi survey and a face-to-face meeting, applying predefined consensus criteria. HECOS involves hand eczema and methods experts as well as patients and further stakeholders with an interest in the initiative.

OUTLOOK

When a set of core domains has been defined, HECOS is going to identify appropriate outcome measurement instruments in a development process that will be detailed in another protocol. The COS will considerably enhance the methodological quality, comparability and usefulness of hand eczema trials for clinical decision-making and the development of new therapeutic options for hand eczema, and also reduce the effort of planning, conducting, and reporting individual hand eczema studies, reviews and meta-analyses.

Core outcome set in paediatric sepsis in low- and middle-income countries: a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Sepsis is the leading cause of death in children worldwide and has recently been declared a major global health issue. New interventions and a concerted effort to enhance our understanding of sepsis are required to address the huge burden of disease, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) where it is highest. An opportunity therefore exists to ensure that ongoing research in this area is relevant to all stakeholders and is of consistently high quality. One method to address these issues is through the development of a core outcome set (COS).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study protocol outlines the phases in the development of a core outcome set for paediatric sepsis in LMIC. The first step involves performing a systematic review of all outcomes reported in the research of paediatric sepsis in low middle-income countries. A three-stage international Delphi process will then invite a broad range of participants to score each generated outcome for inclusion into the COS. This will include an initial two-step online survey and finally, a face-to-face consensus meeting where each outcome will be reviewed, voted on and ratified for inclusion into the COS.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No core outcome sets exist for clinical trials in paediatric sepsis. This COS will serve to not only highlight the heavy burden of paediatric sepsis in this setting and aid collaboration and participation between all stakeholders, but to promote ongoing essential high quality and relevant research into the topic. A COS in paediatric sepsis in LMIC will advocate for a common language and facilitate interpretation of findings from a variety of settings. A waiver for ethics approval has been granted by University of British Columbia Children's and Women's Research Ethics Board.

Development of a Core Outcome Set for Studies on Cardiac Disease in Pregnancy (COSCarP): a study protocol

BACKGROUND

Clinical studies looking at interventions to optimize pregnancy and long-term outcomes for women with cardiac disease and their babies are inconsistent in their reporting of clinical outcomes, making it difficult to compare results across studies and draw meaningful conclusions. The development of a core outcome set (COS)-a standardized, minimum set of outcomes that must be collected and reported in all studies-is a practical solution to this problem.

METHODS/DESIGN

We will follow a five-step process in developing a COS for studies on pregnant women with cardiac disease. First, a systematic literature review will identify all reported outcomes (including patient-reported outcomes) and definitions. Second, semi-structured interviews with stakeholders involved in the care of pregnant women with cardiac disease will determine their perspective and add new outcomes that they consider important. Third, an international electronic Delphi survey will narrow outcomes obtained through the first two steps, in an attempt to arrive at a consensus. Fourth, a face-to-face consensus meeting will deliberate to finalize the COS. Finally, measurement tools and definitions for included outcomes will be determined through a series of literature reviews and Delphi surveys.

DISCUSSION

This protocol provides an overview of the steps involved in the development of a COS that must be reported in studies involving pregnant women with cardiac disease, in an attempt to harmonize outcome reporting and ensure the validity of study results that will not only inform clinical practice and future research but also encourage the development of COS in other areas of medicine. COMET CORE OUTCOME SET REGISTRATION: http://www.comet initiative.org/studies/details/834.

Core Outcome Set for Clinical Trials on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COS-COVID)

Since its outbreak in December 2019, a series of clinical trials on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been registered or carried out. However, the significant heterogeneity and less critical outcomes of such trials may be leading to a waste of research resources. This study aimed to develop a core outcome set (COS) for clinical trials on COVID-19 in order to tackle the outcome issues. The study was conducted according to the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Handbook: Version 1.0, a guideline for COS development. A research group was set up that included experts in respiratory and critical medicine, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), evidence-based medicine, clinical pharmacology, and statistics, in addition to medical journal editors. Clinical trial registry websites (www.chictr.org.cn and clinicaltrials.gov) were searched to retrieve clinical trial protocols and outcomes in order to form an outcome pool. A total of 78 clinical trial protocols on COVID-19 were included and 259 outcomes were collected. After standardization, 132 outcomes were identified within seven different categories, of which 58 were selected to develop a preliminary outcome list for further consensus. After two rounds of Delphi survey and one consensus meeting, the most important outcomes for the different clinical classifications of COVID-19 were identified and determined to constitute the COS for clinical trials on COVID-19 (COS-COVID). The COS-COVID includes one outcome for the mild type (time to 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negativity), four outcomes for the ordinary type (length of hospital stay, composite events, score of clinical symptoms, and time to 2019-nCoV RT-PCR negativity), five outcomes for the severe type (composite events, length of hospital stay, arterial oxygen partial pressure (PaO₂)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂), duration of mechanical ventilation, and time to 2019-nCoV RT-PCR negativity), one outcome for critical type (all-cause mortality), and one outcome for rehabilitation period (pulmonary function). The COS-COVID is currently the most valuable and practical clinical outcome set for the evaluation of intervention effect, and is useful for evidence assessment and decision-making. With a deepening understanding of COVID-19 and application feedback, the COS-COVID should be continuously updated.

Development of a core outcome set for lower limb orthopaedic surgical interventions in ambulant children and young people with cerebral palsy: a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Musculoskeletal deformities and gait deviations are common features in ambulatory cerebral palsy (CP). Deformity correction through lower limb orthopaedic surgery is the standard form of care aimed at improving or preserving motor function. Current research on CP care does not always take into account individual patients' expectations and needs. There is a wide range of outcome domains and outcome measures used to assess outcome from treatment. This can lead to reporting bias and make it difficult to compare and contrast studies. A core outcome set (COS) would enhance the efficiency, relevance and overall quality of CP orthopaedic surgery research. The aim of this study is to establish a standardised COS for use in evaluating lower limb orthopaedic surgery for ambulatory children and young people with CP.

METHODS/ANALYSIS

A set of outcomes domains and outcome measures will be developed as follows: (1) a qualitative evidence synthesis to identify relevant outcomes from children and young people and family perspective; (2) a scoping review to identify relevant outcomes and outcome measures; (3) qualitative research to explore the experience of key stakeholders; (4) prioritisation of outcome domains will be achieved through a two-round Delphi process with key stakeholders; (5) a final COS will be developed at a consensus meeting with representation from key stakeholder groups.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval for this study was granted in the UK by the Oxfordshire Research Ethics Committee B (REC reference 19/SC/0357). Informed consent will be obtained from participants taking part in the qualitative research and Delphi process. Study findings will be published in an open access journal and presented at relevant national and international conferences. Charities and associations will be engaged to promote awareness of the project COS results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

COMET registration: 1236.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018089538.

CORE-Kids: a protocol for the development of a core outcome set for childhood fractures

INTRODUCTION

Limb fractures in children are common yet there are few trials that compare treatments for these injuries. There is significant heterogeneity in the outcomes reported in the paediatric orthopaedic literature, which limits the ability to compare study results and draw firm conclusions. The aim of the CORE-Kids Study is to develop a core outcome set for use in research studies of childhood limb fractures. A core outcome set will provide a minimum set of outcomes to be measured in all trials to minimise the heterogeneity of outcomes reported and minimise reporting bias. A core outcome set ensures that outcomes are reported that are relevant to families as well as clinicians. The core outcome set will include additional upper and lower limb modules.

METHODS

The development of the core outcome set will require four phases to evaluate:What are the outcomes that are relevant to professionals?What are the outcomes that are relevant to families?What are the most important of these outcomes?Which outcomes should be included in the core outcome set?This will be completed through a systematic review of trials to identify the outcomes domains that are relevant to trialists. A series of semi-structured interviews will be completed with families to identify the outcome domains that are relevant to families. These outcome domains will be used in a three-round Delphi Study to analyse the importance of these outcome domains to a range of stakeholders including parents, clinicians and researchers. Following this, the core outcome set will be decided at a consensus meeting.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been awarded HRA/REC IRAS number 262503. Date of approval 06/08/2019. Dissemination will be through scientific literature and international societies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative, registration number: 1274. Date of registration 13/12/2018.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018106605.

Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 5th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research

BACKGROUND

A systematic review of core outcome sets (COS) for research is updated annually to populate an online database. It is a resource intensive review to do annually but automation techniques have potential to aid the process. The production of guidance and standards in COS development means that there is now an expectation that COS are being developed and reported to a higher standard. This is the fifth update to the systematic review and will explore these issues.

METHODS

Searches were carried out to identify studies published or indexed in 2018. Automated screening methods were used to rank the citations in order of relevance. The cut-off for screening was set to the top 25% in ranked priority order, following development and validation of the algorithm. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported the development of a COS, regardless of any restrictions by age, health condition or setting. COS were assessed against each of the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD).

RESULTS

Thirty studies describing the development of 44 COS were included in this update. Six COS (20%) were deemed to have met all 12 criteria representing the 11 minimum standards for COS development (range = 4 to 12 criteria, median = 10 criteria). All 30 COS studies met all four minimum standards for scope. Twenty-one (70%) COS met all three minimum standards for stakeholders. Twenty-three studies (77%) included patients with the condition or their representatives. The number of countries involved in the development of COS ranged from 1 to 39 (median = 10). Six studies (20%) met all four minimum standards [five criteria] for the consensus process.

CONCLUSION

Automated ranking was successfully used to assist the screening process and reduce the workload of this systematic review update. With the provision of guidelines, COS are better reported and being developed to a higher standard.

Development of a core outcome set for myocardial infarction in clinical trials of traditional Chinese medicine: a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Myocardial infarction (MI) is the most dangerous complication in patients with coronary heart disease. In China, there is an increasing number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) for treating MI. However, the inconsistency of outcome reporting means that a large number of clinical trials cannot be included in systematic reviews to provide the best evidence for clinical practice. The aim of this study is to develop a core outcome set (COS) for future TCM clinical trials of MI, which may improve the consistency of outcome reporting and facilitate the synthesis of data across studies in systematic reviews.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a systematic review of MI clinical trials with any intervention. Semistructured interviews will be conducted to obtain the perspectives of patients with MI. The outcomes from the systematic review and semistructured interviews will be grouped and used to develop a questionnaire. The questionnaire will be developed as a supplement for the TCM syndromes of MI and will be constructed from the results of a systematic review, existing medical records and a cross-sectional study. Then two rounds of the Delphi survey will be conducted with different stakeholders (TCM experts and Western medicine experts in cardiovascular disease, methodologists, magazine editors and patients) to determine the importance of the outcomes. Only the TCM experts will need to response to the questionnaire for core TCM syndromes. A face-to-face consensus meeting will be conducted to create a final COS and recommend measurement time for each outcome.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This project has been approved by the Ethics Committee of Dongzhimen Hospital, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine. The final COS will be published and freely available.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

This study is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials database as study 1243 (available at: http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1243).