The COMET Handbook: version 1.0

Development of a Standardised System to Classify Injury-Inciting Circumstances in Football: the Football Injury Inciting Circumstances Classification System (FIICCS)

BACKGROUND

A comprehensive examination of the sport-specific activities and circumstances being performed at the time of injury is important to hypothesise mechanisms, develop prevention strategies and inform future investigations. Results reported in the literature are inconsistent because inciting activities are reported using different classifications. Hence the aim was to develop a standardised system for the reporting of inciting circumstances.

METHODS

The system was developed using a modified Nominal Group Technique. The initial panel included 12 sports practitioners and researchers from four continents with respectively ≥ 5 years of experience working in professional football and/or conducting injury research. The process consisted of six phases: idea generation, two surveys, one online meeting and two confirmations. For answers to the closed questions, consensus was deemed achieved if ≥ 70% of respondents agreed. Open-ended answers were qualitatively analysed and then introduced in subsequent phases.

RESULTS

Ten panellists completed the study. The risk of attrition bias was low. The developed system includes a comprehensive range of inciting circumstances across five domains: contact type, ball situation, physical activity, session details, contextual information. The system also distinguishes between a core set (essential reporting) and an optional set. The panel deemed all the domains to be important and easy to use both in football and in research environments.

CONCLUSION

A system to classify inciting circumstances in football was developed. Given the extent of reporting inconsistency of inciting circumstances in the available literature, this can be used while further studies evaluate its reliability.

Assessment highlights need for improvement in standards of development of core outcome sets for rare genetic diseases

OBJECTIVES

A rare disease is classified as such if it affects less than one person in 2,000. The Core Outcome Set STandards for Development (COS-STAD) is a set of standards that represent the minimum recommendations to be considered in the process of core outcome set (COS) development. The aim of this study was to provide a baseline assessment of COS development standards for rare genetic diseases.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database contains nearly 400 published COS studies according to the latest systematic review. Studies focusing on COS development for rare genetic diseases were eligible for inclusion and were assessed by two independent evaluators.

RESULTS

Nine COS studies were included in the analysis. Eight different rare genetic diseases were investigated. None of the studies met all the standards for development. The number of standards met ranged from 6 to 10, and the median was 7.

CONCLUSION

This study is the first study to assess COS-STAD for rare genetic diseases, and it highlights a great need for improvement. First in terms of numbers of rare diseases considered for COS developments, second in methodology, particularly regarding the consensus process, and third in reporting of the COS development studies.

Partnering with patients and caregivers to enrich research and care in kidney disease: values and strategies

Patient and caregiver involvement broadens the scope of new knowledge generated from research and can enhance the relevance, quality and impact of research on clinical practice and health outcomes. Incorporating the perspectives of people with lived experience of chronic kidney disease (CKD) affords new insights into the design of interventions, study methodology, data analysis and implementation and has value for patients, healthcare professionals and researchers alike. However, patient involvement in CKD research has been limited and data on which to inform best practice is scarce. A number of frameworks have been developed for involving patients and caregivers in research in CKD and in health research more broadly. These frameworks provide an overall conceptual structure to guide the planning and implementation of research partnerships and describe values that are essential and strategies considered best practice when working with diverse stakeholder groups. This article aims to provide a summary of the strategies most widely used to support multistakeholder partnerships, the different ways patients and caregivers can be involved in research and the methods used to amalgamate diverse and at times conflicting points of view.

Strengthening Reporting of Neonatal Trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There is variability in the selection and reporting of outcomes in neonatal trials with key information frequently omitted. This can impact applicability of trial findings to clinicians, families, and caregivers, and impair evidence synthesis. The Neonatal Core Outcomes Set describes outcomes agreed as clinically important that should be assessed in all neonatal trials, and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-Outcomes 2022 is a new, harmonized, evidence-based reporting guideline for trial outcomes. We reviewed published trials using CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 guidance to identify exemplars of neonatal core outcome reporting to strengthen description of outcomes in future trial publications.

METHODS

Neonatal trials including >100 participants per arm published between 2015 to 2020 with a primary outcome included in the Neonatal Core Outcome Set were identified. Primary outcome reporting was reviewed using CONSORT 2010 and CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 guidelines by assessors recruited from Cochrane Neonatal. Examples of clear and complete outcome reporting were identified with verbatim text extracted from trial reports.

RESULTS

Thirty-six trials were reviewed by 39 assessors. Examples of good reporting for CONSORT 2010 and CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 criteria were identified and subdivided into 3 outcome categories: "survival," "short-term neonatal complications," and "long-term developmental outcomes" depending on the core outcomes to which they relate. These examples are presented to strengthen future research reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified examples of good trial outcome reporting. These illustrate how important neonatal outcomes should be reported to meet the CONSORT 2010 and CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 guidelines. Emulating these examples will improve the transmission of information relating to outcomes and reduce associated research waste.

Developing a Core Outcome Set for Prognostic Research in Palliative Cancer Care: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Studies exploring the impact of receiving end-of-life prognoses in patients with advanced cancer use a variety of different measures to evaluate the outcomes, and thus report often conflicting findings. The standardization of outcomes reported in studies of prognostication in palliative cancer care could enable uniform assessment and reporting, as well as intertrial comparisons. A core outcome set promotes consistency in outcome selection and reporting among studies within a particular population. We aim to develop a set of core outcomes to be used to measure the impact of end-of-life prognostication in palliative cancer care.

OBJECTIVE

This protocol outlines the proposed methodology to develop a core outcome set for measuring the impact of end-of-life prognostication in palliative cancer care.

METHODS

We will adopt a mixed methods approach consisting of 3 phases using methodology recommended by the Core Outcome Measure in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative. In phase I, we will conduct a systematic review to identify existing outcomes that prognostic studies have previously used, so as to inform the development of items and domains for the proposed core outcome set. Phase II will consist of semistructured interviews with patients with advanced cancer who are receiving palliative care, informal caregivers, and clinicians, to explore their perceptions and experiences of end-of-life prognostication. Outcomes identified in the interviews will be combined with those found in existing literature and taken forward to phase III, a Delphi survey, in which we will ask patients, informal caregivers, clinicians, and relevant researchers to rate these outcomes until consensus is achieved as to which are considered to be the most important for inclusion in the core outcome set. The resulting, prioritized outcomes will be discussed in a consensus meeting to agree and endorse the final core outcome set.

RESULTS

Ethical approval was received for this study in September 2022. As of July 2023, we have completed and published the systematic review (phase I) and have started recruitment for phase II. Data analysis for phase II has not yet started. We expect to complete the study by October 2024.

CONCLUSIONS

This protocol presents the stepwise approach that will be taken to develop a core outcome set for measuring the impact of end-of-life prognostication in palliative cancer care. The final core outcome set has the potential for translation into clinical practice, allowing for consistent evaluation of emerging prognostic algorithms and improving communication of end-of-life prognostication. This study will also potentially facilitate the design of future clinical trials of the impact of end-of-life prognostication in palliative care that are acceptable to key stakeholders.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials 2136; https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2136.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/49774.

Core outcome set for perinatal interventions for congenital diaphragmatic hernia

OBJECTIVE

To develop a core set of prenatal and neonatal outcomes for clinical studies evaluating perinatal interventions for congenital diaphragmatic hernia, using a validated consensus-building method.

METHODS

An international steering group comprising 13 leading maternal-fetal medicine specialists, neonatologists, pediatric surgeons, patient representatives, researchers and methodologists guided the development of this core outcome set. Potential outcomes were collected through a systematic review of the literature and entered into a two-round online Delphi survey. A call was made for stakeholders with experience of congenital diaphragmatic hernia to review the list and score outcomes based on their perceived relevance. Outcomes that fulfilled the consensus criteria defined a priori were discussed subsequently in online breakout meetings. Results were reviewed in a consensus meeting, during which the core outcome set was defined. Finally, the definitions, measurement methods and aspirational outcomes were defined in online and in-person definition meetings by a selection of 45 stakeholders.

RESULTS

Overall, 221 stakeholders participated in the Delphi survey and 198 completed both rounds. Fifty outcomes met the consensus criteria and were discussed and rescored by 78 stakeholders in the breakout meetings. During the consensus meeting, 93 stakeholders agreed eventually on eight outcomes, which constituted the core outcome set. Maternal and obstetric outcomes included maternal morbidity related to the intervention and gestational age at delivery. Fetal outcomes included intrauterine demise, interval between intervention and delivery and change in lung size in utero around the time of the intervention. Neonatal outcomes included neonatal mortality, pulmonary hypertension and use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Definitions and measurement methods were formulated by 45 stakeholders, who also added three aspirational outcomes: duration of invasive ventilation, duration of oxygen supplementation and use of pulmonary vasodilators at discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed with relevant stakeholders a core outcome set for studies evaluating perinatal interventions in congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Its implementation should facilitate the comparison and combination of trial results, enabling future research to better guide clinical practice. © 2023 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Development of a risk prediction tool for patients with locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer undergoing pelvic exenteration: protocol for a mixed-methods study

INTRODUCTION

Pelvic exenteration (PE) surgery represents the only potentially curative treatment option for patients with locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer (LARRC). Given the potential morbidity, whether or not PE should be recommended for an individual patient presents a major decisional conflict. This study aims to identify the outcomes of PE for which there is consensus among patients, carers and clinicians regarding their importance in guiding treatment decision-making, and to develop a risk prediction tool which predicts these outcomes.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study will be conducted at a specialist PE centre, and employ a mixed-methods study design, divided into three distinct phases. In phase 1, outcomes of PE will be identified through a comprehensive systematic review of the literature (phase 1a), followed by exploration of the experiences of individuals who have undergone PE for LARRC and their carers (phase 1b, target sample size 10-20 patients and 5-10 carers). In phase 2, a survey of patients, their carers and clinicians will be conducted using Delphi methodology to explore consensus around the outcomes of highest priority and the level of influence each outcome should have on treatment decision-making. In phase 3 a, risk prediction tool will be developed using data from a single PE referral centre (estimated sample size 500 patients) to predict priority outcomes using multivariate modelling, and externally validated using data from an international PE collaboration.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been granted for phases 1 and 2 (X22-0422 and 2022/ETH02659) and for maintenance of the database used in phase 3 (X13-0283 and HREC/13/RPAH/504). Informed consent will be obtained from participants in phases 1b and 2; a waiver of consent for secondary use of data in phase 3 will be sought. Study results will be submitted for publication in international and/or national peer reviewed journals.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022351909.

Evaluation of randomized controlled trials: a primer and tutorial for mental health researchers

BACKGROUND

Considered one of the highest levels of evidence, results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) remain an essential building block in mental health research. They are frequently used to confirm that an intervention "works" and to guide treatment decisions. Given their importance in the field, it is concerning that the quality of many RCT evaluations in mental health research remains poor. Common errors range from inadequate missing data handling and inappropriate analyses (e.g., baseline randomization tests or analyses of within-group changes) to unduly interpretations of trial results and insufficient reporting. These deficiencies pose a threat to the robustness of mental health research and its impact on patient care. Many of these issues may be avoided in the future if mental health researchers are provided with a better understanding of what constitutes a high-quality RCT evaluation.

METHODS

In this primer article, we give an introduction to core concepts and caveats of clinical trial evaluations in mental health research. We also show how to implement current best practices using open-source statistical software.

RESULTS

Drawing on Rubin's potential outcome framework, we describe that RCTs put us in a privileged position to study causality by ensuring that the potential outcomes of the randomized groups become exchangeable. We discuss how missing data can threaten the validity of our results if dropouts systematically differ from non-dropouts, introduce trial estimands as a way to co-align analyses with the goals of the evaluation, and explain how to set up an appropriate analysis model to test the treatment effect at one or several assessment points. A novice-friendly tutorial is provided alongside this primer. It lays out concepts in greater detail and showcases how to implement techniques using the statistical software R, based on a real-world RCT dataset.

DISCUSSION

Many problems of RCTs already arise at the design stage, and we examine some avoidable and unavoidable "weak spots" of this design in mental health research. For instance, we discuss how lack of prospective registration can give way to issues like outcome switching and selective reporting, how allegiance biases can inflate effect estimates, review recommendations and challenges in blinding patients in mental health RCTs, and describe problems arising from underpowered trials. Lastly, we discuss why not all randomized trials necessarily have a limited external validity and examine how RCTs relate to ongoing efforts to personalize mental health care.

Development of a Core Outcome Set for the research and assessment of inoperable malignant bowel obstruction

BACKGROUND

Malignant bowel obstruction is experienced by 15% of people with advanced cancer, preventing them from eating and drinking and causing pain, nausea and vomiting. Surgery is not always appropriate. Management options include tube or stent drainage of intestinal contents and symptom control using medication. Published literature describing palliative interventions uses a broad range of outcome measures, few of which are patient-relevant. This hinders evidence synthesis, and fails to consider the perspectives of people undergoing treatment.

AIMS

To develop a Core Outcome Set for the assessment of inoperable malignant bowel obstruction with clinician, patient and caregiver involvement, using COMET methodology (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials).

METHODS

A systematic review of clinical trials and observational studies, a rapid review of the qualitative literature and in-depth patient and clinician interviews were conducted to identify a comprehensive list of outcomes. Outcomes were compared and consolidated by the study Steering Group and Patient and Public Involvement contributors, and presented to an international clinical Expert Panel for review. Outcomes from the finalised list were rated for importance in a three-round international Delphi process: results of two survey rounds were circulated to respondents, and two separate consensus meetings were conducted with clinicians and with patients and caregivers via virtual conferencing, using live polling to reach agreement on a Core Outcome Set.

RESULTS

130 unique outcomes were identified. Following the independent Expert Panel review, 82 outcomes were taken into round 1 of the Delphi survey; 24 outcomes reached criteria for critical importance across all stakeholder groups and none reached criteria for dropping. All outcomes rated critically important were taken forward for re-rating in round 2 and all other outcomes dropped. In round 2, all outcomes were voted critically important by at least one stakeholder group. Round 2 outcomes were presented again at online consensus meetings, categorised as high ranking (n = 9), middle ranking (n = 7) or low ranking (n = 8). Stakeholders reached agreement on 16 core outcomes across four key domains: Symptom control, Life impact, Treatment outcomes, and Communication and patient preferences.

CONCLUSION

Use of this Core Outcome Set can help to address current challenges in making sense of the evidence around treatment for inoperable malignant bowel obstruction to date, and underpin a more robust future approach. Clearer communication and an honest understanding between all stakeholders will help to provide a basis for responsible decision-making in this distressing situation in clinical practice.

The development of a core outcome set for studies of pregnant women with multimorbidity

BACKGROUND

Heterogeneity in reported outcomes can limit the synthesis of research evidence. A core outcome set informs what outcomes are important and should be measured as a minimum in all future studies. We report the development of a core outcome set applicable to observational and interventional studies of pregnant women with multimorbidity.

METHODS

We developed the core outcome set in four stages: (i) a systematic literature search, (ii) three focus groups with UK stakeholders, (iii) two rounds of Delphi surveys with international stakeholders and (iv) two international virtual consensus meetings. Stakeholders included women with multimorbidity and experience of pregnancy in the last 5 years, or are planning a pregnancy, their partners, health or social care professionals and researchers. Study adverts were shared through stakeholder charities and organisations.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies were included in the systematic literature search (2017 to 2021) reporting 185 outcomes. Thematic analysis of the focus groups added a further 28 outcomes. Two hundred and nine stakeholders completed the first Delphi survey. One hundred and sixteen stakeholders completed the second Delphi survey where 45 outcomes reached Consensus In (≥70% of all participants rating an outcome as Critically Important). Thirteen stakeholders reviewed 15 Borderline outcomes in the first consensus meeting and included seven additional outcomes. Seventeen stakeholders reviewed these 52 outcomes in a second consensus meeting, the threshold was ≥80% of all participants voting for inclusion. The final core outcome set included 11 outcomes. The five maternal outcomes were as follows: maternal death, severe maternal morbidity, change in existing long-term conditions (physical and mental), quality and experience of care and development of new mental health conditions. The six child outcomes were as follows: survival of baby, gestational age at birth, neurodevelopmental conditions/impairment, quality of life, birth weight and separation of baby from mother for health care needs.

CONCLUSIONS

Multimorbidity in pregnancy is a new and complex clinical research area. Following a rigorous process, this complexity was meaningfully reduced to a core outcome set that balances the views of a diverse stakeholder group.

Developing a Core Outcome Set for Assessing Clinical Safety Outcomes of Prostate Cancer in Clinical Trials of Traditional Chinese Medicine: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Among the common malignant tumors in men worldwide, the incidence of prostate cancer ranks second to lung cancer. This disease will bring an economic burden to patients and their families and can reduce the quality of life of patients. Researchers have conducted numerous clinical trials on the efficacy and safety of different interventions in the treatment of prostate cancer with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) combined with standard treatment regimens. However, the currently published clinical trials exhibit inconsistent and irregular reporting of outcome measures.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this paper is to emphasize the need for a core outcome set (COS) to facilitate future prostate cancer research, aiming to improve the quality of trials and generate high-quality evidence.

METHODS

This mixed methods project has three phases, as follows: (1) a scoping review of the literature to identify outcomes that have been reported in clinical trials and systematic reviews of interventions involving TCM for the treatment of prostate cancer as well as a qualitative component using interviews to obtain the views of patients with prostate cancer, their families, and their caregivers who have a history of TCM treatment; (2) a Delphi survey among stakeholders to prioritize the core outcomes-Participants will include traditional Chinese and Western medicine clinicians in prostate cancer-related directions, nurses, and methodology experts who will participate in 2 rounds of the Delphi method expert consultation to score each outcome in the list of outcome indicators; and (3) a face-to-face consensus meeting to discuss and agree on the final COS for the application of TCM in the treatment of prostate cancer.

RESULTS

The protocol has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022356184) before the start of the review process, and we will initiate the review on August 1, 2023; results should be expected by September 1, 2023. The Delphi survey among stakeholders is expected to start in October 2023.

CONCLUSIONS

The development of a core outcome set for assessing clinical safety outcomes of prostate cancer in clinical trials of TCM will provide a significant first step to assist Chinese doctors, researchers, and policy makers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022356184; https://tinyurl.com/ysakz74r.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/46794.

Vaginal birth core information set: study protocol for a Delphi study to achieve a consensus on a 'core information set' for vaginal birth

INTRODUCTION

Studies have shown that women are often underinformed about potential benefits and risks of vaginal birth. This is in contrast to other modes of birth, such as caesarean birth, for which the risks/benefits are often conveyed prior to undergoing the procedure. A core information set (CIS) is an agreed set of information points that should be discussed with all patients prior to undergoing a procedure or intervention. This CIS could improve the quality of information given regarding mode of birth options, as women will be given information prioritised by patients and stakeholders regarding vaginal birth, empowering them to make informed decisions about their birth. We aim to describe the protocol for the development of this vaginal birth CIS.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will develop the CIS by: (1) Compiling a 'long-list' of information points about vaginal birth by: undertaking a scoping review of studies and patient information leaflets; interviews with antenatal/postnatal women, an online survey of stakeholders. (2) Collating the 'long-list' of information points and developing the Delphi survey. Think-aloud interviews will refine the survey. (3) Conducting a two-round Delphi survey. 200 stakeholder participants will be recruited. Items rated critically important by ≥80% of participants in one stakeholder group, or with no consensus, will be carried through to a stakeholder consensus meeting to decide the final CIS. Planned start date is 1 June 2022. Planned end date is 31 August 2023.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This project has been given a favourable ethics opinion by the University of Bristol Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 10530). Approval from the ethics committee will be sought for any protocol amendments, and the principal investigator will be responsible for these changes. Findings will be presented at relevant conferences and published in a high-impact journal. We will disseminate the CIS, via Policy Bristol, to clinical policy and guideline developers.

Living with foot and ankle disorders in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: A systematic review of qualitative studies to inform the work of the OMERACT Foot and Ankle Working Group

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine outcome domains of importance to patients living with foot and ankle disorders in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), by exploring the symptoms and impact of these disorders reported in existing qualitative studies.

METHODS

Six databases were searched from inception to March 2022. Studies were included if they used qualitative interview or focus group methods, were published in English, and involved participants living with RMDs (inflammatory arthritis, osteoarthritis, crystal arthropathies, connective tissue diseases, and musculoskeletal conditions in the absence of systemic disease) who had experienced foot and ankle problems. Quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative tool and confidence in the findings was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) approach. All data from the results section of included studies were extracted, coded and synthesised to develop themes.

RESULTS

Of 1,443 records screened, 34 studies were included, with a total of 503 participants. Studies included participants with rheumatoid arthritis (n = 18), osteoarthritis (n = 5), gout (n = 3), psoriatic arthritis (n = 1), lupus (n = 1), posterior tibial tendon dysfunction (n = 1), plantar heel pain (n = 1), Achilles tendonitis (n = 1), and a mixed population (n = 3), who live with foot and ankle disorders. Seven descriptive themes were generated from the thematic synthesis: pain, change in appearance, activity limitations, social isolation, work disruption, financial burden and emotional impact. Descriptive themes were inductively analysed further to construct analytical themes relating to potential outcome domains of importance to patients. Foot or ankle pain was the predominant symptom experienced by patients across all RMDs explored in this review. Based on grading of the evidence, we had moderate confidence that most of the review findings represented the experiences of patients with foot and ankle disorders in RMDs.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings indicate that foot and ankle disorders impact on multiple areas of patients' lives, and patients' experiences are similar regardless of the RMD. This study will inform the development of a core domain set for future foot and ankle research and are also useful for clinicians, helping to focus clinical appointments and measurement of outcomes within clinical practice.

Characterization of controlled trials on probiotic supplementation to dairy calves: A scoping review

The objective of this scoping review was to identify, describe, and characterize the literature on probiotic supplementation in dairy calves. Eligible studies were nonrandomized, quasi-randomized and randomized controlled trials in English, Spanish, or Portuguese that evaluated the effect of probiotic supplementation on growth and health of dairy calves. The search strategies were based on a modification of the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) framework and used synonyms and words related to "dairy calves" (population), "probiotics" (intervention), and "growth and health measurements" (outcomes). No restrictions for publication year or language were applied. Searches were conducted in Biosis, CAB Abstracts, Medline, Scopus, and the Dissertations and Theses Database. In total, the search identified 4,467 records, of which 103 studies (110 controlled trials) met the inclusion criteria. The studies were published between 1980 and 2021 and originated from 28 countries. Trials were randomized (80.0%), nonrandomized (16.4%), and quasi-randomized (3.6%), ranging in sample size from 5 to 1,801 dairy calves (mode = 24; average = 64). Enrolled calves were frequently Holstein (74.5%), males (43.6%), and younger than 15 d at the beginning of probiotic supplementation (71.8%). Often, trials were conducted in research facilities (47.3%). Trials evaluated probiotics with single or multiple species of the same genus: Lactobacillus (26.4%), Saccharomyces (15.4%), Bacillus (10.0%), Enterococcus (3.6%), or multiple species of various genera (31.8%). Eight trials did not report the probiotic species used. Lactobacillus acidophilus and Enterococcus faecium were the species most supplemented to calves. The duration of probiotic supplementation ranged from 1 to 462 d (mode = 56; average = 50). In trials with a constant dose, it ranged from 4.0 × 106 to 3.7 × 1011 cfu/calf per day. Most probiotics were administered mixed solely into feed (88.5%; whole milk, milk replacer, starter, or total mixed ration) and less frequently orally as a drench or oral paste (7.9%). Most trials evaluated weight gain (88.2%) as a growth indicator and fecal consistency score (64.5%) as a health indicator. Our scoping review summarizes the breadth of controlled trials evaluating probiotic supplementation in dairy calves. Differences in intervention design (mode of probiotic administration, dose, and duration of probiotic supplementation) and outcomes evaluation (type and methods) justify future efforts toward standardized guidelines in clinical trials.

Key outcomes for reporting in studies of pregnant women with multiple long-term conditions: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Maternal multiple long-term conditions are associated with adverse outcomes for mother and child. We conducted a qualitative study to inform a core outcome set for studies of pregnant women with multiple long-term conditions.

METHODS

Women with two or more pre-existing long-term physical or mental health conditions, who had been pregnant in the last five years or planning a pregnancy, their partners and health care professionals were eligible. Recruitment was through social media, patients and health care professionals' organisations and personal contacts. Participants who contacted the study team were purposively sampled for maximum variation. Three virtual focus groups were conducted from December 2021 to March 2022 in the United Kingdom: (i) health care professionals (n = 8), (ii) women with multiple long-term conditions (n = 6), and (iii) women with multiple long-term conditions (n = 6) and partners (n = 2). There was representation from women with 20 different physical health conditions and four mental health conditions; health care professionals from obstetrics, obstetric/maternal medicine, midwifery, neonatology, perinatal psychiatry, and general practice. Participants were asked what outcomes should be reported in all studies of pregnant women with multiple long-term conditions. Inductive thematic analysis was conducted. Outcomes identified in the focus groups were mapped to those identified in a systematic literature search in the core outcome set development.

RESULTS

The focus groups identified 63 outcomes, including maternal (n = 43), children's (n = 16) and health care utilisation (n = 4) outcomes. Twenty-eight outcomes were new when mapped to the systematic literature search. Outcomes considered important were generally similar across stakeholder groups. Women emphasised outcomes related to care processes, such as information sharing when transitioning between health care teams and stages of pregnancy (continuity of care). Both women and partners wanted to be involved in care decisions and to feel informed of the risks to the pregnancy and baby. Health care professionals additionally prioritised non-clinical outcomes, including quality of life and financial implications for the women; and longer-term outcomes, such as children's developmental outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings will inform the design of a core outcome set. Participants' experiences provided useful insights of how maternity care for pregnant women with multiple long-term conditions can be improved.

Multi-Round versus Real-Time Delphi survey approach for achieving consensus in the COHESION core outcome set: a randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Delphi surveys are commonly used to prioritise critical outcomes in core outcome set (COS) development. This trial aims to compare a three-round (Multi-Round) Delphi (MRD) with a Real-Time Delphi (RTD) in the prioritisation of outcomes for inclusion in a COS for neonatal encephalopathy treatments and explore whether 'feedback', 'iteration', and 'initial condition' effects may occur in the two survey methods.

METHODS

We recruited 269 participants (parents/caregivers, healthcare providers and researchers/academics) of which 222 were randomised to either the MRD or the RTD. We investigated the outcomes prioritised in each survey and the 'feedback', 'iteration', and 'initial condition' effects to identify differences between the two survey methods.

RESULTS

In the RTD, n = 92 participants (83%) fully completed the survey. In the MRD, n = 60 participants (54%) completed all three rounds. Of the 92 outcomes presented, 26 (28%) were prioritised differently between the RTD and MRD. Significantly fewer participants amended their scores when shown stakeholder responses in the RTD compared to the MRD ('feedback effect'). The 'iteration effect' analysis found most experts appeared satisfied with their initial ratings in the RTD and did not amend their scores following stakeholder response feedback. Where they did amend their scores, ratings were amended substantially, suggesting greater convergence. Variance in scores reduced with subsequent rounds of the MRD ('iteration effect'). Whilst most participants did not change their initial scores in the RTD, of those that did, later recruits tended to align their final score more closely to the group mean final score than earlier recruits (an 'initial condition' effect).

CONCLUSION

The feedback effect differed between the two Delphi methods but the magnitude of this difference was small and likely due to the large number of observations rather than because of a meaningfully large difference. It did not appear to be advantageous to require participants to engage in three rounds of a survey due to the low change in scores. Larger drop-out through successive rounds in the MRD, together with a lesser convergence of scores and longer time to completion, indicate considerable benefits of the RTD approach.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04471103. Registered on 14 July 2020.

Heterogeneity of reported outcomes in epidermolysis bullosa clinical research: a scoping review as a first step towards outcome harmonization

BACKGROUND

Epidermolysis bullosa (EB) is a rare, genetically and clinically heterogeneous group of skin fragility disorders. No cure is currently available, but many novel and repurposed treatments are upcoming. For adequate evaluation and comparison of clinical studies in EB, well-defined and consistent consensus-endorsed outcomes and outcome measurement instruments are necessary.

OBJECTIVES

To identify previously reported outcomes in EB clinical research, group these outcomes by outcome domains and areas and summarize respective outcome measurement instruments.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in the databases MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO and trial registries covering the period between January 1991 and September 2021. Studies were included if they evaluated a treatment in a minimum of three patients with EB. Two reviewers independently performed the study selection and data extraction. All identified outcomes and their respective instruments were mapped onto overarching outcome domains. The outcome domains were stratified according to subgroups of EB type, age group, intervention, decade and phase of clinical trial.

RESULTS

The included studies (n = 207) covered a range of study designs and geographical settings. A total of 1280 outcomes were extracted verbatim and inductively mapped onto 80 outcome domains and 14 outcome areas. We found a steady increase in the number of published clinical trials and outcomes reported over the past 30 years. The included studies mainly focused on recessive dystrophic EB (43%). Wound healing was reported most frequently across all studies and referred to as a primary outcome in 31% of trials. Great heterogeneity of reported outcomes was observed within all stratified subgroups. Moreover, a diverse range of outcome measurement instruments (n = 200) was identified.

CONCLUSIONS

We show substantial heterogeneity in reported outcomes and outcome measurement instruments in EB clinical research over the past 30 years. This review is the first step towards harmonization of outcomes in EB, which is necessary to expedite the clinical translation of novel treatments for patients with EB.

The core outcomes for open lower limb fracture study

Aims

A core outcome set for adult, open lower limb fracture has been established consisting of 'Walking, gait and mobility', 'Being able to return to life roles', 'Pain or discomfort', and 'Quality of life'. This study aims to identify which outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) should be recommended to measure each core outcome.

Methods

A systematic review and quality assessment were conducted to identify existing instruments with evidence of good measurement properties in the open lower limb fracture population for each core outcome. Additionally, shortlisting criteria were developed to identify suitable instruments not validated in the target population. Candidate instruments were presented, discussed, and voted on at a consensus meeting of key stakeholders.

Results

The Wales Lower Limb Trauma Recovery scale was identified, demonstrating validation evidence in the target population. In addition, ten candidate OMIs met the shortlisting criteria. Six patients, eight healthcare professionals, and 11 research methodologists attended the consensus meeting. Consensus was achieved for the EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) to measure 'Quality of life' and 'Walking, gait and mobility' in future research trials, audit, and clinical assessment, respectively. No instrument met consensus criteria to measure 'Being able to return to life roles' and 'Pain or discomfort'. However, the EQ-5D-5L was found to demonstrate good face validity and could also be used pragmatically to measure these two outcomes, accepting limitations in sensitivity.

Conclusion

This study recommends the LEFS and EQ-5D-5L to measure the core outcome set for adult open lower limb fracture.

A systematic review of studies reporting the development of core outcome sets for use in routine care

OBJECTIVES

Core outcome sets (COS) represent the minimum health outcomes to be measured for a given health condition. Interest is growing in using COS within routine care to support delivery of patient-focused care. This review aims to systematically map COS developed for routine care to understand their scope, stakeholder involvement, and development methods.

METHODS

Medline (Ovid), Scopus, and Web of Science Core collection were searched for studies reporting development of COS for routine care. Data on scope, methods, and stakeholder groups were analyzed in subgroups defined by setting.

RESULTS

Screening 25,301 records identified 262 COS: 164 for routine care only and 98 for routine care and research. Nearly half of the COS (112/254, 44%) were developed with patients, alongside input from experts in registries, insurance, legal, outcomes measurement, and performance management. Research publications were often searched to generate an initial list of outcomes (115/198, 58%) with few searching routine health records (47/198, 24%).

CONCLUSION

An increasing number of COS is being developed for routine care. Although involvement of patient stakeholders has increased in recent years, further improvements are needed. Methodology and scope are broadly similar to COS for research but implementation of the final set is a greater consideration during development.

Irish funder guidance increased searching for, and uptake of, core outcome sets

OBJECTIVES

Assess the impact of the Health Research Board (HRB) Ireland guidance on the uptake of core outcome sets (COSs).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

(1) Information on COS use, searching of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database, and rationale for outcome selection were extracted from HRB funding applications (2) COMET was searched for relevant COS availability at the time of application or developed since (3) principal investigator choices were explored through online surveys.

RESULTS

Out of 187 funding applications, 44% (n = 82) searched the COMET database, and 13% (n = 11) of those found a relevant COS to inform their outcomes. Four applicants proposed COS development. However, 84% (n = 156) of applications had no relevant COS available at the time of submission, as identified by subsequent author COMET search. Among 84 principal investigators who participated in the surveys, 10 (12%) found and used a COS and 19 (42%) of the 45 respondents who did not have reference to COMET had searched the COMET database. A new question in the application form prompted a rise in those reporting a search of the COMET database from 6% to 99%.

CONCLUSION

The study found low COS uptake in funding applications, but a new application question prompted an increase in reporting searches of the COMET database. Funder guidance promoted COS awareness and use, but more efforts are needed to facilitate COS development and adoption in clinical research.

Key outcomes in childbirth: Development of a perinatal core outcome set for management of labor and delivery at or near term

INTRODUCTION

Consistency and relevance of perinatal outcome measures are necessary basics for obstetric research, audit, and clinical counseling. Still, there is an unwarranted variation in reported perinatal outcomes, which impairs research synthesis, validity, and implementation, as well as clinical benchmarking and longitudinal comparisons. The aim of this study was to develop a short-term perinatal (fetal and neonatal) Core Outcome Set to be used in research and quality assurance of management of labor and delivery at or near term.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The methods were guided by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative Handbook. The project was prospectively registered on July 2, 2020 in the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) data base (reference number 1593). A list of potential outcomes was created based on a systematic review of studies evaluating interventions for peripartum management at or near term (≥34 weeks of gestation), including decisions regarding timing and type of onset of labor, intrapartum care, and mode of delivery. The list was entered into a two-round Delphi survey with predefined consensus criteria. Participants (n = 67) included clinicians, researchers, lay persons with experience of childbirth (patient representatives), and other stakeholders. A consensus meeting was held to reach a final agreement.

RESULTS

Response rates were 82.1% (55/67) and 92.7% (51/55) for the first and second Delphi rounds, respectively. In total, 17 outcomes were included in the final core outcome set, reflecting mortality, health or morbidity, including asphyxia, central nervous system status, infection, neonatal resuscitation and admission, breastfeeding and mother-infant interaction, operative delivery due to fetal distress, as well as birthweight and gestational age. Two of these outcomes were suggested by patient representatives.

CONCLUSIONS

The Swedish Perinatal Core Outcome Set (SPeCOS) study involved a broad circle of relevant stakeholders and reached consensus on a minimal set of perinatal outcomes that should be collected and reported in a standardized way in all future studies on management of labor and delivery at or near term, regardless of the specific population or condition studied. This could improve obstetric research, evidence synthesis, uptake, implementation, and adherence, as well as clinical practice, audit, and comparisons in childbirth care.

Patient participation impacts outcome domain selection in core outcome sets for research: an updated systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The importance of including patients, carers, and the public in health research is well recognized, including the need to consider outcomes in health care research that reflect the priorities of patients. Core outcome sets (COS) define the minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in research of a given condition, determined through consensus among key stakeholders. The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative undertakes an annual systematic review (SR) to identify newly published COS to update its online database of COS for research. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of patient participation on COS.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

SR methods used in previous updates were applied to identify research studies published or indexed in 2020 and 2021 (conducted as separate reviews) that report development of a COS, regardless of any specifications relating to condition, population, intervention, or setting. Studies were assessed according to published standards for COS development, and core outcomes extracted from study publications were categorized according to an outcome taxonomy and added to an existing database of core outcome classifications of all previously published COS. The effect of patient participation on core domains was examined.

RESULTS

Searches identified 56 new studies published in 2020 and 54 in 2021. All studies met all four minimum standards for scope, and 42 (75%) of the 2020 studies and 45 (83%) of the 2021 studies met all three standards for stakeholders involved. However, only 19 (34%) of the 2020 studies and 18 (33%) of the 2021 studies met all four standards for the consensus process. COS that involved patients or their representatives are more likely to include life impact outcomes (239, 86%) than COS without patient participation (193, 62%). Physiological/clinical outcomes are almost always specified at a granular level, whereas life impact outcomes are often described at a higher level.

CONCLUSION

This study adds to the body of evidence demonstrating the importance and impact of including patients, carers, and the public in COS development, in particular by demonstrating that the impact of interventions on patients' lives is more likely to be represented in COS that involve patients or their representatives. COS developers are encouraged to pay increased attention to methods and reporting relating to the consensus process. Further work is required to understand the appropriateness and rationale for the discrepancy in granularity levels between outcome domains.

Rehabilitation outcomes for people with lung cancer (UNITE): protocol for the development of a core outcome set

INTRODUCTION

With treatment-related improvements in survival, rehabilitation is essential to improve function and health-related quality of life and manage the high symptom burden associated with lung cancer. Despite this, significant heterogeneity exists in the outcomes and instruments used to evaluate lung cancer rehabilitation programme impact. This study aims to develop a core set of clinically relevant lung cancer rehabilitation outcomes for use in clinical practice.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

An international Delphi consensus study involving consumer, healthcare professional and researcher stakeholders to determine which outcomes to include and how to measure these. Stage 1 (preliminary): mixed methods to develop the potential list of outcomes (1) overview of systematic reviews of lung cancer exercise interventions and (2) focus groups and individual interviews with people with lung cancer. Stage 2: outcomes were grouped according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health domains. Stage 3: to determine priority outcomes for core outcome set (COS) inclusion participants will rate each outcome's importance (one-nine-point Likert scale) over two-three survey rounds. Stage 4: following review by the steering committee, a consensus meeting will be held if agreement on the COS has not been reached.Stage 5: recommendations will be made regarding a single instrument for measuring each COS outcome by reviewing existing resources where consensus has already been reached. Where resources do not exist the quality and feasibility of potential measurement instruments will be appraised, and the Delphi consensus survey and meeting process outlined in stages 3-4 will be repeated.This protocol adheres to the COS-Standardised Protocol statement and will be conducted and reported according to the COS-Standards for Development recommendations and the COS-Standards for Reporting.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval (20/9/22, University of Melbourne ID 2022-24839-32231-3). Dissemination in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.

A joint international consensus statement for measuring quality of survival for patients with childhood cancer

The aim of treating childhood cancer remains to cure all. As survival rates improve, long-term health outcomes increasingly define quality of care. The International Childhood Cancer Outcome Project developed a set of core outcomes for most types of childhood cancers involving relevant international stakeholders (survivors; pediatric oncologists; other medical, nursing or paramedical care providers; and psychosocial or neurocognitive care providers) to allow outcome-based evaluation of childhood cancer care. A survey among healthcare providers (n = 87) and online focus groups of survivors (n = 22) resulted in unique candidate outcome lists for 17 types of childhood cancer (five hematological malignancies, four central nervous system tumors and eight solid tumors). In a two-round Delphi survey, 435 healthcare providers from 68 institutions internationally (response rates for round 1, 70-97%; round 2, 65-92%) contributed to the selection of four to eight physical core outcomes (for example, heart failure, subfertility and subsequent neoplasms) and three aspects of quality of life (physical, psychosocial and neurocognitive) per pediatric cancer subtype. Measurement instruments for the core outcomes consist of medical record abstraction, questionnaires and linkage with existing registries. This International Childhood Cancer Core Outcome Set represents outcomes of value to patients, survivors and healthcare providers and can be used to measure institutional progress and benchmark against peers.

Frequency Of pRenatal CAre viSiTs (FORCAST): study protocol to develop a core outcome set for prenatal care schedules

BACKGROUND

Prenatal care, one of the most common preventive care services in the United States, endeavors to improve pregnancy outcomes through evidence-based screenings and interventions. Despite the prevalence of prenatal care and its importance to maternal and infant health, there are several debates about the best methods of prenatal care delivery, including the most appropriate schedule frequency and content of prenatal visits. Current U.S. national guidelines recommend that low-risk individuals receive a standard schedule of 12 to 14 in-office visits, a care delivery model that has remained unchanged for almost a century.

OBJECTIVE

In early 2020, to mitigate individuals' exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, prenatal care providers implemented new paradigms that altered the schedule frequency, interval, and modality (e.g., telemedicine) of how prenatal care services were offered. In this manuscript, we describe development of a core outcome set (COS) that can be used to evaluate the effect of the frequency of prenatal care schedules on maternal and infant outcomes.

METHODS

We will systematically review the literature to identify previously reported outcomes important to individuals who receive prenatal care and the people who care for them. Stakeholders with expertise in prenatal care delivery (i.e., patients/family members, healthcare providers, and public health professionals and policymakers) will rate the importance of identified outcomes in an online survey using a three-round Delphi process. A virtual consensus meeting will be held for a group of stakeholder representatives to discuss and vote on the outcomes to include in the final COS.

RESULTS

The Delphi survey was initiated in July 2022 with 71 stakeholders invited. A virtual consensus conference was conducted on October 11, 2022. Data is currently under analysis with plans to submit in a subsequent manuscript.

CONCLUSIONS

More research about the optimal schedule frequency and modality for prenatal care delivery is needed. Standardizing outcomes that are measured and reported in evaluations of the recommended prenatal care schedules will assist evidence synthesis and results reported in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Overall, this COS will expand the consistency and patient-centeredness of reported outcomes for various prenatal care delivery schedules and modalities, hopefully improving the overall efficacy of recommended care delivery for pregnant people and their families.

CLINICALTRIAL

This study was registered in the Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness (COMET) database on January 18, 2022, registration #2021 http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2021.

Testing the applicability and additional value of a consultation round after the consensus meeting in the development of two core outcome sets

OBJECTIVES

Test applicability and additional value of a consultation round after the consensus meeting in the development of core outcome sets (COSs).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

In two COS procedures (Core Outcome Set for the prevention and treatment of fetal GROwth restriction: deVeloping Endpoints (COSGROVE) and Definition and Core Outcomes on Hyperemesis Gravida (DCOHG)) that followed the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials methodology, the first round of convergence to consensus among stakeholder groups in an online Delphi procedure was followed by a face-to-face consensus meeting during which a COS was formulated. We subsequently presented the COS to the online panel in a consultation round to confirm that the online panel agreed with the choices made at the consensus meeting, defined as 80% agreement.

PARTICIPANTS

In the COSGROVE Study, there were eight stakeholder groups, and 83 out of 107 participants completed the consultation round. In the DCOHG Study, there were four stakeholder groups, and 96 out of 125 completed the consultation round.

INTERVENTIONS

Adding a consultation round after completing a modified Delphi method with a consensus meeting.

RESULTS

There was a level of agreement of 81% and 84%, respectively, in the consultation round of both procedures. This was above the preset level of agreement. The consultation round yielded additional suggestions to refine COS formulation in one of the studies.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that in two procedures, the online expert panel agreed with the participants of the consensus meeting in these procedures, lending validity to existing COS methodology. Future studies could evaluate whether bringing back the COS for confirmation after the consensus meeting could potentially increase the uptake of the final COS.

How to reach agreement: the impact of different analytical approaches to Delphi process results in core outcomes set development

BACKGROUND

Core outcomes sets are increasingly used to define research outcomes that are most important for a condition. Different consensus methods are used in the development of core outcomes sets; the most common is the Delphi process. Delphi methodology is increasingly standardised for core outcomes set development, but uncertainties remain. We aimed to empirically test how the use of different summary statistics and consensus criteria impact Delphi process results.

METHODS

Results from two unrelated child health Delphi processes were analysed. Outcomes were ranked by mean, median, or rate of exceedance, and then pairwise comparisons were undertaken to analyse whether the rankings were similar. The correlation coefficient for each comparison was calculated, and Bland-Altman plots produced. Youden's index was used to assess how well the outcomes ranked highest by each summary statistic matched the final core outcomes sets. Consensus criteria identified in a review of published Delphi processes were applied to the results of the two child-health Delphi processes. The size of the consensus sets produced by different criteria was compared, and Youden's index was used to assess how well the outcomes that met different criteria matched the final core outcomes sets.

RESULTS

Pairwise comparisons of different summary statistics produced similar correlation coefficients. Bland-Altman plots showed that comparisons involving ranked medians had wider variation in the ranking. No difference in Youden's index for the summary statistics was found. Different consensus criteria produced widely different sets of consensus outcomes (range: 5-44 included outcomes). They also showed differing abilities to identify core outcomes (Youden's index range: 0.32-0.92). The choice of consensus criteria had a large impact on Delphi results.

DISCUSSION

The use of different summary statistics is unlikely to affect how outcomes are ranked during a Delphi process: mean, median, and rates of exceedance produce similar results. Different consensus criteria have a large impact on resultant consensus outcomes and potentially on subsequent core outcomes sets: our results confirm the importance of adhering to pre-specified consensus criteria.

A Foundation for Patient-Centered Core Impact Sets: Key Learnings from Past and Existing Approaches

Despite growing commitment to patient centricity, challenges persist in consistently identifying the impacts of disease and/or treatment that patients report as most important to them, especially across myriad potential downstream uses. Patient-centered core impact sets (PC-CIS), disease-specific lists of impacts that patients report as most important, are proposed as a solution. But, PC-CIS is a new concept, currently in the pilot stage with patient advocacy groups. We conducted an environmental scan to explore PC-CIS conceptual overlap with past/existing efforts [e.g., core outcome sets (COS)] and to inform general feasibility for further development and operationalization. With guidance and advice from an expert advisory committee, we conducted a search of the literature and relevant websites. Identified resources were reviewed for alignment with the PC-CIS definition, and key insights were gleaned. We identified 51 existing resources and five key insights: (1) no existing efforts identified meet the definition of PC-CIS as we have specified it in terms of patient centricity, (2) existing COS-development efforts are a valuable source of foundational resources for PC-CIS, (3) existing health-outcome taxonomies can be augmented with patient-prioritized impacts to create a comprehensive impact taxonomy, (4) current approaches/methods can inadvertently exclude patient priorities from core lists/sets and will need to be modified to protect the patient voice, and (5) there is need for clarity and transparency on how patients were engaged in individual past/existing efforts. PC-CIS is conceptually unique from past/existing efforts in its explicit emphasis on patient leadership and being patient driven. However, PC-CIS development can leverage many resources from the past/existing related work.

Biomarkers of delirium risk in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Delirium is a neuropsychiatric syndrome associated with increased morbidity and mortality in older patients. The aim of this study was to review predictive biomarkers of delirium in older patients to gain insights into the pathophysiology of this syndrome and provide guidance for future studies. Two authors independently and systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Scopus databases up to August 2021. A total of 32 studies were included. Only 6 studies were eligible for the meta-analysis, pooled results showed a significant increase in some serum biomarkers (C-reactive protein [CRP], tumour necrosis factor alpha [TNF-α] and interleukin-6 [IL-6]) among patients with delirium (odds ratio = 1.88, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.637; I2 = 76.75%). Although current evidence does not favour the use of any particular biomarker, serum CRP, TNF-α, and IL-6 were the most consistent biomarkers of delirium in older patients.

Compassionate communities: How to assess their benefit? A protocol of a collaborative study between different countries

Background

Communities and local governments invest in compassionate communities (CCs) a great deal of time, money, effort, and work. However, it is not known whether the CCs are having the effect they are expected to have, so the value of continuing with these initiatives is unknown, and there is a need for a model for evaluating CCs to solve the question.

Objectives

To identify a set of core outcomes or benefits that should be measured to assess the impact of the CCs.

Design

Multiple-methods study involving three communities, each in a different country (Argentina, Colombia, and Switzerland).

Methods and analysis

To identifying the set of core outcomes, which is the first step in developing the CC evaluation model, five phases will follow: online meetings, literature review, fieldwork, Delphi survey, and social transfer. We will involve members of the local communities of Bern, Buenos Aires, and Medellin at three different levels: (1) citizens (e.g. patients, caregivers, and family members), (2) organizations and institutions involved in the program implementation (e.g. health care organizations, churches, non-governmental organizations, and schools), and (3) political and governmental sectors.

Ethics

The study will be conducted following existing international regulations and guidance such as the Declaration of Helsinki. The ethics committee of Pallium Latin America and the ethics committee of the canton of Bern considered our application exempt from the need for approval. Ethics approval in Bern and Buenos Aires is in the process of being obtained. The ethics committee of the Pontifical Bolivarian University approved this protocol.

Discussion

We expect that this project will help bridge the gap in knowledge regarding the measurable impact of the CCs and enhance more CC development.

Beyond image defined risk factors (IDRFs): a delphi survey highlighting definition of the surgical complexity index (SCI) in neuroblastoma

PURPOSE

Preoperative evaluation of Image Defined Risk Factors (IDRFs) in neuroblastoma (NB) is crucial for determining suitability for upfront resection or tumor biopsy. IDRFs do not all carry the same weighting in predicting tumor complexity and surgical risk. In this study we aimed to assess and categorize a surgical complexity (Surgical Complexity Index, SCI) in NB resection.

METHODS

A panel of 15 surgeons was involved in an electronic Delphi consensus survey to identify and score a set of shared items predictive and/or indicative of surgical complexity, including the number of preoperative IDRFs. A shared agreement included the achievement of at least 75% consensus focused on a single or two close risk categories.

RESULTS

After 3 Delphi rounds, agreement was established on 25/27 items (92.6%). A severity score was established for each item ranging from 0 to 3 with an overall SCI range varying from a minimum score of zero to a maximum score of 29 points for any given patient.

CONCLUSIONS

A consensus on a SCI to stratify the risks related to neuroblastoma tumor resection was established by the panel experts. This index will now be deployed to critically assign a better severity score to IDRFs involved in NB surgery.

AFCOS: The Development of a Cryptoglandular Anal Fistula Core Outcome Set

OBJECTIVE

To develop a cryptoglandular Anal Fistula Core Outcome Set: a minimum set of outcomes that should be measured in all studies of cryptoglandular anal fistula treatment.

BACKGROUND

Variability in the outcomes that are reported in studies of cryptoglandular anal fistula treatment hampers systematic evidence synthesis to identify the best treatment.

METHODS

This study followed guidance from the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials initiative and consisted of three stages: (1) generation of candidate outcomes through systematic review of the literature and qualitative patient interviews; (2) prioritization of outcomes by key stakeholders, including patients, surgeons, gastroenterologists, and radiologists in an online Delphi consensus process; and (3) determination of the final Core Outcome Set (COS) in a consensus meeting attended by patients and clinicians.

RESULTS

Sixty-four outcomes were presented in the first Delphi survey round. A total of 191 participants from over 30 countries ranked these outcomes according to their importance in defining treatment success (57.6% surgeons and gastroenterologists, 8.9% radiologists, and 33.5% patients). After two rounds, 53 outcomes were identified as important and discussed in the consensus meeting attended by 10 patients and 12 clinicians. A final 10 outcomes were voted into the COS: clinical fistula healing, radiological healing, recurrence, development of additional fistulas, fistula symptoms, incontinence, psychological impact of treatment, complications and reinterventions, patient satisfaction, and quality of life.

CONCLUSION

The final COS represents an international, multidisciplinary, patient-centered attempt to establish consistency in fistula research, with a substantial focus on patient priorities for treatment.

Development of Core Outcome Sets for trials on the management of Atrial fiBrillAtion in Critically Unwell patientS (COS-ABACUS): a protocol

INTRODUCTION

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in critically unwell patients. New-onset AF (NOAF) affects 5%-11% of all admissions and up to 46% admitted with septic shock. NOAF is associated with increased morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Existing trials into the prevention and management of NOAF suffer from significant heterogeneity making comparisons and inferences limited. Core outcome sets (COS) aim to standardise outcome reporting, reduce inconsistency between trials and reduce outcome reporting bias. We aim to develop an internationally agreed COS for trials of interventions on the management of NOAF during critical illness.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Stakeholders including intensive care physicians, cardiologists and patients will be recruited from national and international critical care organisations. COS development will occur in five stages: (1) Outcomes included in trials, recent systematic reviews and surveys of clinician practice and patient focus groups will be extracted. (2) Extracted outcomes will inform a two-stage e-Delphi process and consensus meeting using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. (3) Outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) will be identified from the literature and a consensus meeting held to agree OMI for core outcomes. (4) Nominal group technique will be used in a final consensus meeting to the COS. (5) The findings of our COS will be published in peer-reviewed journals and implemented in future guidelines and intervention trials.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the University of Liverpool ethics committee (Ref: 11 256, 21 June 2022), with a formal consent waiver and assumed consent. We will disseminate the finalised COS via national and international critical care organisations and publication in peer-reviewed journals.

Technology-Based Counselling for People with Dementia and Their Informal Carers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Information technology can enhance timely and individual support for people with Alzheimer's disease and other dementias and their informal carers.

OBJECTIVE

To review the effectiveness of technology-based counselling interventions for people with dementia and informal carers.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials of remote dementia counselling interventions were included. We searched CINAHL, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and the Web of Science Core Collection (April 2021) in combination with citation tracking and free web searching (October to November 2021). We provide meta-analyses for caregiver depression, burden, and self-efficacy/mastery and structured reporting for other outcomes. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach and the Risk of Bias 2 tool were applied.

RESULTS

We included five randomized controlled trials involving 880 participants. Interventions were provided for carers (four studies) or dyads (one study). Carers were predominantly women and were the spouses or children of people with dementia. Counselling was delivered via telephone or videoconference with two to 23 sessions over 1 to 12 months. Control groups received educational and resource materials only, standard (helpline) services, non-directive support, or home visits. Meta-analysis for our primary outcome, depressive symptoms in carers, revealed no statistically significant effect (SMD -0.15; 95% CI -0.40 to 0.10). There were also no significant effects on burden and self-efficacy/mastery. We rated the certainty of evidence as low to very low and all outcomes at an overall high risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

The effectiveness of technology-based counselling interventions for people with dementia and informal carers remains uncertain. Theory-based approaches are needed for the development and evaluation of these interventions.

Long-term Outcomes After Lamellar Endothelial Keratoplasty Compared With Penetrating Keratoplasty for Corneal Endothelial Dysfunction: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to evaluate long-term outcomes of endothelial keratoplasty (EK) compared with penetrating keratoplasty (PK) for corneal endothelial dysfunction [Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) and bullous keratopathy (BK)].

METHODS

In this systematic review, we searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase up to May 2022 and considered all types of studies addressing our objective. Graft survival at 5, 10, and 15 years was the main outcome.

RESULTS

Fifty cohort studies were included. At 5 years, in FECD and BK, graft survival seemed higher after EK than PK. Two comparative studies showed either a higher 5-year graft survival after EK than PK or no significant differences. Including noncomparative studies, in FECD, the 5-year graft survival ranged from 0.69 to 0.98 for PK, from 0.93 to 1.00 for DSEK, and from 0.93 to 0.99 for Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK). In BK, the 5-year graft survival ranged from 0.39 to 0.91 for PK, from 0.65 to 0.89 for DSEK, and from 0.84 to 0.95 for DMEK. The 10-year graft survival ranged from 0.20 to 0.90 for PK and from 0.62 to 0.92 for EK. The mean 5-year best spectacle-corrected visual acuity ranged from 0.73 to 0.43 LogMAR for PK, from 0.61 to 0.09 for DSEK, and from 0.31 to 0.05 for DMEK. The 5-year rejection rate ranged from 11.0% to 28.7% for PK, from 5.0% to 7.9% for DSEK, and from 1.7% to 2.6% for DMEK.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest a higher 5-year graft survival and better secondary outcomes after EK. Nevertheless, the level of evidence was low.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42021260614.

The development of a core outcome set for clinical effectiveness studies of bordered foam dressings in the treatment of complex wounds

AIM

The aim of this project was to develop a core outcome set (COS) for clinical effectiveness studies of bordered foam dressings in the treatment of complex wounds.

METHODS

The research project followed the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative and consisted of two phases. The first phase prepared the background and process, while the second phase had three steps: outcome list generation via systematic review and qualitative study, Delphi consensus study, and consensus meeting. The study has been registered in the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials database.

RESULTS

The systematic review resulted in 82 outcomes and 20 additional outcomes were obtained during the interviews. After refinement, 111 panellists from 23 countries rated a list of 51 outcomes. In the following consensus meeting, six outcomes were prioritized to be included in the core outcome set. After the consensus meeting, a patient-reported outcome was added to the core outcome set.

CONCLUSION

The COS for evaluating the effectiveness of bordered foam dressings in treating complex wounds includes 7 outcomes: "ability to stay in place", "leakage", "pain", "dressing related periwound skin changes", "change in wound size over time", and "overall satisfaction". These identified outcomes are correlated with contemporary bioengineering testing and evaluation methods for dressing performance, which underpins the need for a close multidisciplinary collaboration to advance the field of wound dressings. The outcome 'overall satisfaction' reflects the impact of complex wounds and their treatment on a patient's daily life. The use of these outcomes is recommended to improve data synthesis and promote evidence-based practice. Future developments in COS development involve creating measurement instruments and relevant endpoints for these outcomes.

Engaging pregnant individuals and healthcare professionals in an international mixed methods study to develop a core outcome set for studies on placenta accreta spectrum disorder (COPAS): a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) disorder is a life-threatening condition that may result in serious maternal complications, including mortality. The placenta which is pathologically adherent to the uterine wall, places individuals at high risk of major haemorrhage during the third stage of labour. Current research reports on PAS disorder outcomes have highly variable levels of information, which is therefore difficult for investigators to aggregate to inform practice. There is an urgent need to harmonise data collection in prospective studies to identify and implement best practices for management. One approach to standardise outcomes across any health area via the use of core outcome sets (COSs), which are consensus-derived standardised sets of outcomes that all studies for a particular condition should measure and report. This protocol outlines the steps for developing a COS for PAS disorder (COPAS).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol outlines steps for the creation of COPAS. The first step, a systematic review, will identify all reported outcomes in the scientific literature. The second step will use qualitative one-on-one interviews to identify additional outcomes identified as important by patients and healthcare professionals that are not reported in the published literature. Outcomes from the first two steps will be combined to form an outcome inventory. This outcome inventory will inform the third step which is a Delphi survey that encourages agreement between patients and healthcare professionals on which outcomes are most important for inclusion in the COS. The fourth step, a consensus group meeting of representative participants, will finalise outcomes for inclusion in the PAS disorder COS.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has obtained Research Ethics Board approval from Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (#2338, #1488). We will aim to publish the study findings in an international peer-reviewed OBGYN journal.

REGISTRATION DETAILS

COMET Core Outcome Set Registration: https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1127.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020173426.

Lived experience-centred word clouds may improve research uncertainty gathering in priority setting partnerships

INTRODUCTION

AO Spine RECODE-DCM was a multi-stakeholder priority setting partnership (PSP) to define the top ten research priorities for degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). Priorities were generated and iteratively refined using a series of surveys administered to surgeons, other healthcare professionals (oHCP) and people with DCM (PwDCM). The aim of this work was to utilise word clouds to enable the perspectives of people with the condition to be heard earlier in the PSP process than is traditionally the case. The objective was to evaluate the added value of word clouds in the process of defining research uncertainties in National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnerships.

METHODS

Patient-generated word clouds were created for the four survey subsections of the AO Spine RECODE-DCM PSP: diagnosis, treatment, long-term management and other issues. These were then evaluated as a nested methodological study. Word-clouds were created and iteratively refined by an online support group of people with DCM, before being curated by the RECODE-DCM management committee and expert healthcare professional representatives. The final word clouds were embedded within the surveys administered at random to 50% of participants. DCM research uncertainties suggested by participants were compared pre- and post-word cloud presentation.

RESULTS

A total of 215 (50.9%) participants were randomised to the word cloud stream, including 118 (55%) spinal surgeons, 52 (24%) PwDCM and 45 (21%) oHCP. Participants submitted 434 additional uncertainties after word cloud review: word count was lower and more uniform across each survey subsections compared to pre-word cloud uncertainties. Twenty-three (32%) of the final 74 PSP summary questions did not have a post-word cloud contribution and no summary question was formed exclusively on post-word cloud uncertainties. There were differences in mapping of pre- and post-word cloud uncertainties to summary questions, with greater mapping of post-word cloud uncertainties to the number 1 research question priority: raising awareness. Five of the final summary questions were more likely to map to the research uncertainties suggested by participants after having reviewed the word clouds.

CONCLUSIONS

Word clouds may increase the perspective of underrepresented stakeholders in the research question gathering stage of priority setting partnerships. This may help steer the process towards research questions that are of highest priority for people with the condition.

Evidence requirements of permanently listed digital health applications (DiGA) and their implementation in the German DiGA directory: an analysis

BACKGROUND

With its digital health application (DiGA)-system, Germany is considered one of Europe's pioneers in the field of evidence-based digital health. Incorporating DiGA into standard medical care must be based on evidence-based success factors; however, a comprehensive overview of the evidence required of scientific studies for their approval is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

The study aims to, (1) identify specific requirements defined by the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (German: Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel- und Medizinprodukte; BfArM) to design adequate studies, proving a positive healthcare effect, and (2) to assess the evidence given for applications permanently listed in the DiGA directory.

METHODS

A multi-step approach was used: (1) identification of the evidence requirements for applications permanently listed in the DiGA directory, (2) identification of the evidence available supporting them.

RESULTS

All DiGA permanently listed in the DiGA directory (13 applications) are included in the formal analysis. Most DiGA addressed mental health (n = 7), and can be prescribed for one or two indications (n = 10). All permanently listed DiGA have demonstrated their positive healthcare effect through a medical benefit, and most of them provide evidence for one defined primary endpoint. All DiGA manufacturers conducted a randomized controlled trial.

DISCUSSION

It is striking that- although patient-relevant structural and procedural improvements show high potential for improving care, especially in terms of processes - all DiGA have provided a positive care effect via a medical benefit. Although BfArM accepts study designs with a lower level of evidence for the proof of a positive healthcare effect, all manufacturers conducted a study with a high level of evidence.

CONCLUSION

The results of this analysis indicate that permanently listed DiGA meet higher standards than required by the guideline.

A Core Outcome Set for nutritional intervention studies in older adults with malnutrition and those at risk: a study protocol

BACKGROUND

Malnutrition (i.e., protein-energy malnutrition) in older adults has severe negative clinical consequences, emphasizing the need for effective treatments. Many, often small, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing the effectiveness of nutritional interventions for the treatment of malnutrition showed mixed results and a need for meta-analyses and data pooling has been expressed. However, evidence synthesis is hampered by the wide variety of outcomes and their method of assessment in previous RCTs. This paper describes the protocol for developing a Core Outcome Set (COS) for nutritional intervention studies in older adults with malnutrition and those at risk.

METHODS

The project consists of five phases. The first phase consists of a scoping review to identify frequently used outcomes in published RCTs and select additional patient-reported outcomes. The second phase includes a modified Delphi Survey involving experienced researchers and health care professionals working in the field of malnutrition in older adults, followed by the third phase consisting of a consensus meeting to discuss and agree what critical outcomes need to be included in the COS. The fourth phase will determine how each COS outcome should be measured based on a systematic literature review and a second consensus meeting. This will be followed by a dissemination and implementation phase. Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) representatives will contribute to study design, oversight, consensus, and dissemination.

CONCLUSIONS

The result of this project is a COS that should be included in any RCT evaluating the effect of nutritional interventions in older adults with malnutrition and those at risk. This COS will facilitate comparison of RCT results, will increase efficient use of research resources and will reduce bias due to measurement of the outcome and publication bias. Ultimately, the COS will support clinical decision making by identifying the most effective approaches for treating and preventing malnutrition in older adults.

Defining Myocardial Infarction in trials of people receiving hemodialysis: consensus report from the SONG-HD MI Expert Working group

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in patients receiving hemodialysis. Currently there is no standardized definition of myocardial infarction (MI) for patients receiving hemodialysis. Through an international consensus process MI was established as the core CVD measure for this population in clinical trials. The Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology Group - Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) initiative convened a multidisciplinary, international working group to address the definition of MI in this population.Based on current evidence, the working group recommends using the 4th Universal Definition of MI with specific caveats with regard to the interpretation of "ischemic symptoms" and performing a baseline 12-lead electrocardiogram to facilitate interpretation of acute changes on subsequent tracings. The working group does not recommend obtaining baseline cardiac troponin values, though does recommend obtaining serial cardiac biomarkers in settings where ischemia is suspected. Application of an evidence-based uniform definition should increase the reliability and accuracy of trial results.

Measures for the Core Outcome Set for Research Evaluating Interventions to Prevent and/or Treat Delirium in Critically Ill Adults: An International Consensus Study (Del-COrS)

To gain consensus on measurement methods for outcomes (delirium occurrence, severity, time to resolution, mortality, health-related quality of life [HrQoL], emotional distress including anxiety, depression, acute stress, and post-traumatic stress disorder, and cognition) of our Core Outcome Set (COS) for trials of interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium in critically ill adults.

Unanswered questions in prostate cancer - findings of an international multi-stakeholder consensus by the PIONEER consortium

PIONEER is a European network of excellence for big data in prostate cancer consisting of 37 private and public stakeholders from 9 countries across Europe. Many progresses have been done in prostate cancer management, but unanswered questions in the field still exist, and big data could help to answer these questions. The PIONEER consortium conducted a two-round modified Delphi survey aiming at building consensus between two stakeholder groups - health-care professionals and patients with prostate cancer - about the most important questions in the field of prostate cancer to be answered using big data. Respondents were asked to consider what would be the effect of answering the proposed questions on improving diagnosis and treatment outcomes for patients with prostate cancer and to score these questions on a scale of 1 (not important) to 9 (critically important). The mean percentage of participants who scored each of the proposed questions as critically important was calculated across the two stakeholder groups and used to rank the questions and identify the highest scoring questions in the critically important category. The identification of questions in prostate cancer that are important to various stakeholders will help the PIONEER consortium to provide answers to these questions to improve the clinical care of patients with prostate cancer.

Pediatric Critical Care Outcomes: State of the Science

Children who survive the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) are at risk of developing post-intensive care syndrome in pediatrics (PICS-p). PICS-p, defined as new physical, cognitive, emotional, and/or social health dysfunction following critical illness, can affect the child and family. Historically, synthesizing PICU outcomes research has been challenging due to inconsistency in study design and in outcomes measurement. PICS-p risk may be mitigated by implementing intensive care unit best practices that limit iatrogenic injury and by supporting the resiliency of critically ill children and their families.

Skin assessments and interventions for maintaining skin integrity in nursing practice: An umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Daily skin care routines are fundamental aspects of clinical nursing practice. Providing skin care, including skin cleansing and application of leave-on products have substantial impact on the prevention and treatment of a number of skin conditions. There are hundreds of individual studies about skin risks, classifications, skin conditions, prevention and treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To summarise the overall evidence regarding 1) risk factors associated with xerosis cutis, incontinence-associated dermatitis/diaper dermatitis, intertrigo, skin tears, 2) the performance of diagnostic tests and/or classifications addressing the severity and/or signs and symptoms of xerosis cutis, incontinence-associated dermatitis/diaper dermatitis, intertrigo, skin tears, 3) the effects of skin cleansing/care interventions for the maintenance and promotion of skin integrity in all age groups, 4) effects of skin cleansing/care interventions for the prevention of xerosis cutis, incontinence-associated dermatitis/diaper dermatitis, intertrigo, skin tears in all age groups.

DESIGN

Umbrella review.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search in MEDLINE and Embase (via OvidSP), Cochrane and Epistemonikos was conducted. Reference lists and experts were consulted for potentially missed reviews.

REVIEW METHODS

Two reviewers screened titles/abstracts and full-texts independently. After rating the risk of bias only low to high overall confidence (AMSTAR 2) and low risk of bias (ROBIS) reviews were included.

RESULTS

Twelve systematic reviews were included. Due to substantial heterogeneity regarding study designs, methods, and outcomes all authors presented findings in a narrative synthesis. The validity and reliability of the International Skin Tear Advisory Panel classification is supported by moderate quality evidence, and the reliability and criterion validity for Skin Tear Audit Research were rated insufficient. Overall, review results indicate that structured skin care programs are preferable to unstructured skin care with classic soap and water for maintaining skin integrity in general, preventing skin tears, and to prevent and treat xerosis cutis and incontinence-associated dermatitis. All reviews focusing on leave-on products for the prevention and treatment of incontinence-associated dermatitis and diaper dermatitis indicate the effectiveness of barrier films or lipophilic leave-on products in adults, elderly people and paediatric care, but could not establish the superiority of any product.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of systematic reviews in the field of skin care is at high risk of bias and should not be used for evidence-based practice. Overall, evidence indicates, that structured skin care programs containing low-irritating cleansers and application of leave-on products are beneficial to maintain skin integrity and prevent skin damage across a wide range of different skin conditions across the life span.

Swallowing outcomes in dysphagia interventions in Parkinson's disease: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

To identify all outcomes, their definitions, outcome measurement instruments (OMIs), timepoints and frequency of measurement applied in clinical trials in oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) interventions in Parkinson's disease (PD). This scoping review is the first stage of a larger project establishing a core outcome set for dysphagia interventions in Parkinson's disease (COS-DIP).

DESIGN

Scoping review.

METHODS

Six electronic databases and one trial registry were searched without language restrictions until March 2022. Bibliography lists of included studies were also reviewed. Study screening and data extraction were conducted independently by two reviewers using Covidence. The scoping review protocol is registered and published (http://hdl.handle.net/2262/97652).

RESULTS

19 studies with 134 outcomes were included. Trial outcomes were mapped to a recommended taxonomy for COSs and merged. 39 outcomes were identified. The most frequently measured were general swallowing-related outcomes, global quality-of-life outcomes and swallowing-related perceived health status outcomes. The applied outcomes, their definitions, OMIs, timepoints and frequency of measurement showed a high variability across all studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The high variability of outcomes emphasises the need for an agreed standardised COS. This will inform clinical trial design in OD in PD, increase the quality of OD trials in PD and facilitate synthesising and comparing study results to reach conclusion on the safety and effectiveness of OD interventions in PD. It will not prevent or restrict researchers from examining other outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The COS-DIP study, including the scoping review, was registered prospectively with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Database on 24 September 2021 (www.comet-initiative.org, registration number: 1942).

National consensus to develop core outcomes for the evaluation of complications from excess weight (CEW) clinics: results of a national Delphi process

OBJECTIVE

In 2021, centres across all seven NHS-England regions were selected to develop pilot clinics with the aim of treating children and young people (CYP) living with complications relating to excess weight (CEW). We led a process to develop core outcomes to enable the evaluation of these clinics.

METHODS

A two-round Delphi process, virtual steering group meetings and two patient representation workshops were used to agree the most important outcomes for both clinicians/allied professionals and representative prospective service users.

RESULTS

A total of 119 clinicians/allied professionals were invited to contribute to the Delphi process: 62 (52%) agreed and completed round 1 and 47 of these (76%) went on to complete round 2. Six young people (age range 13-17 years) and six parents were involved in two patient representation workshops and their experiences fed into virtual steering group meetings, via a representative.There were 44 outcomes assessed in round 1 and 21 outcomes assessed in round 2. There were 16 core outcomes selected: anthropometric, glucose tolerance/insulin resistance/type 2 diabetes, blood pressure, lipid profile, breathing problems, identification of aetiology, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, idiopathic intracranial hypertension, anxiety, depression, self-esteem, quality of life, school attendance, dietary habits including disordered eating, exercise and activity habits.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of an online Delphi process, patient representation workshops and virtual steering group meetings has enabled the development of core outcomes for clinical obesity services with eight physical health, five mental health and three self-management outcomes. Further work is needed to develop outcome measures to complete a core outcome set. These will be used to guide the evaluation of novel regional clinics for the treatment of complications of excess weight.