Methods used in the selection of instruments for outcomes included in core outcome sets have improved since the publication of the COSMIN/COMET guideline

Selection of outcome measurement instruments for a core outcome set for trials aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care: a Delphi consensus study

BACKGROUND

Despite developing a polypharmacy core outcome set (COS) in primary care, it is not clear how these outcomes should be measured.

AIM

To select outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) for a COS targeting appropriate polypharmacy in older patients in primary care.

METHOD

Following the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guideline, OMIs were identified from a Cochrane review focusing on appropriate polypharmacy. The quality of OMIs was assessed using a published checklist. Subsequently, two rounds of Delphi questionnaires were conducted via the SoGoSurvey® platform, engaging stakeholders (researchers, clinicians and journal editors specialising in geriatric primary care) to achieve consensus on OMIs using a scale encompassing "agree", "disagree", or "unsure". Consensus was achieved if 70% or more participants chose "agree" and 15% or fewer chose "disagree."

RESULTS

The quality of 20 OMIs identified from the Cochrane review was evaluated. Seven OMIs were selected based on meeting the COSMIN guideline's minimum requirements. Out of 188 potential participants, 57 (30.3%) consented to participate. Rounds 1 and 2 of Delphi exercises were completed by 50 respondents, achieving agreement on three OMIs: 'number of serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs)' (98%), 'number of deaths' (76%), and 'number of patients who fell' (70%) for measuring 'serious ADRs,' 'mortality,' and 'falls,' respectively. No agreement was reached for 'medication appropriateness,' 'medication side-effects,' 'quality of life,' and 'medication regimen complexity.'

CONCLUSION

OMIs were selected for a limited number of outcomes in the polypharmacy COS. Future research should identify suitable OMIs for the remaining four outcomes.

Identification and Assessment of Outcome Measurement Instruments in Cauda Equina Syndrome: A Systematic Review

STUDY DESIGN

This was a systematic review of surgically managed Cauda Equina Syndrome (CES) Outcome Measurement Instruments (OMI).

OBJECTIVE

A core outcome set (COS) defines agreed outcomes which should be reported as a minimum in any research study for a specific condition. This study identified OMIs used in the wider CES literature and compare these to the established CESCOS.

METHODS

To identify measurement methods and instruments in the CES surgical outcome evidence base, a systematic review was performed. Medline, Embase and CINAHL plus databases were queried. In addition, a secondary search for validation studies of measurement instruments in CES was undertaken. Identified studies from this search were subject to the COSMIN risk of bias assessment.

RESULTS

In total, 112 studies were identified investigating surgical outcomes for CES. The majority (80%, n = 90) of these OMI studies were retrospective in nature and only 55% (n = 62) utilised a measurement method or instrument. The remaining 50 studies used study specific definitions for surgical outcomes defined within their methods. Of the 59 measurement instruments identified, 60% (n = 38 instruments) were patient reported outcome measures. Only one validated instrument was identified, which was a patient reported outcome measure. The validated instrument was not used in any study identified in the initial search (to identify measurement instruments).

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights the wide heterogeneity of measurement instruments used in surgically managed CES research. Subsequently, there is need for consensus agreement on which instrument or instruments should be used to measure each core outcome for CES surgical outcomes.

Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation of the Turkish version of the shoulder instability-return to sport (SI-RSI) after injury scale

To translate and culturally adapt the shoulder instability-return to sport after injury (SI-RSI) scale into Turkish (SI-RSI-Tr) and examine the psychometric properties of the Turkish version of athletes following a traumatic shoulder instability. The SI-RSI was translated into Turkish using Beaton guidelines. Sixty-nine patients with shoulder instability completed the translated SI-RSI, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK), and the Walch-Duplay Scores. We analysed the internal consistency, agreement, reliability, and validity of the SI-RSI-Tr. The SI-RSI-Tr demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.92), test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.95), and feasibility with no ceiling or floor effect. SI-RSI-Tr correlated with WOSI total score (r = -0.824, p < 0.001), its subscales: WOSI-physical (r = -0.683, p < 0.001), WOSI-sports (r = -0.832, p < 0.001), WOSI-lifestyle (r = -0.739, p < 0.001), and WOSI-emotions (r = -0.734, p < 0.001) respectively), Walch-Duplay (r = 0.840, p < 0.001) and TSK (r = -0.828, p < 0.001) scores. The Turkish SI-RSI is a reliable, internally consistent, and valid tool for athletes with shoulder instability. Researchers and clinicians could safely use the SIRSI-Tr to evaluate the shoulder-specific psychological factors on return to sports following an episode of shoulder instability.

Invaluable Benefits of 10 Years of the International Collaboration of Aphasia Trialists (CATs)

Aphasia research has traditionally been considered a (unidisciplinary) niche topic in medical science. The international Collaboration of Aphasia Trialists (CATs) is a global collaboration of multidisciplinary aphasia researchers. Over the past 10 years, CATs has collectively taken a rigorous approach to systematically address persistent challenges to aphasia research quality. This article summarizes the achievements over the past decade. CATs' achievements include: standardizing terminology, advancing aphasia research design by aphasia expert consensus recommendations, developing a core data set and intervention descriptors, facilitating the involvement of people with the language impairment aphasia in the research process, translating, and adapting assessment tools into global languages, encouraging data sharing, developing innovative secondary data analysis methodologies and promoting the transparency and accessibility of high quality aphasia research reports. CATs' educational and scientific achievements over the past 10 years far exceed what individual researchers in the field could have ever achieved.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Development of a Voice Handicap Index for Clergymen: An Investigation of Its Validation and Reliability

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to is to develop a disorder-specific patient-reported outcome measure to be used in Islamic clergymen with voice disorders and to investigate its validity and reliability.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Employing an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design, this study conducted in two phases. Initially, semistructured interviews were conducted with 10 clergymen experiencing voice disorders. Subsequently, the questionnaire underwent rigorous validation, encompassing content, construct, and criterion validity assessments, in addition to test-retest reliability and internal consistency analyses. The index was administered to a sample of 110 male clergy, including imams, muezzins, and Quran course teachers, with an age range from 19 to 61years.

RESULTS

Construct validity was established through factor analysis, resulting in a final 23-item scale categorized into two factors: physical-functional and emotional. Known group validity demonstrated a significant distinction between the study and control groups. Criterion validity reinforced the index's validity, displaying a correlation coefficient of 0.758 between the Voice Handicap Index for Clergymen and the well-established Voice Handicap Index. The questionnaire exhibited commendable internal consistency, with a Cronbach's Alpha (α) coefficient value of 0.971. Test-retest reliability analysis exhibited strong consistency, with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.863.

CONCLUSIONS

It is recommended that the developed valid and reliable handicap index in the present study be included in the voice assessment batteries of Islamic clergymen with voice complaints with the clinical and research purposes. In future studies, the validity of the questionnaire can be investigated more by examining the difference between the Voice Handicap Index for Islamic Clergymen (CVHI) scores obtained before and after treatment. Identifying a cut-off point that discriminates between dysphonic and normophonic clergymen may allow the use of the CVHI as a screening tool for this population.

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

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

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05683795.

Extended-Duration Work Shifts in Surgical Specialties: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

There has been widespread international implementation of duration-hour restrictions to prevent surgical resident burnout and promote patient safety and wellbeing of doctors. A variety of Extended-Duration Work Shifts (EDWS) have been implemented, with a variety of studies examining the effect of shift systems on both surgical performance and the stress response unestablished in the literature.

METHODS

This was a systematic review evaluating the impact of extended working hours on surgical performance, cognitive impairment, and physiological stress responses. The review used PubMed, Ovid Medline, Embase, and Google Scholar search engines between September and October 2021 in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Filters including studies carried out after 2002 and published in the English language were applied.

RESULTS

In total, 30 studies were included for analysis. General surgery was the most commonly studied rotation, with Neurosurgical, Orthopedic, and ear, nose and throat specialties also included. The majority of studies found no difference or a significant improvement in post-EDWS on simulated performance. EDWS appeared to have the greatest impact on physiological stress markers in junior surgical trainees.

CONCLUSIONS

Experience appears to confer a protective element in the postcall period, with preservation of skill demonstrated. More experienced clinicians yielded lower levels of physiological markers of stress, although variability in hierarchical workload should be considered. Heterogeneity of findings across physiological, cognitive, and psychomotor assessments highlights the need for robust research on the optimum shift pattern prevents worker burnout and promotes patient safety. Future research to evaluate correlation between stress, on-call workload, and performance in the postcall period is warranted.

Core outcome measurement instruments for use in clinical and research settings for adults with post-COVID-19 condition: an international Delphi consensus study

Post-COVID-19 condition (also known as long COVID) is a new, complex, and poorly understood disorder. A core outcome set (COS) for post-COVID-19 condition in adults has been developed and agreement is now required on the most appropriate measurement instruments for these core outcomes. We conducted an international consensus study involving multidisciplinary experts and people with lived experience of long COVID. The study comprised a literature review to identify measurement instruments for the core outcomes, a three-round online modified Delphi process, and an online consensus meeting to generate a core outcome measurement set (COMS). 594 individuals from 58 countries participated. The number of potential instruments for the 12 core outcomes was reduced from 319 to 19. Consensus was reached for inclusion of the modified Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale for respiratory outcomes. Measures for two relevant outcomes from a previously published COS for acute COVID-19 were also included: time until death, for survival, and the Recovery Scale for COVID-19, for recovery. Instruments were suggested for consideration for the remaining nine core outcomes: fatigue or exhaustion, pain, post-exertion symptoms, work or occupational and study changes, and cardiovascular, nervous system, cognitive, mental health, and physical outcomes; however, consensus was not achieved for instruments for these outcomes. The recommended COMS and instruments for consideration provide a foundation for the evaluation of post-COVID-19 condition in adults, which should help to optimise clinical care and accelerate research worldwide. Further assessment of this COMS is warranted as new data emerge on existing and novel measurement instruments.

Assessing uptake of the core outcome set in randomized controlled trials for Parkinson's disease: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Parkinson's Disease (PD) affects more than 10 million individuals, with increasing incidence worldwide. As PD's incidence rises, research funding is increasing substantially. PD's core outcome set (COS) provides standardization for PD clinical trial outcomes, improves research quality, and study comparability. Our study aimed to analyze COS uptake rate before and after the PD COS publication.

METHODS

We searched ClinicalTrials.gov to retrieve phase III/IV adult PD trials published between 2013 and 2023. Screening for inclusion and data extraction occurred in a masked, duplicate fashion. Trial characteristics and COS uptake rate were extracted from this sample.

RESULTS

In our 111 included trials, the COS uptake rate was highest for the 'Walking and Balance' outcome and lowest for the 'Hospital Admissions' outcome. Overall, there was a non-significant monthly increase of 0.26 % (P = 0.266, CI = [-0.20, 0.72]) in "COS-defined outcome" measurement when comparing pre- and post-COS publication.

CONCLUSION

Our study found no significant increase in COS uptake in PD clinical trials. We found multiple outcomes to be vastly unmeasured and heterogeneity among the measurement instruments used. These findings complicate standardizing and comparing RCT outcomes. Overcoming these barriers is vital to improving the usefulness of PD research.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Adults and Adolescents With Patellofemoral Pain: A Systematic Review of Construct Validity, Reliability, Responsiveness, and Interpretability Using the COSMIN Methodology

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to appraise the construct validity, reliability, responsiveness, and interpretability of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to assess function and pain in adults and adolescents with patellofemoral pain (PFP). DESIGN: Systematic review of measurement properties LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched the PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to January 6, 2022. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that assessed the measurement properties of English-language PROMs for PFP and their cultural adaptations and translations. DATA SYNTHESIS: Using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology, we determined overall ratings and quality of evidence for construct validity, internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, and responsiveness. We extracted data related to interpretability for clinical use. RESULTS: After screening 7066 titles, 61 studies for 33 PROMs were included. Only 2 PROMs had evidence of "sufficient" or "indeterminate" quality for all measurement properties. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score patellofemoral subscale (KOOS-PF) had "low" to "high" quality evidence for a rating of "sufficient" for 4 measurement properties. The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) had very low-quality evidence for a "sufficient" rating for 4 measurement properties. The KOOS-PF and LEFS were rated "indeterminate" for structural validity and internal consistency. The KOOS-PF had the best interpretability with reported minimal important change and 0% ceiling and floor effects. No studies examined cross-cultural validity. CONCLUSION: The KOOS-PF and LEFS had the strongest measurement properties among PROMs used for PFP. More research is needed, particularly regarding structural validity and interpretability of PROMs. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(8):1-20. Epub: 20 June 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11730.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Adults and Adolescents with Patellofemoral Pain: A Systematic Review of Content Validity and Feasibility Using the COSMIN Methodology

OBJECTIVE: To assess the content validity and feasibility of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to assess pain and function in adults and adolescents with patellofemoral pain (PFP). DESIGN: Systematic review. LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched the databases PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and the Cochrane Library from inception to January 6, 2022. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that described the development or evaluation of the content validity of English-language PROMs for PFP, as well as their translations and cultural adaptations to different languages. DATA SYNTHESIS: Using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology, we determined overall ratings and quality of evidence for the relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility of PROMs. We extracted data related to feasibility for clinical use (eg, administration time and scoring ease). RESULTS: Forty-three studies for 33 PROMs were included. The overall quality of most studies was "inadequate" due to failure to engage stakeholders and/or ensure adherence to rigorous qualitative research procedures. Of all PROMs evaluated, the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Patellofemoral subscale (KOOS-PF), was the only PROM with sufficient content validity components. Quality of evidence for content validity of the KOOS-PF was low. Most PROMs were rated feasible for clinical and research purposes. CONCLUSION: Most PROMs used to measure pain and function in patients with PFP have inadequate content validity. The KOOS-PF had the highest overall content validity. We recommend the KOOS-PF for evaluating pain and function (in research and clinical practice) in adults and adolescents with PFP. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(1):23-39. Epub: 18 October 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.11317.

Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Protocols: The SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 Extension

IMPORTANCE

Complete information in a trial protocol regarding study outcomes is crucial for obtaining regulatory approvals, ensuring standardized trial conduct, reducing research waste, and providing transparency of methods to facilitate trial replication, critical appraisal, accurate reporting and interpretation of trial results, and knowledge synthesis. However, recommendations on what outcome-specific information should be included are diverse and inconsistent. To improve reporting practices promoting transparent and reproducible outcome selection, assessment, and analysis, a need for specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be addressed in clinical trial protocols exists.

OBJECTIVE

To develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for describing outcomes in clinical trial protocols through integration with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 statement.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement was developed by (1) generation and evaluation of candidate outcome reporting items via consultation with experts and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting trial outcomes (published within the 10 years prior to March 19, 2018) identified through expert solicitation, electronic database searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register, gray literature searches, and reference list searches; (2) a 3-round international Delphi voting process (November 2018-February 2019) completed by 124 panelists from 22 countries to rate and identify additional items; and (3) an in-person consensus meeting (April 9-10, 2019) attended by 25 panelists to identify essential items for outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in clinical trial protocols.

FINDINGS

The scoping review and consultation with experts identified 108 recommendations relevant to outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in trial protocols, the majority (72%) of which were not included in the SPIRIT 2013 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 56 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 19 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 9 items that elaborate on the SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the choice of primary, secondary, and other outcomes (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 12) prospectively in the trial protocol, defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups for the primary outcome used in the sample size calculations (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 14), describing the responsiveness of the study instruments used to assess the outcome and providing details on the outcome assessors (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 18a), and describing any planned methods to account for multiplicity relating to the analyses or interpretation of the results (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 20a).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement provides 9 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all trial protocols and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results.

Development of a core outcome set on Traditional Chinese Medicine and for rheumatic heart disease: a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Globally, rheumatic heart disease (RHD) is an important cause of acquired heart disease in children and adolescents. Clinical trials on RHD treatment with Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) or integrated medicine are gradually increasing in China. However, because the outcomes of clinical trials are subject to heterogeneity and selective reporting, similar studies cannot be merged and compared, complicating assessing the effectiveness and safety of TCM, and diminishing the value of clinical trials. Therefore, there is an urgent need to design a TCM or integrated medicine core outcome set (COS) for RHD.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The development of this study will take place in four stages under the direction of a multidisciplinary advisory board. (1) Establishing a comprehensive outcomes checklist through a systematic review of previously published research, retrieval of clinical trial registration centres, patient's semistructured interviews, and clinician's questionnaire surveys; (2) Screen stakeholder groups from various fields to participate in the Delphi survey; (3) Two e-Delphi surveys will be conducted to determine the outcomes of various concerned stakeholder groups; (4) Hold a face-to-face consensus meeting to develop the COS-TCM-RHD.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The ethical approval for this study has been obtained from the Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Ethics Committee (TJUTCM-EC20210008). The findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

This study has been registered at the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database (Registration #1743).

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

OBJECTIVE

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

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Which patient reported outcomes (PROs) and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) do researchers select in stress urinary incontinence surgical trials? - a systematic review

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The mesh controversy has highlighted the need for robust evidence of treatment safety and efficacy, particularly in the surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Current trials demonstrate heterogeneity in outcomes reported as well as outcome measures used, restricting the ability to synthesize data and produce robust research evidence (Doumouchtsis et al. 5). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) should be a focus when evaluating SUI surgery given the quality-of-life nature of this condition affecting 25-45% women worldwide (Milsom and Gyhagen 1). As part of the first step in developing a core outcome set (COS) and measures set (COMS), we aimed to systematically review RCTs evaluating SUI surgery and extract PROs and outcome measures (PROMs) used.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched databases including MEDLINE and Cochrane for RCTs evaluating SUI surgical treatments from inception to January 2020. Eligibility criteria included English language and female-only subjects. PROs and PROMs were extracted and grouped into a structured inventory. PROMs were assigned to domains based on predominant theme.

RESULTS

Of 123 eligible RCTs, 116 (94%) included PROs. Forty-four different PROMs were utilized; most frequent was Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I). Fifteen PROMs were used once. The top five PROMs have evidence of validity and are highly recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no consensus amongst relevant stakeholders regarding PROs or PROMs used in SUI surgery research. We propose that this consensus is required to standardize measurements and reporting and promote use of validated and reliable outcome measures. This systematic review forms the first step in the development process.

A survey of knowledge, perceptions and use of core outcome sets among clinical trialists

Background

Core outcome sets (COS) are standardised sets of outcomes, which represent the minimum outcomes that should be measured and reported in clinical trials. COS can enhance comparability across health trials by reducing heterogeneity of outcome measurement and reporting and potentially minimising selective outcome reporting. Examining what researchers involved in trials know and think about COS is essential to increase awareness and promote COS uptake. The aim of this study is therefore to examine clinical trialists’ knowledge, perceptions and experiences of COS.

Methods

An online survey design was used. Participants were clinical trialists, operationalised for the current study as researchers named as the contact person on a trial registered on the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Trial repository between 1 January 2019 and 21 July 2020. Survey items assessed clinical trialists’ familiarity with and understanding of COS, along with experiences of COS use and development.

Results

Of 1913 clinical trialists contacted to participate, 62 (3%) completed the survey. Forty (65%) participants were familiar with COS and, of those familiar with COS, 21 (55%) had been involved in a trial that used a COS. Of clinical trialists who used COS in a trial(s), less than half (n = 9, 41%) reported that all COS outcomes were used. The main barriers to using COS are poor knowledge about COS (n = 43, 69%) and difficulties identifying relevant COS (n = 42, 68%). Clinical trialists also reported perceptions of COS as restrictive and often containing too many outcomes. The main enablers to using COS are clear understanding (n = 51, 82%) and perceived importance of COS (n = 44, 71%).

Conclusions

Enhancing clinical trialists’ use of all COS outcomes is needed to reduce outcome heterogeneity and enhance comparability across trial findings. Enhancing awareness of COS importance among researchers and funders is needed to ensure that COS are developed and used by clinical trialists. Education and training may further promote awareness and understanding of COS.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05891-5.

In-depth qualitative interviews identified barriers and facilitators that influenced chief investigators' use of core outcome sets in randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate barriers and facilitators to core outcome set (COS) uptake in randomised controlled trials to inform the first steps in developing interventions to improve the uptake of COS.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Semi-structured qualitative interviews with a purposive sample of UK chief investigators were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. Where appropriate, barriers and facilitators were mapped to components of behaviour informed by the COM-B model of behaviour.

RESULTS

Thirteen chief investigators were interviewed. Facilitators to uptake included: the behaviour of investigators, for example, their awareness and understanding of COS; and the wider research system, for example, recommendations to use COS from funders and journals. Barriers to uptake included: the perceived characteristics of COS, for example, increasing patient burden and recommendations becoming outdated; and the COS development process, for example, not including all specialties who will use the COS.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the barriers and facilitators identified, recommendations to improve COS uptake include ensuring engagement with the research community who will use the COS, involving patients in the development of COS and ensuring COS remain up to date.

Development, Validation, and Reliability of the Teacher-Reported Pediatric Voice Handicap Index

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to develop a novel teacher-reported pediatric voice outcome measure and to investigate its psychometric properties.

METHOD

In the first stage, a new instrument, the Teacher-Reported Pediatric Voice Handicap Index (TRPVHI), was developed. After item generation, a panel of experts evaluated the items to assess the content validity. Subsequently, the final version of the preliminary instrument was applied to teachers of 306 children (57 dysphonic and 249 vocally healthy) between the ages of 4 and 11 years. Eventually, the construct validity, criterion-related validity, test-retest reliability, and internal consistency of the developed instrument were examined.

RESULTS

The items with a content validity ratio less than .8 were modified or removed, and accordingly, the preliminary version of the index was finalized. After the application of the preliminary version, item reduction was made based on the factor analysis. The index is composed of 27 questions and three subscales: Functional, Physical, and Emotional. A significant difference was observed between the dysphonic and vocally healthy children for the TRPVHI scores (p < .001). A positive moderate correlation was determined between the Pediatric Voice Handicap Index and TRPVHI scores. Correlation coefficients between the test and retest scores of the TRPVHI were in the range of .92-.98. Cronbach's alpha values computed to assess the internal consistency were in the range of .94-.98.

CONCLUSIONS

The TRPVHI is the only valid and reliable teacher-reported outcome measure of the effects of voice disorders on children. It is anticipated that the deployment of the TRPVHI in conjunction with other subjective tools, both in the initial evaluation and the follow-up of the treatment results, will allow a better understanding of the physical, functional, and emotional effects of voice disorders on children. Furthermore, it can potentially lead further research to enable the use of the TRPVHI for screening purposes.

Scout - sarcoidosis outcomes taskforce. A systematic review of outcomes to inform the development of a core outcome set for pulmonary sarcoidosis

Background:

Clinical trials evaluating different management strategies for pulmonary sarcoidosis may measure different outcomes. This heterogeneity in outcomes can lead to waste in research due to the inability to compare and combine data. Core outcome sets (COS) have the potential to address this issue and here we describe a systematic review of outcomes as the first step in the development of a COS for pulmonary sarcoidosis research.

Methods:

A search of clinical trial registries for phase II, III and IV trials of pulmonary sarcoidosis was undertaken along with a rapid review of the patient perspective literature. Each study was screened for eligibility and outcomes extracted verbatim from the registry entry or publication then reviewed, grouped and categorised using the COMET taxonomy.

Results:

36 trial registry entries and 6 studies on patients’ perspective of pulmonary sarcoidosis were included reporting 56 and 82 unique outcomes respectively across 23 domains. The most frequently reported outcome domain was “respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal outcomes”. However, the patients’ perspective literature identified outcomes in the “personal circumstances” and “societal/carer burden” domains that were not reported in any of the included trial registrations.

Conclusions:

Using both clinical trial registry data and published literature on patients’ perspective has allowed rapid review of outcomes measured and reported in pulmonary sarcoidosis research. The use of multiple sources has led to the development of a comprehensive list of outcomes that represents the first step in the development of a COS for use in future pulmonary sarcoidosis research.

The standards of obstetrics and gynecology core outcome sets: A scoping review

Background

Core outcome sets (COSs) are the minimum outcomes which should be measured and reported by researchers investigating a specific condition. The definition of standards of COSs vary across different health-related areas. This investigated the characteristics of COSs regarding obstetrics and gynecology (OG) and examined the reports and designs of standards of OG COSs.

Methods

A comprehensive search was conduced on the COMET database on December 20, 2019 to identify systematic reviews on COSs. Two reviewers independently evaluated whether the reported OG COS met the reporting requirements as stipulated in the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting (COS-STAR) statement checklist and the minimum design recommendations as outlined in the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) checklist.

Results

Forty-four OG COSs related to 26 topics were identified. None of them met all the 25 standards of COS-STAR statement which representing 18 items considered essential for transparent and complete reporting list for all COS studies (range: 6.0-24.0, median: 14.0). The compliance rates to 16 standards of methods and result sections ranged from 27.3%–68.2%. Total COS-STAR compliance items for OG COSs with the prior protocol was significantly higher than without prior protocol (MD = 3.846, 95% CI: 0.835–6.858, P = 0.012). None of the OG COSs met all the 12 criteria in the COS-STAD minimum standards (range: 3.0-11.0, median: 5.0). The compliance rates for all three standards of stakeholders involved and all four standards of the consensus process were lower than 60%.

Conclusions

Methodological and reporting standards of OG COSs should be improved.

Making Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Haemorrhoidal Disease in Clinical Practice: A Perspective

Haemorrhoidal disease (HD) affects millions of people around the world and for most it is a recurring problem. Increasingly, clinicians broaden their focus on the patient's experiences with haemorrhoidal symptoms, including their impact on daily life. The patient's experience can be assessed using a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM). A PROM facilitates a deeper understanding of the disease-burden and allows a clinician to obtain information directly from the patients about their experiences with the ailment. Over the last years, PROMs have shown their additional role to traditional outcomes for several diseases and have earned their place in the daily consultation room. In order to improve and personalize the treatment of HD, we endorse the use of validated PROMs in clinical care.

Study protocol to develop a core outcome set for thyroid dysfunction to bridge the unmet needs of patient-centred care

INTRODUCTION

Thyroid dysfunctions (TD) are common medical conditions affecting all global populations. Improved healthcare leading to increasing survival rates and delayed diagnosis rendered significant burden of the disease in the increasing number of patients with TD with comorbid illnesses. Therefore, reducing the burden of TD and improving the quality of care are crucial. Existing poor-quality data that guide evidence-based decisions only provide a fragmented picture of clinical care. The different outcomes across studies assessing the effectiveness of treatments impede our ability to synthesise results for determining the most efficient treatments. This project aims to produce a core outcome set (COS), which embeds the multiple complex dimensions of routine clinical care for the effectiveness studies and clinical care of adult patients with TD.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This mixed-method project has two phases. In phase 1, we will identify a list of patient-reported and clinical outcomes through qualitative research and systematic reviews. In phase 2, we will categorise the identified outcomes using the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials taxonomy of core domains and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. We will develop questionnaires from the list of outcomes identified from each domain for the two-round online Delphi exercise, aiming to reach a consensus on the COS. The Delphi process will include patients, carers, researchers and healthcare participants. We will hold an online consensus meeting involving representatives of all key stakeholders to establish the final COS.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects, Universiti Putra Malaysia and the Research Ethics Committee, National University of Malaysia. This proposed COS in TD will improve the value of data, facilitate high-quality evidence synthesis and evidence-based decision-making. Furthermore, we will present the results to participants, in peer-reviewed academic journals and conferences.

REGISTRATION DETAILS

Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative database registration: http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1371.

Patient-reported outcome measures in core outcome sets targeted overlapping domains but through different instruments

OBJECTIVE

There is no comprehensive assessment of which patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are recommended in core outcome sets (COS), and how they should be measured. The aims of this study are to review COS that include patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs), identify their target health domains, main characteristics, and their overlap within and across different disease areas.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We selected COS studies collected in a publicly available database that included at least one recommended PROM. We gathered information on study setting, disease area, and targeted outcome domains. Full-text of recommended instruments were obtained, and an analysis of their characteristics and content performed. We classified targeted domains according to a predefined 38-item taxonomy.

RESULTS

Overall, we identified 94 COS studies that recommended 323 unique instruments, of which: 87% were included in only one COS; 77% were disease-specific; 1.5% preference-based; and 61% corresponded to a full questionnaire. Most of the instruments covered broad health-related constructs, such as global quality of life (25%), physical functioning (22%), emotional functioning and wellbeing (7%).

CONCLUSION

The wealth of recommended instruments observed even within disease areas does not fit with a vision of systematic, harmonized collection of PROM data in COS within and across disease areas.

Automated Identification of Common Disease-Specific Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research Using ClinicalTrials.gov: Algorithm Development and Validation Study

Background

Common disease-specific outcomes are vital for ensuring comparability of clinical trial data and enabling meta analyses and interstudy comparisons. Traditionally, the process of deciding which outcomes should be recommended as common for a particular disease relied on assembling and surveying panels of subject-matter experts. This is usually a time-consuming and laborious process.

Objective

The objectives of this work were to develop and evaluate a generalized pipeline that can automatically identify common outcomes specific to any given disease by finding, downloading, and analyzing data of previous clinical trials relevant to that disease.

Methods

An automated pipeline to interface with ClinicalTrials.gov’s application programming interface and download the relevant trials for the input condition was designed. The primary and secondary outcomes of those trials were parsed and grouped based on text similarity and ranked based on frequency. The quality and usefulness of the pipeline’s output were assessed by comparing the top outcomes identified by it for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to a list of 80 outcomes manually abstracted from the most frequently cited and comprehensive reviews delineating clinical outcomes for COPD.

Results

The common disease-specific outcome pipeline successfully downloaded and processed 3876 studies related to COPD. Manual verification indicated that the pipeline was downloading and processing the same number of trials as were obtained from the self-service ClinicalTrials.gov portal. Evaluating the automatically identified outcomes against the manually abstracted ones showed that the pipeline achieved a recall of 92% and precision of 79%. The precision number indicated that the pipeline was identifying many outcomes that were not covered in the literature reviews. Assessment of those outcomes indicated that they are relevant to COPD and could be considered in future research.

Conclusions

An automated evidence-based pipeline can identify common clinical trial outcomes of comparable breadth and quality as the outcomes identified in comprehensive literature reviews. Moreover, such an approach can highlight relevant outcomes for further consideration.