Efficacy and Safety Outcome Domains and Outcome Measures in Systematic Reviews of Neuropathic Pain Conditions

florio® HAEMO: A Longitudinal Survey of Patient Preference, Adherence and Wearable Functionality in Central Europe

INTRODUCTION

florio® HAEMO is a hemophilia treatment monitoring application (app) offering activity tracking and wearable device connectivity. Its use might support everyday activities for people with hemophilia. The aim of this study was to evaluate user satisfaction, long-term usage and the impact on data entry when pairing a wearable with a hemophilia monitoring app.

METHODS

This is a follow-up of a two-part user survey conducted in Central Europe. People with hemophilia and parents/caregivers of children with hemophilia using florio HAEMO and who completed part one were invited to complete a second online questionnaire at least 4 months later.

RESULTS

Fifty participants (83.3%) who completed part one of the survey continued to use the florio HAEMO app and completed part two. Of 14 participants who chose to use the app with a wearable, more than half (57.1%) were aged between 13 and 25 years. Overall, the results demonstrated that florio HAEMO is very easy or rather easy to use, especially for individuals pairing the app with a wearable. Most people using a wearable indicated that florio HAEMO was very or rather important in bringing certainty to daily activities (85.7%). Notably, 14 of 36 (38.9%) non-wearable users indicated that they would prefer to pair the app with a wearable in the future.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to the florio HAEMO app is maintained over an extended period of use. Pairing the app with a wearable might enable easier access to app features, increase data entry motivation and provide more certainty about daily activities for people with hemophilia.

The Effect of Everyday-Life Social Contact on Pain

Pain is a biopsychosocial phenomenon, resulting from the interplay between physiological and psychological processes and social factors. Given that humans constantly interact with others, the effect of social factors is particularly relevant. Documenting the significance of the social modulation of pain, an increasing number of studies have investigated the effect of social contact on subjective pain intensity and pain-related physiological changes. While evidence suggests that social contact can alleviate pain, contradictory findings indicate an increase in pain intensity and a deterioration of pain coping strategies. This evidence primarily stems from studies examining the effect of social contact on pain within highly controlled laboratory conditions. Moreover, pain assessments often rely on one-time subjective reports of average pain intensity across a predefined period. Ecological momentary assessments (EMAs) can circumvent these problems, as they can capture diverse aspects of behavior and experiences multiple times a day, in real time, with high resolution, and within naturalistic and ecologically valid settings. These multiple measures allow for the examination of fluctuations of pain symptoms throughout the day in relation to affective, cognitive, behavioral, and social factors. In this opinion paper, we review the current state and future relevance of EMA-based social pain research in daily life. Specifically, we examine whether everyday-life social support reduces or enhances pain. The first part of the paper provides a comprehensive overview of the use of EMA in pain research and summarizes the main findings. The review of the relatively limited number of existing EMA studies shows that the association between pain and social contact in everyday life depends on numerous factors, including pain syndromes, temporal dynamics, the nature of social interactions, and characteristics of the interaction partners. In line with laboratory research, there is evidence that everyday-life social contact can alleviate, but also intensify pain, depending on the type of social support. Everyday-life emotional support seems to reduce pain, while extensive solicitous support was found to have opposite effects. Moreover, positive short-term effects of social support can be overshadowed by other symptoms such as fatigue. Overall, gathering and integrating experiences from a patient's social environment can offer valuable insights. These insights can help interpret dynamics in pain intensity and accompanying symptoms such as depression or fatigue. We conclude that factors determining the reducing versus enhancing effects of social contact on pain need to be investigated more thoroughly. We advocate EMA as the assessment method of the future and highlight open questions that should be addressed in future EMA studies on pain and the potential of ecological momentary interventions for pain treatment.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Heterogeneity of outcomes in randomized controlled trials on implant prosthodontic therapy is hindering comparative effectiveness research: meta-research study

BACKGROUND

Consistency in outcomes across clinical trials allows for comparing and combining results from different studies. A core outcome set (COS), representing a minimally agreed standardized group of outcomes that should be monitored and measured through research in a specific field of medicine, is not yet available for trials in implant prosthodontic (dental implant) therapy. This meta-research study aimed to analyze outcomes used in clinical trials on implant prosthodontic therapy.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group (COHG) register to identify systematic reviews of interventions in implant prosthodontic therapy published by October 2023. From the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in the relevant reviews, we extracted data on the characteristics of the included trials and the outcomes used. We categorized outcomes into domains.

RESULTS

From 182 systematic reviews in the COHG register, we included 11 systematic reviews on dental implant therapy. The reviews included 117 unique RCTs with 4725 participants, published from 1995 to 2020, which analyzed 74 different outcomes. Using different definitions, implant failure was analyzed in 73 RCTs. Seventeen RCTs did not define implant failure. Failure was most often (30 RCTs) followed up for one year. Only one RCT assessed implant failure after five years. Trials used 17 definitions of implant failure, while 17 trials did not report on the criteria of implant failure. Complications were analyzed in 48 RCTs, although they were not clearly defined in 12 RCTs. Failure of prosthodontic supra-structure was analyzed in 74 RCTs, with definitions of failure and criteria not clearly defined in 44 RCTs. Trials considered adverse events, peri-implant tissue health, patient attitudes, and other outcomes, including cost, aesthetics, or procedure duration. These outcomes were often different between trials. Twenty-six outcomes were used only once per study.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical trials in implant prosthodontics used different outcomes, different definitions of outcomes and used different times to monitor them. Standardization of outcomes is necessary to allow comparability and evidence synthesis about the effectiveness of implant prosthodontic therapy.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Chronic Neuropathic Pain Clinical Trials - A Systematic Literature Review

In neuropathic pain clinical trials, the patient's perspective is often insufficiently reflected focusing mainly on pain intensity. Comparability of outcome assessment is limited due to heterogenous patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). The MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Embase databases and reference lists of published meta-analyses were searched. Randomized controlled studies assessing treatment efficacy of drugs for chronic neuropathic pain were included. PROMs were assigned to recommended IMMPACT/NeuPSIG domains: pain intensity, pain other aspects, physical functioning, emotional functioning, global improvement and satisfaction, adverse events, participant disposition. Domains and PROMs were compared regarding the publication year and methodological quality of the studies. Within the 251 included studies 200 PROMs were used with 27 being recommended by IMMPACT/NeuPSIG. The number of domains was higher in high/moderate quality studies. The (sub-) domains 'physical functioning', 'global improvement and satisfaction', and 'neuropathic pain quality' were assessed more frequently in high/moderate quality studies and those published after 2011. Recent studies and those of better quality more often used the recommended PROMs. Although neuropathic assessment via PROMs has improved, there is still a high heterogeneity. A standardized core set of outcome domains and should be defined to improve neuropathic pain treatment and to achieve better comparability of clinical trials. Perspective: This systematic literature review assesses the use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in chronic neuropathic pain. The results show that there is still a high heterogeneity, highlighting the need for a standardized core set of outcome domains and PROMs to improve comparability of clinical trials and neuropathic pain treatment.

Recommendations from Cochrane reviews for improving future trials on anesthesia and pain: a meta-research study

Background: Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) have a section 'Implications for research' where authors make suggestions for improving future research. The authors of the present study assessed the prevalence and time dynamics of different recommendations in the CSRs about anesthesia and pain. Methods: The authors included all CSRs published by the Cochrane Anaesthesia Group and Cochrane Pain and Palliative Care Group before 17 July 2020. The authors analyzed recommendations for improving future research listed in the 'Implications for research' section of these CSRs and categorized recommendations for improvements. Results: They analyzed 370 reviews. Four categories of recommendations were present in more than 40% of the reviews. Most reviews recommended a larger sample size and better outcome choice, study design and choice of future intervention. These recommendations gradually increased in frequency in the Cochrane Pain and Palliative Care Group and mainly decreased in the Cochrane Anaesthesia Group. Conclusion: Recommendations from CSRs offer useful advice for trialists designing new trials.

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.

Systematic Review on Pain-Related Outcome Domains After Sternotomy: A First Step Toward the Development of a Core Outcome Set

OBJECTIVES

Pain after surgery has a major impact on acute and long-term recovery and quality of life, but its management is often insufficient. To enhance the quality of research and to allow for better comparability between studies, it is important to harmonize outcomes for assessing the efficacy and effectiveness of pain management interventions after surgery. As a first step in developing a core outcome set, this study aimed to systematically search for outcome domains assessed in research regarding acute pain management after sternotomy as an example of a typically painful surgical procedure.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL. Eligibility criteria consisted of randomized controlled trials and observational trials targeting pain management after sternotomy in adults in the acute postoperative setting (≤2 weeks). After duplicate removal and title and abstract screening by 2 independent reviewers, study characteristics and outcome domains were identified, which were extracted from full texts and summarized qualitatively.

RESULTS

Of 1350 studies retrieved by database searching, 156 studies were included for full-text extraction. A total of 80 different outcome domains were identified: pain intensity, analgesic consumption, physiological function, and adverse events were the most frequent ones. Outcome domains were often not explicitly reported, and the combination of domains and assessment tools was heterogeneous. The choice of outcomes is commonly made within clinicians; patients' perspectives are not considered.

CONCLUSIONS

The wide variety of commonly applied outcome domains, the nonexplicit wording, and the heterogeneous combination of the domains indicating treatment benefit demonstrate the need for harmonization of outcomes assessing perioperative pain management after surgery.

Wearable Devices: Current Status and Opportunities in Pain Assessment and Management

INTRODUCTION

We investigated the possibilities and opportunities for using wearable devices that measure physical activity and physiometric signals in conjunction with ecological momentary assessment (EMA) data to improve the assessment and treatment of pain.

METHODS

We considered studies with cross-sectional and longitudinal designs as well as interventional or observational studies correlating pain scores with measures derived from wearable devices. A search was also performed on studies that investigated physical activity and physiometric signals among patients with pain.

RESULTS

Few studies have assessed the possibility of incorporating wearable devices as objective tools for contextualizing pain and physical function in free-living environments. Of the studies that have been conducted, most focus solely on physical activity and functional outcomes as measured by a wearable accelerometer. Several studies report promising correlations between pain scores and signals derived from wearable devices, objectively measured physical activity, and physical function. In addition, there is a known association between physiologic signals that can be measured by wearable devices and pain, though studies using wearable devices to measure these signals and associate them with pain in free-living environments are limited.

CONCLUSION

There exists a great opportunity to study the complex interplay between physiometric signals, physical function, and pain in a real-time fashion in free-living environments. The literature supports the hypothesis that wearable devices can be used to develop reproducible biosignals that correlate with pain. The combination of wearable devices and EMA will likely lead to the development of clinically meaningful endpoints that will transform how we understand and treat pain patients.

A systematic review finds Core Outcome Set uptake varies widely across different areas of health

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our review was to bring together studies that had assessed the uptake of core outcome sets (COS) to explore the level of uptake across different COS and areas of health.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We examined the citations of 337 COS reports to identify studies that had assessed the uptake of a particular COS in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or systematic reviews (SRs).

RESULTS

We identified 24 studies that had assessed uptake in RCTs and two studies that had assessed uptake in SRs. The studies covered a total of 17/337 (5%) COS. Uptake rates reported for RCTs varied from 0% of RCTs (gout) to 82% RCTs (rheumatoid arthritis) measuring the full COS. Studies that assessed uptake of individual core outcomes showed a wide variation in uptake between the outcomes. Suggested barriers to uptake included lack of validated measures, lack of patient and other key stakeholder involvement in COS development, and lack of awareness of the COS.

CONCLUSIONS

Few studies have been undertaken to assess the uptake of COS in RCTs and SRs. Further studies are needed to assess whether COS have been implemented across a wider range of disease categories and to explore the barriers and facilitators to COS uptake.

Pain assessment in clinical trials: a narrative review

Pain is a symptom measured in many clinical trials. For pain as an outcome domain, trialists need to choose adequate outcome measure(s), as there are myriad outcome measures for pain to choose from. To ensure consistency and uniformity in clinical trials and systematic reviews, core outcome sets (COS) have been defined; COS includes a predefined minimal list of core outcomes that should be measured within a trial, to ensure their consistency and comparability. COS is defined via consensus procedure, which includes relevant stakeholders such as experts from a specific field and patients. Along with outcomes, outcome measures for each outcome need to be defined to make sure that the outcomes will be measured consistently and uniformly. Hereby we reviewed studies that have examined use of recommended core outcome domains and outcome measures in clinical trials that would be expected to measure pain. Despite the existence of COS and defined core outcome measures (COMs), multiple studies have shown that these are not necessarily used in clinical trials, or in the relevant systematic reviews, which further increases heterogeneity of existing evidence, hinders evidence synthesis and trial comparability, and assessment of comparative effectiveness of interventions. Trialists are encouraged to use COS and COMs when designing clinical trials. Research community is encouraged to design interventions that will help with identifying barriers for using COS and COMs and interventions to foster their uptake. Use of consistent pain outcomes and pain outcome measures is in the interest of patients, research community, healthcare workers and decision-makers. For clinical conditions for which there are no COS and COMs, efforts to design them would be beneficial.

Reasons and factors associated with inconclusiveness of systematic reviews about interventions for neuropathic pain

Aim: Systematic reviews (SRs) are frequently inconclusive. The aim of this study was to analyze factors associated with conclusiveness of SRs about efficacy and safety of interventions for neuropathic pain (NeuP). Materials & methods: The study protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (No. CRD42015025831). Five electronic databases (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Psychological Information Database) were searched until July 2018 for SRs about NeuP management. Conclusion statements for efficacy and safety, and characteristics of SRs were analyzed. Conclusiveness was defined as explicit statement by the SR authors that one intervention is better/similar to the other in terms of efficacy and safety. Methodological quality of SRs was assessed with the AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) tool. Results: Of 160 SRs, 37 (23%) were conclusive for efficacy and/or safety. In the SRs, conclusions about safety were missing in half of the analyzed abstracts, and a third of the full texts. Conclusive SRs included significantly more trials and participants, searched more databases, had more authors, conducted meta-analysis, analyzed quality of evidence, and had lower methodological quality than inconclusive SRs. The most common reasons for the lack of conclusiveness indicated by the SR authors were the small number of participants and trials, and the high heterogeneity of included studies. Conclusion: Most SRs about NeuP treatment were inconclusive. Sources of inconclusiveness of NeuP reviews need to be further studied, and SR authors need to provide conclusions about both safety and efficacy of interventions.

Overall bias methods and their use in sensitivity analysis of Cochrane reviews were not consistent

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to analyze methods of assessing "overall bias" in Cochrane reviews of interventions published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and sensitivity analyses related to overall risk of bias (RoB).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

From Cochrane reviews published within 3 years, from July 2015 to June 2018, we extracted data regarding methods of judging overall bias for a single trial, as well as details regarding methods used in frequency of RoB in sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Of the 1,452 analyzed Cochrane reviews, 409 mentioned assessment of overall RoB on a study level. In 107 reviews, authors clearly specified key domains that determined the overall RoB, whereas in the remaining reviews, assessment of overall bias was not in line with the Cochrane Handbook. Among 268 Cochrane reviews that had any RoB-related sensitivity analysis, in 56 (21%) reviews, the authors reported a significant change for at least one outcome compared with the initial analysis.

CONCLUSION

Highly heterogeneous approaches to summarizing overall RoB on a study level and using RoB for sensitivity analyses may yield inconsistent and incomparable results across Cochrane reviews.

Selective reporting bias due to discrepancies between registered and published outcomes in osteoarthritis trials

Aim: Outcome reporting bias (ORB) occurs when outcomes planned in a study protocol are subsequently not reported or are partially reported. Our aim was to analyze ORB in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about conservative interventions for osteoarthritis (OA) by comparing registered protocols and published manuscripts, as well as association between study funding type and intervention type, and ORB in those RCTs. Materials & methods: We analyzed RCTs that were published in a peer-review journal and analyzed any type of conservative intervention for treatment of OA in humans that reported in the manuscript registration in a public clinical trial registry and provided unique registration identifier. We extracted data indicating ORB by comparing outcomes in protocol and published article, and characteristics of trials. Results: In 190 (57%) of 334 included RCTs, it was indicated in the manuscript that a trial was registered. In 48% of trials we found discrepancies in number, type or time point of primary efficacy outcome between protocol and manuscript. Significantly less discrepancies in primary efficacy outcomes between protocols and published articles were found in trials funded by a commercial sponsor (p = 0.0062) and trials of pharmacological interventions (p = 0.0016). Conclusion: Trials about conservative therapies for OA have high prevalence of discrepancies between protocol and publication, and frequent ORB. This may mislead readers of published results because it has been shown that ORB can lead to both overestimation and underestimation of effects of interventions, depending on the intervention and outcome. Efforts to prevent nonregistration of protocols and selective reporting are needed.

Awareness and acceptability of Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials core outcome set for chronic pain among surveyed neuropathic pain authors

Aim: We assessed the knowledge and adoption of Initiative on Methods, Measurement and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT)-recommended core outcome set (COS) and core outcome measures (COM) among authors of systematic reviews (SR) and randomized controlled trials (RCT) about interventions for neuropathic pain (NeuP). Methods: NeuP SR and RCT authors identified via a systematic literature search were surveyed. Results: The response rate was low. Although majority of respondents were familiar with the IMMPACT COS, only 61% of SR authors and 40% of RCT authors used the COS. The main perceived obstacle that prevented the adoption of the COS was the lack of awareness of the full IMMPACT COS. Conclusion: The adoption of IMMPACT-recommended COS and COM among NeuP authors was inadequate and their appropriateness needs to be further evaluated.

Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for pelvic girdle pain, including methods for measuring the outcomes: the PGP-COS study

Background

Pelvic Girdle Pain (PGP) is an important cause of disability and economic cost worldwide. There is a need for effective preventative and management strategies. Emerging studies measure a variety of outcomes rendering synthesis and translation to clinical practice difficult. A Core Outcome Set (COS) can address this problem by ensuring that data are relevant, useful and usable for making well-informed healthcare choices. The aim of this study is to develop a consensus-based PGP-COS, including agreement on methods (e.g. instruments) for measuring the construct outcomes in the COS for use in research and clinical practice. Furthermore, as there is uncertainty as to whether incorporating stakeholder interviews in addition to conducting a systematic review to determine an initial list of outcomes for the Delphi survey, or, whether using different rating scales in a Delphi survey impacts on the final COS, we propose to embed two methodological studies within the PGP-COS development process to address these questions.

Methods

The PGP-COS study will include five phases: (1) A systematic review of the literature and semi-structured interviews with 15 patients (three countries) to form the initial list of outcomes for the Delphi survey; (2) A 3-round Delphi including patients, clinicians, researchers and service providers; (3) A systematic review of methods for measuring the outcomes in the preliminary PGP-COS identified in the Delphi survey; (4) A face-to-face consensus meeting to agree on the final PGP-COS and methods for measuring the COS; (5) Global dissemination.

To address the methodological questions, we will assess the number and type of outcomes, in the final PGP-COS, that were exclusively derived from the interviews. Secondly, we will randomise Delphi survey participants to either a 5-point or 9-point importance rating scale, and examine potential differences in ‘important’ ratings between the groups.

Discussion

There is currently no COS for measuring/monitoring PGP in trials and clinical practice. A PGP-COS will ensure that relevant outcomes are measured using appropriate measurement instruments for patients with PGP globally.

Core outcome set registration

This PGP-COS was registered with COMET (Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness Trials) in January 2017 (http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/958).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-018-0624-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Caveat emptor: the combined effects of multiplicity and selective reporting

Clinical trials and systematic reviews of clinical trials inform healthcare decisions. There is growing concern, however, about results from clinical trials that cannot be reproduced. Reasons for nonreproducibility include that outcomes are defined in multiple ways, results can be obtained using multiple methods of analysis, and trial findings are reported in multiple sources ("multiplicity"). Multiplicity combined with selective reporting can influence dissemination of trial findings and decision-making. In particular, users of evidence might be misled by exposure to selected sources and overly optimistic representations of intervention effects. In this commentary, drawing from our experience in the Multiple Data Sources in Systematic Reviews (MUDS) study and evidence from previous research, we offer practical recommendations to enhance the reproducibility of clinical trials and systematic reviews.