Development of a core outcome set for epilepsy in pregnancy (E-CORE): a national multi-stakeholder modified Delphi consensus study

Patient, caregiver and other knowledge user engagement in consensus-building healthcare initiatives: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Patient engagement and integrated knowledge translation (iKT) processes improve health outcomes and care experiences through meaningful partnerships in consensus-building initiatives and research. Consensus-building is essential for engaging a diverse group of experienced knowledge users in co-developing and supporting a solution where none readily exists or is less optimal. Patients and caregivers provide invaluable insights for building consensus in decision-making around healthcare, policy and research. However, despite emerging evidence, patient engagement remains sparse within consensus-building initiatives. Specifically, our research has identified a lack of opportunity for youth living with chronic health conditions and their caregivers to participate in developing consensus on indicators/benchmarks for transition into adult care. To bridge this gap and inform our consensus-building approach with youth/caregivers, this scoping review will synthesise the extent of the literature on patient and other knowledge user engagement in consensus-building healthcare initiatives.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Following the scoping review methodology from Joanna Briggs Institute, published literature will be searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases from inception to July 2023. Grey literature will be hand-searched. Two independent reviewers will determine the eligibility of articles in a two-stage process, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Included studies must be consensus-building studies within the healthcare context that involve patient engagement strategies. Data from eligible studies will be extracted and charted on a standardised form. Abstracted data will be analysed quantitatively and descriptively, according to specific consensus methodologies, and patient engagement models and/or strategies.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required for this scoping review protocol. The review process and findings will be shared with and informed by relevant knowledge users. Dissemination of findings will also include peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. The results will offer new insights for supporting patient engagement in consensus-building healthcare initiatives.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

https://osf.io/beqjr.

Healthcare and research priorities for women with polycystic ovary syndrome in the UK National Health Service: A modified Delphi method

OBJECTIVE

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a chronic lifelong condition affecting up to 20% of women worldwide. There is limited input from affected women to guide the provision of healthcare services and future research needs. Our objective was to scope the healthcare and research priorities of women with PCOS in the United Kingdom.

DESIGN

A three-staged modified Delphi method, consisting of two questionnaires and a consensus meeting involving lay representatives and healthcare professionals.

PATIENTS AND MEASUREMENTS

Lay patient representatives of women with PCOS. Participants were asked to identify and rank healthcare and research priorities for their importance.

RESULTS

Six hundred and twenty-four lay participants took part in our Delphi method. Over 98% were diagnosed with PCOS (614/624, 98.4%). More than half experienced difficulties to receive a PCOS diagnosis (375/624, 60%), and the majority found it difficult to access specialised PCOS health services in the NHS (594/624, 95%). The top two healthcare priorities included better education for health professionals on the diagnosis and management of PCOS (238/273, 87.1%) and the need to set up specialist PCOS services (234/273, 85.7%). The top two research priorities focused on identifying better treatments for irregular periods (233/273, 85.3%) followed by better tests for early PCOS diagnosis (230/273, 84.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

We identified 13 healthcare and 14 research priorities that reflect the current health needs of women with PCOS in the United Kingdom. Adopting these priorities in future healthcare and research planning will help to optimise the health of women with PCOS and increase patient satisfaction.

A core outcome set for patient-reported dysphagia for use in head and neck cancer clinical trials: An international multistakeholder Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Measuring dysphagia-related patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in Head and Neck Cancer (HNC) patients is challenging due to dysphagia's multidimensional impact, causing inconsistency in outcome reporting. To address this issue, this study derived a consensus-based core outcome set (COS) for patient-reported dysphagia in HNC clinical trials where swallowing is a primary or secondary endpoint.

METHODS

A sample of HNC clinicians, researchers, patients, and caregivers participated in a 2-Round Delphi technique. A Delphi survey, containing a comprehensive list of dysphagia-related PROs, was developed. In Round 1, participants rated item importance on a 5-point scale. Items rated ≥4 by >70% advanced to Round 2, where a consensus meeting addressed items with varied opinions, and the Delphi survey with remaining items was completed. Items rated ≥4 by >70% formed the final COS.

RESULTS

Forty-five participants from nine countries were recruited. After Round 1, 40 items were excluded and 64 advanced to Round 2. After Round 2, a 7-outcome COS was established, comprising the domains of dysphagia symptoms, health status and quality of life.

CONCLUSION

This study achieved consensus among HNC stakeholders on essential dysphagia PROs for HNC clinical trials. It is advisable to include these 7-core concepts in clinical trials involving people with HNC to facilitate treatment comparisons and data synthesis.

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.

Development of a core outcome set for quality of life for adults with drug-resistant epilepsy: A multistakeholder Delphi consensus study

OBJECTIVE

In 2017, the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) convened the AAN Quality Measurement Set working group to define the improvement and maintenance of quality of life (QOL) as a key outcome measure in epilepsy clinical practice. A core outcome set (COS), defined as an accepted, standardized set of outcomes that should be minimally measured and reported in an area of health care research and practice, has not previously been defined for QOL in adult epilepsy.

METHODS

A cross-sectional Delphi consensus study was employed to attain consensus from patients and caregivers on the QOL outcomes that should be minimally measured and reported in epilepsy clinical practice. Candidate items were compiled from QOL scales recommended by the AAN 2017 Quality Measurement Set. Inclusion criteria to participate in the Delphi study were adults with drug-resistant epilepsy diagnosed by a physician, no prior diagnosis of psychogenic nonepileptic seizures or a cognitive and/or developmental disability, or caregivers of patients meeting these criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 109 people satisfied inclusion/exclusion criteria and took part in Delphi Round 1 (patients, n = 95, 87.2%; caregivers, n = 14, 12.8%), and 55 people from Round 1 completed Round 2 (patients, n = 43, 78.2%; caregivers, n = 12, 21.8%). One hundred three people took part in the final consensus round. Consensus was attained by patients/caregivers on a set of 36 outcomes that should minimally be included in the QOL COS. Of these, 32 of the 36 outcomes (88.8%) pertained to areas outside of seizure frequency and severity.

SIGNIFICANCE

Using patient-centered Delphi methodology, this study defines the first COS for QOL measurement in clinical practice for adults with drug-resistant epilepsy. This set highlights the diversity of factors beyond seizure frequency and severity that impact QOL in epilepsy.

Identifying outcomes reported in trials of interventions in venous leg ulceration for a core outcome set development: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Venous leg ulceration is a chronic, recurring, condition causing significant patient morbidity. Randomised controlled trials evaluating treatments for venous leg ulceration provide evidence for clinical decision-making. For trial findings to be useful, outcomes measured need to be clinically meaningful, and consistently and fully reported across trials. A core outcome set is an agreed and standardised set of outcomes which should be, as a minimum, reported in all trials for a given indication.

AIM

To identify the outcome domains and outcomes reported in trials of interventions for venous leg ulceration.

METHODS

A scoping review of the literature was carried out. Randomised controlled trials within Cochrane systematic reviews looking at venous leg ulceration interventions and qualitative studies exploring venous leg ulceration were included.

RESULTS

The review identified 807 outcomes from randomised controlled trials and 15 outcomes from qualitative studies, and these were grouped into 11 outcome domains: healing, patient reported symptoms, clinician reported symptoms, carer reported symptoms, life impacts, clinical signs, clinical measurement, performance of the intervention, resource use (supplies and clinician time) and adverse events. The outcome domain 'healing' included 111 outcomes, 'symptoms' 109, 'life impacts' 30, 'clinical signs' 88, 'clinical measurement' 184, 'performance of the intervention' 58, 'resource use' 52 and 'adverse events' 190.

CONCLUSION

The scoping review identified a large number of outcomes (n = 822) across 11 related outcome domains, supporting the need for a core outcome set.

Improving Development of Drug Treatments for Pregnant Women and the Fetus

The exclusion of pregnant populations, women of reproductive age, and the fetus from clinical trials of therapeutics is a major global public health issue. It is also a problem of inequity in medicines development, as pregnancy is a protected characteristic. The current regulatory requirements for drugs in pregnancy are being analyzed by a number of agencies worldwide. There has been considerable investment in developing expertise in pregnancy clinical trials (for the pregnant person and the fetus) such as the Obstetric-Fetal Pharmacology Research Centers funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Progress has also been made in how to define and grade clinical trial safety in pregnant women, the fetus, and neonate. Innovative methods to model human pregnancy physiology and pharmacology using computer simulations are also gaining interest. Novel ways to assess fetal well-being and placental function using magnetic resonance imaging, computerized cardiotocography, serum circulating fetoplacental proteins, and mRNA may permit better assessment of the safety and efficacy of interventions in the mother and fetus. The core outcomes in women’s and newborn health initiative is facilitating the consistent reporting of data from pregnancy trials. Electronic medical records integrated with pharmacy services should improve the strength of pharmacoepidemiologic and pharmacovigilance studies. Incentives such as investigational plans and orphan disease designation have been taken up for obstetric, fetal, and neonatal diseases. This review describes the progress that is being made to better understand the extent of the problem and to develop applicable solutions.

Synthesizing Core Outcome Sets for outcomes research in cohort studies: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Life course studies are designed to "collect once, use multiple times" for observational and, increasingly, interventional research. Core Outcome Sets (COS) are minimum sets developed for clinical trials by multi-stakeholder consensus methodologies. We aimed to synthesize published COS that might guide outcomes selection for early life cohorts with an interventional focus.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Medline, COMET, and CROWN for COS published before January 2021 relevant to four life stages (pregnancy, newborns, children <8 years, and parents (adults aged 18-50 years)). We synthesized core outcomes into overarching constructs.

RESULTS

From 46 COS we synthesized 414 core outcomes into 118 constructs. "Quality of life", "adverse events", "medication use", "hospitalization", and "mortality" were consistent across all stages. For pregnancy, common constructs included "preterm birth", "delivery mode", "pre-eclampsia", "gestational weight gain", "gestational diabetes", and "hemorrhage"; for newborns, "birthweight", "small for gestational age", "neurological damage", and "morbidity" and "infection/sepsis"; for pediatrics, "pain", "gastrointestinal morbidity", "growth/weight", "breastfeeding", "feeding problems", "hearing", "neurodevelopmental morbidity", and "social development"; and for adults, "disease burden", "mental health", "neurological function/stroke", and "cardiovascular health/morbidity".

CONCLUSION

This COS synthesis generated outcome constructs that are of high value to stakeholders (participants, health providers, services), relevant to life course research, and could position cohorts for trial capabilities.

IMPACT

We synthesized existing Core Outcome Sets as a transparent methodology that could prioritize outcomes for lifecourse cohorts with an interventional focus. "Quality of life", "adverse events", "medication use", "hospitalization", and "mortality" are important outcomes across pregnancy, newborns, childhood, and early-to-mid-adulthood (the age range relevant to parents). Other common outcomes (such as "birthweight", "cognitive function/ability", "psychological health") are also highly relevant to lifecourse research. This synthesis could assist new early life cohorts to pre-select outcomes that are of high value to stakeholders (participants, health providers, services), are relevant to lifecourse research, and could position them for future trials and interventional capability.

Outcomes to measure the effects of pharmacological interventions for pain management for women during labour and birth: a review of systematic reviews and randomised trials

BACKGROUND

Pharmacological pain management options can relieve women's pain during labour and birth. Trials of these interventions have used a wide variety of outcomes, complicating meaningful comparisons of their effects. To facilitate better assessment of the effectiveness of labour pain management in trials and meta-analyses, consensus about key outcomes and the development of a core outcome set is essential.

OBJECTIVE

To identify all outcomes used in studies of pharmacological pain management interventions during labour and birth.

DESIGN

A review of systematic reviews and their included randomised controlled trials was undertaken.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Cochrane CENTRAL was searched to identify all Cochrane systematic reviews describing pharmacological pain management options for labour and birth. Search terms included 'pain management', 'labour' and variants, with no limits on year of publication or language.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Cochrane reviews and randomised controlled trials contained within these reviews were included, provided they compared a pharmacological intervention with other pain management options, placebo or no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All outcomes reported by reviews or trials were extracted and tabulated, with frequencies of individual outcomes reported.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine Cochrane reviews and 227 unique trials were included. In total, 146 unique outcomes were identified and categorised into maternal, fetal, neonatal, child, health service, provider's perspective or economic outcome domains.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes of pharmacological pain management interventions during labour and birth vary widely between trials. The standardisation of trial outcomes would permit the assessment of meta-analyses for best clinical practice.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Outcomes to measure pharmacological pain management options during labour are highly variable and require standardisation.

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.

Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for studies of pregnant women with pre-existing multimorbidity

INTRODUCTION

Increasingly more pregnant women are living with pre-existing multimorbidity (≥two long-term physical or mental health conditions). This may adversely affect maternal and offspring outcomes. This study aims to develop a core outcome set (COS) for maternal and offspring outcomes in pregnant women with pre-existing multimorbidity. It is intended for use in observational and interventional studies in all pregnancy settings.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We propose a four stage study design: (1) systematic literature search, (2) focus groups, (3) Delphi surveys and (4) consensus group meeting. The study will be conducted from June 2021 to August 2022. First, an initial list of outcomes will be identified through a systematic literature search of reported outcomes in studies of pregnant women with multimorbidity. We will search the Cochrane library, Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL. This will be supplemented with relevant outcomes from published COS for pregnancies and childbirth in general, and multimorbidity. Second, focus groups will be conducted among (1) women with lived experience of managing pre-existing multimorbidity in pregnancy (and/or their partners) and (2) their healthcare/social care professionals to identify outcomes important to them. Third, these initial lists of outcomes will be prioritised through a three-round online Delphi survey using predefined score criteria for consensus. Participants will be invited to suggest additional outcomes that were not included in the initial list. Finally, a consensus meeting using the nominal group technique will be held to agree on the final COS. The stakeholders will include (1) women (and/or their partners) with lived experience of managing multimorbidity in pregnancy, (2) healthcare/social care professionals involved in their care and (3) researchers in this field.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the University of Birmingham's ethical review committee. The final COS will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and conferences and to all stakeholders.

Core Outcome Sets (COS) related to pregnancy and childbirth: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews often conclude low confidence in the results due to heterogeneity in the reported outcomes. A Core Outcome Set (COS) is an agreed standardised collection of outcomes for a specific area of health. The outcomes included in a COS are to be measured and summarized in clinical trials as well as systematic reviews to counteract this heterogeneity.

AIM

The aim is to identify, compile and assess final and ongoing studies that are prioritizing outcomes in the area of pregnancy and childbirth.

METHODS

All studies which prioritized outcomes related to pregnancy and childbirth using consensus method, including Delphi surveys or consensus meetings were included. Searches were conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Academic Search Elite, CINAHL, SocINDEX and COMET databases up to June 2021. For all studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria, information regarding outcomes as well as population, method, and setting was extracted. In addition, reporting in the finalized studies was assessed using a modified version of the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting.

RESULTS

In total, 27 finalized studies and 42 ongoing studies were assessed as relevant and were included. In the finalized studies, the number of outcomes included in the COS ranged from 6 to 51 with a median of 13 outcomes. The majority of the identified COS, both finalized as well as ongoing, were relating to physical complications during pregnancy.

CONCLUSION

There is a growing number of Core Outcome Set studies related to pregnancy and childbirth. Although several of the finalized studies follow the proposed reporting, there are still some items that are not always clearly reported. Additionally, several of the identified COS contained a large number (n > 20) outcomes, something that possibly could hinder implementation. Therefore, there is a need to consider the number of outcomes which may be included in a COS to render it optimal for future research.

The windsor definition for hyperemesis gravidarum: A multistakeholder international consensus definition

OBJECTIVE

To develop an international definition for hyperemesis gravidarum to assist in clinical diagnosis and harmonize hyperemesis gravidarum definition for study populations.

STUDY DESIGN

A mixed-methods approach was used to identify potential hyperemesis gravidarum definition criteria (i.e. systematic review, semi-structured interviews and closed group sessions with patients and Project Steering Committee input). To reach consensus on the definition we used a web-based Delphi survey with two rounds, followed by a face-to-face consensus development meeting, held in Windsor UK, and a web-based consultation round, in which the provisional hyperemesis gravidarum definition was fed back to the stakeholders. Four stakeholder groups were identified 1) researchers; 2) women with lived experience of hyperemesis gravidarum and their families; 3) obstetric health professionals (obstetricians, gynecologists, midwives); and 4) other health professionals involved in care for women with hyperemesis gravidarum (general practitioners, dieticians, nurses). To reflect the opinions of the international community, stakeholders from countries in all global regions were invited to participate.

RESULTS

Twenty-one identified potential criteria entered the Delphi survey. Of the 277 stakeholders invited, 178 completed round one, and 125 (70%) also completed round two. Twenty stakeholders attended the consensus development meeting, representing all stakeholder groups. The consultation round was completed by 96 (54%) stakeholders, of which 92% agreed with the definition as presented. The consensus definition for hyperemesis gravidarum consisted of: start of symptoms in early pregnancy (before 16 weeks gestational age); nausea and vomiting, at least one of which severe; inability to eat and/or drink normally; strongly limits daily living activities. Signs of dehydration were deemed contributory for the definition for hyperemesis gravidarum.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed definition for hyperemesis gravidarum will help clinical studies to achieve more uniformity, and ultimately increasing the value of evidence to inform patient care.

Development of a core outcome domain set for clinical research on capillary malformations (the COSCAM project)

Background

Due to a large variety in treatment outcomes reported in therapeutic trials and lacking patient‐relevant outcomes, it is hard to adequately compare and improve current therapies for patients with capillary malformations (CMs). The Core Outcome Set for Capillary Malformations (COSCAM) project aims to develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in future CM trials, in which we will first develop a core outcome (sub)domain set (CDS). Here, we describe the methods for the development of a CDS and present the results of the first development stage.

Methods

The COSCAM project is carried out according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Skin Core OUtcomes Set INitiative (CS‐COUSIN) and the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative. During the first stage, we identified all potentially relevant outcome subdomains based on a systematic review, two focus group sessions and input from patient representatives of Dutch patient organizations and the COSCAM‐founding group. In stage two, we will present the subdomains in a three‐round e‐Delphi study and online consensus meeting, in which CM patients, parents/caregivers and CM experts worldwide rate the importance of the proposed subdomains, hereby finalizing the core outcome (sub)domains of the CDS.

Results

A total of 67 potential outcome subdomains were included; sixteen were previously used in the literature, 20 were proposed by Dutch patients and their parents/caregivers (n = 13) in focus group sessions and 38 were suggested by the experts of the COSCAM‐founding group. Seven were excluded because of overlap.

Conclusion

The final CDS may serve as a minimum standard in future CM trials, thereby facilitating adequate comparison of treatment outcomes. After this CDS development, we will select appropriate outcome measurement instruments to measure the core outcome subdomains.

Harmonising research outcomes for polycystic ovary syndrome: an international multi-stakeholder core outcome set

STUDY QUESTION

What are the key core outcomes to be reported in studies on polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

We identified 3 generic and 30 specific core outcomes in 6 specialist domains: metabolic (8), reproductive (7), pregnancy (10), oncological (1), psychological (1) and long-term outcomes (1).

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Research reporting PCOS is heterogeneous with high variation in outcome selection, definition and quality.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Evidence synthesis and a modified Delphi method with e-surveys were used as well as a consultation meeting.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Overall, 71 health professionals and 123 lay consumers (women with lived experience of PCOS and members of advocacy and peer support groups) from 17 high-, middle- and low-income countries were involved in this analysis.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The final core outcome set included 3 generic outcomes (BMI, quality of life, treatment satisfaction) that are applicable to all studies on women with PCOS and 30 specific outcomes that were categorised into six specialist domains: 8 metabolic outcomes (waist circumference, type 2 diabetes, insulin resistance, impaired glucose tolerance, hypertension, coronary heart disease, lipid profile, venous thromboembolic disease); 7 reproductive outcomes [viable pregnancy (confirmed by ultrasound including singleton, twins and higher multiples), clinical and biochemical hyperandrogenism, menstrual regularity, reproductive hormonal profile, chronic anovulation, ovulation stimulation success including the number of stimulated follicles ≥ 12 mm, incidence and severity of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome]; 10 pregnancy outcomes (live birth, miscarriage, stillbirth, neonatal mortality, gestational weight gain, gestational diabetes, preterm birth, hypertensive disease in pregnancy, baby birth weight, major congenital abnormalities); 3 psychological outcomes (depression, anxiety, eating disorders); 1 oncological (abnormal endometrial proliferation including atypical endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial cancer); and 1 outcome in the long-term domain (long-term offspring metabolic and developmental outcomes).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

We involved lay consumers in all stages of study through e-surveys but not through focus groups, thereby limiting our understanding of their choices. We did not address the variations in the definitions and measurement tools for some of the core outcomes.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Implementing this core outcome set in future studies on women with PCOS will improve the quality of reporting and aid evidence synthesis.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Evidence synthesis was funded through the Australian government, National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Centre for Research Excellence in PCOS, and H.T. is funded through an NHMRC fellowship. B.H.A. is funded through an NIHR lectureship. All authors have no competing interest to declare.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

Core outcome set for diabetes after pregnancy prevention across the life span: international Delphi study

INTRODUCTION

Mothers with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are at high risk of future diabetes. An active area of research examines health behavior change strategies in women within 5 years of a GDM pregnancy to prevent diabetes after pregnancy. We aimed to develop a core outcome set (COS) to facilitate synthesis and comparison across trials.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Candidate outcomes were identified through systematic review and scored for importance (1-9) by healthcare professionals, researchers, and women with prior GDM through an international two-round electronic-Delphi survey. Outcomes retained required round two scores above prespecified thresholds (≥70% scoring 7-9) or expert panel endorsement when scores were indeterminate. The panel organized the COS by domain.

RESULTS

115 stakeholders participated in the survey and 56 completed both rounds. SD of scores decreased by 0.24 (95%CI 0.21 to 0.27) by round 2, signaling convergence. The final COS includes 19 domains (50 outcomes): diabetes (n=3 outcomes), other related diseases (n=3), complications in subsequent pregnancy (n=2), offspring outcomes (n=3), adiposity (n=4), cardiometabolic measures (n=5), glycemia (n=3), physical activity (n=2), diet (n=4), breast feeding (n=2), behavior change theory (n=5), diabetes-related knowledge (n=2), health literacy (n=1), social support (n=1), sleep (n=1), quality of life (n=1), program delivery (n=4), health economic evaluation (n=2), and diabetes risk screening (n=2). The seven outcomes endorsed by ≥90% were diabetes development and GDM recurrence, attending the postpartum diabetes screening and completing oral glucose tolerance testing and/or other glycemia measures, weight and total energy intake, and health behaviors in general. Among the 15 at the 80%-90% endorsement level, approximately half were specific elements related to the top 7, while the remainder related to diabetes knowledge, personal risk perception, motivation for change, program element completion, and health service use and cost.

CONCLUSION

Researchers should collect and report outcomes from the breadth of domains in the COS.

Outcome Measures for Functional Neurological Disorder: A Review of the Theoretical Complexities

The development and selection of optimal outcome measures is increasingly recognized as a key component of evidence-based medicine, particularly the need for the development of a standardized set of measures for use in clinical trials. This process is particularly complex for functional neurological disorder (FND) for several reasons. FND can present with a wide range of symptoms that resemble the full spectrum of other neurological disorders. Additional physical (e.g., pain, fatigue) and psychological (e.g., depression, anxiety) symptoms are commonly associated with FND, which also can be highly disabling with implications for prognosis, and warrant concurrent assessment, despite an unclear etiological relationship with FND. Furthermore, several unique clinical aspects of FND make it likely that the usual prioritization of "objective" (or clinician-rated) over "subjective" (or patient-rated) measures might not be appropriate. Self-report measures may be more clinically meaningful in this patient population. Despite being a common and disabling disorder, there has been little research into outcome measures in FND, and to date trials have largely used measures designed for the assessment of other disorders. An international FND Core Outcome Measure group (FND-COM) has been established to develop a consensus battery of outcomes for FND: a "core outcome set." In this perspective article, the authors reviewed the process of outcome measure development and selection before considering the specific features of FND affecting the development of a core outcome set, as well as a research agenda to optimize outcome measurement in this complex neuropsychiatric disorder.

A Delphi study to establish consensus on a definition of major bleeding in adult trauma

BACKGROUND

The majority of potentially preventable deaths in trauma are due to uncontrolled hemorrhage and occur early after injury. How major bleeding is defined is integral to early identification and treatment of this group of high-risk patients. However, there is no consensus on a definition of major bleeding in trauma. The aim of this Delphi study was to develop a consensus definition for research, with transfusion used as a surrogate marker of bleeding.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Trauma experts from three international groups were invited to take part in an online Delphi survey. Over the course of four rounds, the group developed a number of definitions of major bleeding and reached consensus on a new definition.

RESULTS

Forty-four trauma experts agreed to become members of the Delphi panel, and 30 of 44 (68%) completed all four rounds. The panel agreed to exclude the historical massive transfusion definition (≥10 units of red blood cells within 24 hours). Consensus was reached on a new definition for use in clinical research: 4 or more units of any blood component within 2 hours of injury.

CONCLUSION

This Delphi process has yielded a pragmatic transfusion-based definition of major bleeding. The consensus definition differs from historical definitions: a shorter time frame to reflect the acuity of bleeding, and multiple blood components in keeping with a balanced approach to resuscitation. The definition developed may be best suited to mature trauma systems (reflecting the demographics of the expert panel), and could be used to guide registry data recording and to characterize patients at risk of major bleeding.

Maternal complications in pregnancy and childbirth for women with epilepsy: Time trends in a nationwide cohort

OBJECTIVE

Obstetric trends show changes in complication rates and maternal characteristics such as caesarean section, induced labour, and maternal age. To what degree such general time trends and changing patterns of antiepileptic drug use influence pregnancies of women with epilepsy (WWE) is unknown. Our aim was to describe changes in maternal characteristics and obstetric complications in WWE over time, and to assess changes in complication risks in WWE relative to women without epilepsy.

METHODS

This was a nationwide cohort study of all first births in the Medical Birth Registry of Norway, 1999-2016. We estimated maternal characteristics, complication rates, and risks for WWE compared to women without epilepsy. Main maternal outcome measures were hypertensive disorders, bleeding in pregnancy, induction of labour, caesarean section, postpartum hemorrhage, preterm birth, small for gestational age, and epidural analgesia. Time trends were analyzed by logistic regression and comparisons made with interaction analyses.

RESULTS

426 347 first births were analyzed, and 3077 (0.7%) women had epilepsy. In WWE there was an increase in proportions of induced labour (p<0.005) and use of epidural analgesia (p<0.005), and a reduction in mild preeclampsia (p = 0.006). However, the risk of these outcomes did not change over time. Only the risk of severe preeclampsia increased significantly over time relative to women without epilepsy (p = 0.006). In WWE, folic acid supplementation increased significantly over time (p<0.005), and there was a decrease in smoking during pregnancy (p<0.005), but these changes were less pronounced than for women without epilepsy (p<0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

During 1999-2016 there were important changes in maternal characteristics and complication rates among WWE. However, outcome risks for WWE relative to women without epilepsy did not change despite changes in antiepileptic drug use patterns. The relative risk of severe preeclampsia increased in women with epilepsy.

AntiEpileptic drug Monitoring in PREgnancy (EMPiRE): a double-blind randomised trial on effectiveness and acceptability of monitoring strategies

BACKGROUND

Pregnant women with epilepsy on antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) may experience a reduction in serum AED levels. This has the potential to worsen seizure control.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if, in pregnant women with epilepsy on AEDs, additional therapeutic drug monitoring reduces seizure deterioration compared with clinical features monitoring after a reduction in serum AED levels.

DESIGN

A double-blind, randomised trial nested within a cohort study was conducted and a qualitative study of acceptability of the two strategies was undertaken. Stratified block randomisation with a 1 : 1 allocation method was carried out.

SETTING

Fifty obstetric and epilepsy clinics in secondary and tertiary care units in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Pregnant women with epilepsy on one or more of the following AEDs: lamotrigine, carbamazepine, phenytoin or levetiracetam. Women with a ≥ 25% decrease in serum AED level from baseline were randomised to therapeutic drug monitoring or clinical features monitoring strategies.

INTERVENTIONS

In the therapeutic drug monitoring group, clinicians had access to clinical findings and monthly serum AED levels to guide AED dosage adjustment for seizure control. In the clinical features monitoring group, AED dosage adjustment was based only on clinical features.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome - seizure deterioration, defined as time to first seizure and to all seizures after randomisation per woman until 6 weeks post partum. Secondary outcomes - pregnancy complications in mother and offspring, maternal quality of life, seizure rates in cohorts with stable serum AED level, AED dose exposure and adverse events related to AEDs.

ANALYSIS

Analysis of time to first and to all seizures after randomisation was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model, and multivariate failure time analysis by the Andersen-Gill model. The effects were reported as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Secondary outcomes were reported as mean differences (MDs) or odds ratios.

RESULTS

A total of 130 women were randomised to the therapeutic drug monitoring group and 133 to the clinical features monitoring group; 294 women did not have a reduction in serum AED level. A total of 127 women in the therapeutic drug monitoring group and 130 women in the clinical features monitoring group (98% of complete data) were included in the primary analysis. There were no significant differences in the time to first seizure (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.2) or timing of all seizures after randomisation (HR 1.3, 95% CI 0.7 to 2.5) between both trial groups. In comparison with the group with stable serum AED levels, there were no significant increases in seizures in the clinical features monitoring (odds ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.5) or therapeutic drug monitoring group (odds ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.5) associated with a reduction in serum AED levels. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were similar in both groups, except for higher cord blood levels of lamotrigine (MD 0.55 mg/l, 95% CI 0.11 to 1 mg/l) or levetiracetam (MD 7.8 mg/l, 95% CI 0.86 to 14.8 mg/l) in the therapeutic drug monitoring group than in the clinical features monitoring group. There were no differences between the groups on daily AED exposure or quality of life. An increase in exposure to lamotrigine, levetiracetam and carbamazepine significantly increased the cord blood levels of the AEDs, but not maternal or fetal complications. Women with epilepsy perceived the need for weighing up their increased vulnerability to seizures during pregnancy against the side effects of AEDs.

LIMITATIONS

Fewer women than the original target were recruited.

CONCLUSION

There is no evidence to suggest that regular monitoring of serum AED levels in pregnancy improves seizure control or affects maternal or fetal outcomes.

FUTURE WORK RECOMMENDATIONS

Further evaluation of the risks of seizure deterioration for various threshold levels of reduction in AEDs and the long-term neurodevelopment of infants born to mothers in both randomised groups is needed. An individualised prediction model will help to identify those women who need close monitoring in pregnancy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN01253916.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 23. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The development of a Core Outcome Set for medicines management interventions for people with dementia in primary care

BACKGROUND

people with dementia (PWD), and their carers, face challenges with medicines management activities. As interventions to support medicines management for PWD are developed, consideration must be given to the outcomes chosen to measure their effectiveness. A Core Outcome Set (COS) is a minimum set of outcomes to be measured in all trials in a particular clinical area, which seeks to reduce heterogeneity of outcome reporting across trials.

OBJECTIVE

to develop a COS for trials assessing the effectiveness of medicines management interventions for PWD in primary care.

METHODS

a comprehensive list of outcomes was compiled through a systematic review and semi-structured interviews with PWD (n = 18), their carers (n = 15), community pharmacists (n = 15) and general practitioners (n = 15). These outcomes were rated by a Delphi panel (n = 52) on a nine-point Likert scale from 1 (limited importance) to 9 (critical) during three sequential rounds of questionnaire distribution. The Delphi panel comprised participants with expertise in dementia and medicines management, including academics and healthcare professionals. An outcome was eligible for inclusion in the COS if ≥70% of participants rated it critical and <15% of participants rated it of limited importance.

RESULTS

twenty-nine outcomes identified from the systematic review and stakeholder interviews were presented to the Delphi panel. Consensus was reached on 21 outcomes, of which the 7 most highly rated were recommended for inclusion in the COS.

CONCLUSION

this study used robust methodology to develop a COS for medicines management interventions for PWD. Future work should identify the most appropriate tools to measure these outcomes.

Development of a core outcome set for trials on induction of labour: an international multistakeholder Delphi study

OBJECTIVE

To develop a set of core outcomes to be minimally reported in trials on induction of labour.

DESIGN

Two-round Delphi survey and consensus meeting.

POPULATION

Four stakeholder groups: midwives, obstetricians, neonatologists, and women's representatives.

METHODS

Protocol registered with COMET (Registration Number: 695). Stakeholders rated reported outcomes for importance (1-limited to 9-critical). The median rating of each outcome was calculated. The consensus criteria to include outcomes were as follows: ≥70% participants rated outcomes as critical and <15% rated outcomes as limited importance. Outcomes that did not achieve consensus were taken to round two and, if there was still no consensus, to the final consensus meeting.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes in trials of induction of labour.

RESULTS

Of the 159 invited participants, 54% (86/159) completed the first round, and 83% completed the second round (71/86). The core outcome set included 28 core outcomes in four domains: Short-term maternal outcomes (n = 18)-cardiorespiratory arrest, damage to internal organs, death, haemorrhage, hysterectomy, infection, intensive care admission, length of hospital stay, mode of delivery, need for more than one induction agent, oxytocin augmentation, postnatal depression, pulmonary embolus, satisfaction with care, stroke, time from induction to delivery, uterine hyperstimulation, uterine scar dehiscence/rupture; short-term offspring outcomes (n = 8)-admission to the neonatal unit, birth trauma, death, hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy/need for therapeutic hypothermia, meconium aspiration syndrome, need for respiratory support, infection, and seizures; long-term maternal outcomes (n = 1)-operative pelvic floor repair; long-term offspring outcomes (n = 1)-disability including neurodevelopmental delay.

CONCLUSION

Trials on induction of labour should include this core outcome set to standardise reporting.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

International multistakeholder Delphi study identifies a core outcome set for trials on induction of labour.

Indicators of outcome quality in peripheral arterial disease revascularisations – a Delphi expert consensus

Abstract. Introduction: Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) affects a continuously increasing number of people worldwide leading to more invasive treatments. Indication to perform invasive revascularisations usually arises from consensus-based recommendations of practice guidelines and from few randomized controlled trials where outcome measures focus mainly on risk factors associated with mortality and morbidity. To date, no broad consensual agreement of experts on valid indicators of outcome quality exists for PAD. Methods: A literature review was conducted to collect indicators of outcome quality from studies of PAD. The Delphi technique was used to achieve a consensual agreement on a set of core indicators. The expert panel of the two-round Delphi approach was formed by leading vascular specialists joining the IDOMENEO study, physician assistants, wound nurses, and patient representatives. Items were scored via a web-based anonymised electronic questionnaire using a five-point Likert-scale. Results: Out of 40 invited experts 30 joined the panel and completed round one. Twenty-four experts completed the second and final round. Forty-three indicators of outcome quality were initially identified and validated by the panel. After two Delphi rounds, 12 indicators (27.9 %) achieved the limit of agreement for relevance and four (9.3 %) for practicability. Major adverse limb events (MALE), major amputation, and major re-intervention (or re-operation) were consented as both highly relevant and practicable. Additionally, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), myocardial infarction, stroke or transient ischaemic attack, all-cause death, all re-intervention (or re-operation), wound infection, vascular access-related major complication, walking distance, and Rutherford-classification were consented as highly relevant. Ankle-brachial-index was consented as highly practicable. Conclusions: This Delphi approach of vascular experts identified three indicators as highly relevant and clinically practicable to be recommended as indicators of outcome quality in invasive PAD treatment. Among others, these consented items may help in harmonising future studies and quality benchmarking increasing their comparability, validity, and efficiency.

Variation in hyperemesis gravidarum definition and outcome reporting in randomised clinical trials: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) is a common cause of hospital admission in early pregnancy. There is no international consensus on the definition of HG, or on outcomes that should be reported in trials. Consistency in definition and outcome reporting is important for the interpretation and synthesis of data in meta-analyses.

OBJECTIVE

To identify which HG definitions and outcomes are currently in use in trials.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the following sources: (1) Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, (2) Embase and (3) Medline for published trials and the WHO-ICTRP database for ongoing trials (27 October 2017).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised clinical trials reporting on any intervention for HG were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial eligibility and extracted data on HG definition and outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 31 published trials reporting data from 2511 women and three ongoing trials with a planned sample size of 360 participants. We identified 11 definition items. Most commonly used definition items were vomiting (34 trials) and nausea (30 trials). We identified 34 distinct outcomes. Most commonly reported outcomes were vomiting (29 trials), nausea (26 trials), need for hospital treatment (14 trials) and duration of hospital (re)admission(s) (14 trials).

CONCLUSION

There is substantial variation of HG definition and outcome reporting in trials. This hampers meaningful aggregation of trial results in meta-analysis and implementation of evidence in guidelines. To overcome this, international consensus on a definition and a core outcome set for HG trials should be developed.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

There is a wide variation of definitions and outcomes reported in trials on hyperemesis gravidarum.

International Consortium of Vascular Registries Consensus Recommendations for Peripheral Revascularisation Registry Data Collection

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND

To achieve consensus on the minimum core data set for evaluation of peripheral arterial revascularisation outcomes and enable collaboration among international registries.

METHODS

A modified Delphi approach was used to achieve consensus among international vascular surgeons and registry members of the International Consortium of Vascular Registries (ICVR). Variables, including definitions, from registries covering open and endovascular surgery, representing 14 countries in ICVR, were collected and analysed to define a minimum core data set and to develop an optimum data set for registries. Up to three different levels of variable specification were suggested to allow inclusion of registries with simpler versus more complex data capture, while still allowing for data aggregation based on harmonised core definitions.

RESULTS

Among 31 invited experts, 25 completed five Delphi rounds via internet exchange and face to face discussions. In total, 187 different items from the various registry data forms were identified for potential inclusion in the recommended data set. Ultimately, 79 items were recommended for inclusion in minimum core data sets, including 65 items in the level 1 data set, and an additional 14 items in the more specific level 2 and 3 recommended data sets. Data elements were broadly divided into (i) patient characteristics; (ii) comorbidities; (iii) current medications; (iv) lesion treated; (v) procedure; (vi) bypass; (vii) endarterectomy (viii) catheter based intervention; (ix) complications; and (x) follow up.

CONCLUSION

A modified Delphi study allowed 25 international vascular registry experts to achieve a consensus recommendation for a minimum core data set and an optimum data set for peripheral arterial revascularisation registries. Continued global harmonisation of registry infrastructure and definition of items will overcome limitations related to single country investigations and enhance the development of real world evidence.

Development of a Core Outcome Set for research on critically ill obstetric patients: A study protocol

Background

Current data on critical illness during pregnancy are insufficient for evidence-based decision making. Core outcome sets are promoted to improve reporting of outcomes important to decision makers. We aim to develop a Core Outcome Set for research on critically ill obstetric patients (COSCO study).

Methods

We will perform a systematic review of studies on critical illness in pregnancy and focus groups or interviews with women who were critically ill while being pregnant. These data will inform an international Delphi survey where stakeholders will rank proposed outcomes. Selected outcomes will be brought forward to a consensus meeting where core outcomes will be defined. We will then complete a second consensus process to define measures for each core outcome.

Conclusion

The Core Outcome Set on Critically ill Obstetric patients study aims to develop a set of core outcomes to be part of all studies on critically ill obstetric patients. Implementation of this core outcome set will help improve future research efforts.Trial registration: This study is registered on the COMET-initiative website (COS #916). This systematic review is registered on PROSPERO (CRD #42017071944).

Defining and evaluating novel procedures for involving patients in Core Outcome Set research: creating a meaningful long list of candidate outcome domains

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

Outcome domains are aspects of a condition that matter to patients and clinicians and can be measured to assess treatment effects. For tinnitus, examples include 'tinnitus loudness' and 'ability to concentrate'. This study focuses on the first stage of agreeing which outcome domains should be measured in all clinical trials of tinnitus. Crucially, it involves identifying outcome domains, prior to a voting process. This article describes how we effectively involved patients in that study design process, and reflects on the impact of their input.The study first compiled a long list of all possible outcome domains before asking interested parties, including patients, to vote which ones to include. Ensuring patients fully participate in this process holds unique challenges as it can be long, repetitive and its purpose far removed from their needs. These challenges may be addressed by involving patients in designing the research. There is evidence that other research teams are doing this, but its reporting is not detailed enough to guide others. Our paper seeks to address this.We describe how we involved patients (people living with tinnitus) in creating a long list of outcome domains that we included in our study. We also reflect on the benefits this brought. Two patients partnered with us in designing the survey. We also consulted an independent patient review panel. Involving patients reduced the list of domains included in the survey and made domain names and associated descriptions clearer. Our resulting survey performed well in recruiting and retaining patients as participants.

ABSTRACT

Background Tinnitus is a complex audiological condition affecting many different domains of everyday life. Clinical trials of tinnitus interventions measure and report those outcome domains inconsistently and this hinders direct comparison between study findings. To address this problem, an ongoing project is developing a Core Outcome Set; an agreed list of outcome domains to be measured and reported in all future trials. Part of this project uses a consensus methodology ('Delphi' survey), whereby all relevant stakeholders identify important and critical outcome domains from a long list of candidates. This article addresses a gap in the patient involvement literature by describing and reflecting on our involvement of patients to create a meaningful long list of candidate outcome domains.Methods Two Public Research Partners with lived experience of tinnitus reviewed an initial list of 124 outcome domains over two face-to-face workshops. With the Study Management Team, they interpreted each candidate outcome domain and generated a plain language description. Following this, the domain names and descriptions underwent an additional lay review by 14 patients and 5 clinical experts, via an online survey platform.Results Insights gained from the workshops and survey feedback prompted substantial, unforeseen modifications to the long list. These included the reduction of the number of outcome domains (from 124 to 66) via the exclusion of broad concepts and consolidation of equivalent domains or domains outside the scope of the study. Reviewers also applied their lived experience of tinnitus to bring clarity and relevance to domain names and plain language descriptions. Four impacts on the Delphi survey were observed: recruitment exceeded the target by 171%, there were equivalent numbers of patient and professional participants (n = 358 and n = 312, respectively), feedback was mostly positive, and retention was high (87%).Conclusions Patient involvement was an integral and transformative step of the study design process. Patient involvement was impactful because the online Delphi survey was successful in recruiting and retaining participants, and there were many comments about a positive participatory experience. Seven general methodological features are highlighted which fit with general principles of good patient involvement. These can benefit other Core Outcome Set developers.

Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: An updated systematic review and involvement of low and middle income countries

Background

Core outcome sets (COS) comprise a minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all trials for a specific health condition. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative maintains an up to date, publicly accessible online database of published and ongoing COS. An annual systematic review update is an important part of this process.

Methods

This review employed the same, multifaceted approach that was used in the original review and the previous two updates. This approach has identified studies that sought to determine which outcomes/domains to measure in clinical trials of a specific condition. This update includes an analysis of the inclusion of participants from low and middle income countries (LMICs) as identified by the OECD, in these COS.

Results

Eighteen publications, relating to 15 new studies describing the development of 15 COS, were eligible for inclusion in the review. Results show an increase in the use of mixed methods, including Delphi surveys. Clinical experts remain the most common stakeholder group involved. Overall, only 16% of the 259 COS studies published up to the end of 2016 have included participants from LMICs.

Conclusion

This review highlights opportunities for greater public participation in COS development and the involvement of stakeholders from a wider range of geographical settings, in particular LMICs.

Adaptation of the WHO maternal near miss tool for use in sub-Saharan Africa: an International Delphi study

Background

Assessments of maternal near miss (MNM) are increasingly used in addition to those of maternal mortality measures. The World Health Organization (WHO) has introduced an MNM tool in 2009, but this tool was previously found to be of limited applicability in several low–resource settings. The aim of this study was to identify adaptations to enhance applicability of the WHO MNM tool in sub–Saharan Africa.

Methods

Using a Delphi consensus methodology, existing MNM tools were rated for applicability in sub-Saharan Africa over a series of three rounds. Maternal health experts from sub-Saharan Africa or with considerable knowledge of the context first rated importance of WHO MNM parameters using Likert scales, and were asked to suggest additional parameters. This was followed by two confirmation rounds. Parameters accepted by at least 70% of the panel members were accepted for use in the region.

Results

Of 58 experts who participated from study onset, 47 (81%) completed all three rounds. Out of the 25 WHO MNM parameters, all 11 clinical, four out of eight laboratory, and four out of six management–based parameters were accepted, while six parameters (PaO2/FiO2 < 200 mmHg, bilirubin >100 μmol/l or >6.0 mg/dl, pH <7.1, lactate >5 μmol/l, dialysis for acute renal failure and use of continuous vasoactive drugs) were deemed to not be applicable. An additional eight parameters (uterine rupture, sepsis/severe systemic infection, eclampsia, laparotomy other than caesarean section, pulmonary edema, severe malaria, severe complications of abortions and severe pre-eclampsia with ICU admission) were suggested for inclusion into an adapted sub-Saharan African MNM tool.

Conclusions

All WHO clinical criteria were accepted for use in the region. Only few of the laboratory- and management based were rated applicable. This study brought forward important suggestions for adaptations in the WHO MNM criteria to enhance its applicability in sub-Saharan Africa and possibly other low–resource settings.

Core Outcome Domains for early phase clinical trials of sound-, psychology-, and pharmacology-based interventions to manage chronic subjective tinnitus in adults: the COMIT'ID study protocol for using a Delphi process and face-to-face meetings to establish consensus

Background

The reporting of outcomes in clinical trials of subjective tinnitus indicates that many different tinnitus-related complaints are of interest to investigators, from perceptual attributes of the sound (e.g. loudness) to psychosocial impacts (e.g. quality of life). Even when considering one type of intervention strategy for subjective tinnitus, there is no agreement about what is critically important for deciding whether a treatment is effective. The main purpose of this observational study is, therefore to, develop Core Outcome Domain Sets for the three different intervention strategies (sound, psychological, and pharmacological) for adults with chronic subjective tinnitus that should be measured and reported in every clinical trial of these interventions. Secondary objectives are to identify the strengths and limitations of our study design for recruiting and reducing attrition of participants, and to explore uptake of the core outcomes.

Methods

The ‘Core Outcome Measures in Tinnitus: International Delphi’ (COMIT’ID) study will use a mixed-methods approach that incorporates input from health care users at the pre-Delphi stage, a modified three-round Delphi survey and final consensus meetings (one for each intervention). The meetings will generate recommendations by stakeholder representatives on agreed Core Outcome Domain Sets specific to each intervention. A subsequent step will establish a common cross-cutting Core Outcome Domain Set by identifying the common outcome domains included in all three intervention-specific Core Outcome Domain Sets. To address the secondary objectives, we will gather feedback from participants about their experience of taking part in the Delphi process. We aspire to conduct an observational cohort study to evaluate uptake of the core outcomes in published studies at 7 years following Core Outcome Set publication.

Discussion

The COMIT’ID study aims to develop a Core Outcome Domain Set that is agreed as critically important for deciding whether a treatment for subjective tinnitus is effective. Such a recommendation would help to standardise future clinical trials worldwide and so we will determine if participation increases use of the Core Outcome Set in the long term.

Trial registration

This project has been registered (November 2014) in the database of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2123-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Developing, implementing and disseminating a core outcome set for neonatal medicine

BACKGROUND

In high resource settings, 1 in 10 newborn babies require admission to a neonatal unit. Research evaluating neonatal care involves recording and reporting many different outcomes and outcome measures. Such variation limits the usefulness of research as studies cannot be compared or combined. To address these limitations, we aim to develop, disseminate and implement a core outcome set for neonatal medicine.

METHODS

A steering group that includes parents and former patients, healthcare professionals and researchers has been formed to guide the development of the core outcome set. We will review neonatal trials systematically to identify previously reported outcomes. Additionally, we will specifically identify outcomes of importance to parents, former patients and healthcare professionals through a systematic review of qualitative studies. Outcomes identified will be entered into an international, multi-perspective eDelphi survey. All key stakeholders will be invited to participate. The Delphi method will encourage individual and group stakeholder consensus to identify a core outcome set. The core outcome set will be mapped to existing, routinely recorded data where these exist.

DISCUSSION

Use of a core set will ensure outcomes of importance to key stakeholders, including former patients and parents, are recorded and reported in a standard fashion in future research. Embedding the core outcome set within future clinical studies will extend the usefulness of research to inform practice, enhance patient care and ultimately improve outcomes. Using routinely recorded electronic data will facilitate implementation with minimal addition burden.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database: 842 (www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/842).