Core outcome sets in medical research

Assessing the degree to which randomized controlled trials align with the core outcome set for osteoarthritis of knee and hip: A cross-sectional analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the degree of core outcome set alignment and identify issues with alignment to the 2019 COS among clinical trial registrations focused on knee and/or hip osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

Our search was performed on registered knee and hip OA randomized controlled trials (RCTs) available on ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. The screening process considered trials registered between 8/2014 and 6/2023. We extracted data on general trial characteristics and the five trial endpoints detailed in the COS (pain, physical function, quality of life, patient global assessment, and adverse events), in a masked and duplicate manner. The frequencies of COS alignment were assessed over time prior to and after COS publication.

RESULTS

Of the 10,718 RCTs screened, 481 met inclusion criteria. Most were phase 3 (368/481, 76.51%) and heavily university-funded (184/481, 38.25%). Despite the 2019 COS, no marked enhancement in overall alignment was noted. The outcome 'Pain' exhibited the highest degree of COS alignment (455/481, 94.59%), whereas 'adverse events' lagged behind (89/481, 18.50%). Additionally, trial factors such as 'Continent', 'Funding Type', and 'Recruitment Status' displayed no significant influence on COS alignment.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the acknowledged advantages of using COS in RCTs and the availability of an updated COS, the alignment to these outcomes remains notably low. Significant efforts are needed to encourage broader adoption in future studies on knee and hip OA, with the aim of improving research quality and patient care.

Critical outcomes to be included in the Core Outcome Set for nutritional intervention studies in older adults with malnutrition or at risk of malnutrition: a modified Delphi Study

INTRODUCTION

As part of the development of an agreed minimum set of outcomes or Core Outcome Set (COS) for future nutritional intervention trials in older adults with malnutrition or at risk of malnutrition, this work reports on the Delphi surveys and final consensus.

METHODS

Outcomes from a scoping review were incorporated into a two-round Delphi survey. Researchers and healthcare professionals experienced in malnutrition in older adults were invited to take part in an online survey to rate 38 selected outcomes on a nine-point Likert scale ranging from 'not important' to 'critical' for their setting (community, hospital, or long-term care). Consensus for inclusion was reached when ≥75% (or ≥60% if a patient-reported outcome) of the participants scored the outcome as 'critical' and <15% as 'not important'. Resulting outcomes were voted for inclusion or exclusion in the COS in a final online consensus meeting.

RESULTS

Ninety-three and 72 participants from diverse professional backgrounds and countries participated in the 1st and 2nd Delphi round, respectively. After both rounds eleven outcomes met the inclusion criteria, largely irrespective of setting. Fifteen participants, representing academia, health care, health policy, industry, and PPI, voted in a final online consensus meeting resulting in ten outcomes: malnutrition status, dietary intake, appetite, body weight or BMI, muscle strength, muscle mass, functional performance, functional limitations, quality of life, and acceptability of the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Ten outcomes will form the COS which is intended to be used by the scientific community in all future nutritional intervention studies for older adults with malnutrition or at risk of malnutrition. The subsequent phase will establish the appropriate methods to measure these outcomes.

Taking a chance on outcome standardisation: A cross-sectional analysis assessing the uptake of the prevention of preterm birth core outcome set in randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Analyse uptake of the core outcome set (COS) within preterm birth (PTB) clinical trials.

DESIGN

On 26 June 2023, we conducted a systematic search of phase III/IV trial registry entries regarding PTB interventions via ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trial Registry Platform. These trials were analysed for the outcomes measured.

SETTING

N/A.

SAMPLE

After searching the two databases, 5257 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were screened, resulting in 92 RCTs for analysis.

METHODS

Inclusion criteria were the following: subjects were patients receiving an intervention for PTB, study enrolment began within 5 years prior to publication of PTB COS to 26 June 2023, and evaluated the efficacy of interventions. Authors screened and extracted data in masked, duplicate fashion, then performed an interrupted time series analysis, analysis of variance and correlation analysis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We extracted outcomes measured by each clinical trial in our sample. Trials were analysed for the percentage of adopted outcomes from PTB COS.

RESULTS

After COS publication, there was no significant change in percentage of COS outcomes measured. The most measured outcome was 'offspring mortality' (54.34%, 50/92) and the least measured outcome was 'late neonatal neurodevelopment morbidity' (3.26%, 3/92). Additionally, 22.83% (21/92) of trials measured zero outcomes related to the PTB COS.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrated no significant change in outcome measurement before or after PTB COS publication. We recommend focusing on both the measurement of outcomes and the assessments that are used.

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

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

A core domain set for pyoderma gangrenosum trial outcomes: an international eDelphi and consensus study from the UPGRADE initiative

BACKGROUND

Pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) is a rare ulcerative skin condition with no current standardized outcomes or outcome measures. With a rich investigational therapeutic pipeline, standardization of outcomes and improvement of data quality and interpretability will promote the appropriate and consistent evaluation of potential new therapies. Core outcome sets (COS) are agreed, standardized sets of outcomes that represent the minimum that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials of a specific condition.

OBJECTIVES

To identify and reach a consensus on which domains (what to be measured) should be included in the Understanding Pyoderma Gangrenosum: Review and Analysis of Disease Effects (UPGRADE) core domain set for clinical trials in PG.

METHODS

Collaborative discussions between patients and PG experts, and a systematic review of the literature identified items and prospective domains. A three-round international eDelphi exercise was performed to prioritize the domains and refine the provisional items (consensus: ≥ 70% of participants rating a domain as 'extremely important' and < 15% of participants voting 'not important'), followed by an international meeting to reach consensus on the core domain set (consensus: < 30% disagreement). Item-generation discussions and consensus meetings were hosted via online videoconferences. The eDelphi exercise and consensus voting were performed using Qualtrics survey software. Participants were adults with PG, healthcare professionals, researchers and industry representatives.

RESULTS

Collaborative discussions and systematic reviews yielded 115 items, which were distilled into 15 prospective domains. The eDelphi exercise removed the three lowest-priority domains ('laboratory tests', 'treatment costs' and 'disease impact on family') and ranked 'pain', 'quality of life' and 'physical symptoms' as the highest-priority prospective domains. Consensus was reached on the domains of 'pain', 'quality of life' and 'clinical signs'. The domain of 'disease course/disease progression' narrowly failed to reach consensus for inclusion in the core set (32% of participants voted 'no'). Refinement of this domain definition will be required and presented for consideration at future consensus meetings.

CONCLUSIONS

The UPGRADE core domain set for clinical trials in PG has been agreed by international multistakeholder consensus. Future work will develop and/or select outcome measurement instruments for these domains to establish a COS.

Impact of harm minimization interventions on reducing blood-borne infection transmission and some injecting behaviors among people who inject drugs: an overview and evidence gap mapping

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to synthetize the evidence on the effectiveness of harm minimization interventions on reducing blood-borne infection transmission and injecting behaviors among people who inject drugs (PWID) through a comprehensive overview of systematic reviews and evidence gap mapping.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted with searches in PubMed and Scopus to identify systematic reviews assessing the impact of interventions aimed at reducing the harms associated with injectable drug use. The overall characteristics of the studies were extracted and their methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR-2. An evidence gap map was constructed, highlighting the most frequently reported outcomes by intervention (CRD42023387713).

RESULTS

Thirty-three systematic reviews were included. Of these, 14 (42.2%) assessed the impact of needle/syringe exchange programs (NSEP) and 11 (33.3%) examined opioid agonist therapy (OAT). These interventions are likely to be associated with reductions of HIV/HCV incidence (10-40% risk reduction for NSEP; 50-60% for OAT) and sharing injecting paraphernalia (50% for NSEP, 25-85% for OAT), particularly when combined (moderate evidence). Behavioral/educational interventions were assessed in 12 reviews (36.4%) with most authors in favor/partially in favor of the use of these approaches (moderate evidence). Take-home naloxone programs and supervised-injection facilities were each assessed in two studies (6.1%), which reported inconclusive results (limited/inconsistent evidence). Most authors reported high levels of heterogeneity and risk of bias. Other interventions and outcomes were inadequately reported. Most systematic reviews presented low or critically low quality.

CONCLUSION

The evidence is sufficient to support the effectiveness of OAT, NSEP and their combination in reducing blood-borne infection transmission and certain injecting behaviors among PWID. However, evidence of other harm minimizations interventions in different settings and for some outcomes remain insufficient.

The Neurorehabilitation of Neurological Movement Disorders Requires Rigorous and Sustained Research

Movement disorders that stem from neurological conditions such as stroke, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis (MS), Parkinson's disease (PD), and spinocerebellar degeneration (SCD) can significantly impair a person's activities of daily living (ADL) [...].

Assessing the uptake of the type 1 diabetes core outcome set in randomized controlled trials: A Cross-Sectional study

AIMS

This study analyzed uptake of the core outcome set (COS) for type 1 diabetes (T1D) and trends in its use before and after its development in December 2017.

METHODS

On June 26, 2023, ClinicalTrials.gov was systematically searched for T1D randomized controlled trials. The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database provided a COS of eight key outcomes for analysis. Included trials were analyzed for COS uptake before and after its release in December 2017 in a masked, duplicate fashion by independent reviewers. We also calculated the proportion of trials that measured the complete COS and assessed the most frequently reported COS outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 3,792 originally screened articles, 144 RCTs were included in the final sample. Following COS publication, its use steadily decreased. Within the COS, HbA1c and severe hypoglycemia were most frequently implemented as endpoints; other recommended outcomes were rarely used in the published trials.

CONCLUSION

Despite the 2017 T1D COS publication, use has decreased over time. This inconsistency negatively influences evidence-based practices and care. Educating researchers on COS and promoting uptake is crucial. Wider COS adoption in T1D trials could enhance clinical research overall. Further study of barriers and facilitators influencing uptake is essential to support consistent use and reporting.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Physical rehabilitation, mobilization and patient-centred outcomes: what is new?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Physical rehabilitation and mobilization interventions aim to reduce the incidence of intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired weakness and subsequently reduce morbidity in critically ill patients. This chapter will explore the evidence for physical rehabilitation and mobilization with an emphasis on patient-centred outcomes selected in randomized controlled trials. This is particularly pertinent at a time when clinicians are deciding how to implement physical rehabilitation and mobilization into the treatment of critically ill patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Multiple trials of physical rehabilitation and mobilization were published in 2022 and 2023 with conflicting results. Analysing the complexities of physical rehabilitation research provides an insight into these results and will aid in the interpretation of trials of physical rehabilitation and mobilization.

SUMMARY

Patient-centred outcomes are often utilized in physical rehabilitation and mobilization research, but this does not automatically correspond to an increase in research quality. Improving consistency in trials of physical rehabilitation will aid in the interpretation and translation of physical rehabilitation research.

Social Prescribing Outcomes for Trials (SPOT): Protocol for a modified Delphi study on core outcomes

PURPOSE

This is a study protocol to co-create with knowledge users a core outcome set focused on middle-aged and older adults (40 years+) for use in social prescribing research.

METHODS

We will follow the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) guide and use modified Delphi methods, including collating outcomes reported in social prescribing publications, online surveys, and discussion with our team to finalize the core outcome set. We intentionally center this work on people who deliver and receive social prescribing and include methods to evaluate collaboration. Our three-part process includes: (1) identifying published systematic reviews on social prescribing for adults to extract reported outcomes; and (2) up to three rounds of online surveys to rate the importance of outcomes for social prescribing. For this part, we will invite people (n = 240) who represent the population experienced in social prescribing, including researchers, members of social prescribing organizations, and people who receive social prescribing and their caregivers. Finally, we will (3) convene a virtual team meeting to discuss and rank the findings and finalize the core outcome set and our knowledge mobilization plan.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first study designed to use a modified Delphi method to co-create core outcomes for social prescribing. Development of a core outcome set contributes to improved knowledge synthesis via consistency in measures and terminology. We aim to develop guidance for future research, and specifically on the use of core outcomes for social prescribing at the person/patient, provider, program, and societal-level.