Reporting of outcomes in gastric cancer surgery trials: a systematic review

A systematic review of clinical outcome reporting for curative surgical treatment of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related death. Surgery (with systemic therapy) provides the only chance for long-term survival, but carries a high risk of morbidity and mortality. Robust evidence from meta-analyses, essential in informing decisions, is thwarted by inconsistencies between studies. This systematic review determines the nature and degree of heterogenous outcome reporting in research evaluating curative pancreatic cancer surgery.

METHODS

A literature search of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central and clinicaltrials.gov from 2017 to 2023 for eligible randomised and prospective studies adhering to a PROSPERO registered protocol.

RESULTS

Included were 156 studies reporting a total of 2088 outcomes which deduplicated to 399 unique endpoints. No single outcome was reported in all studies. 45 % were not defined. Adverse events and delivery of care measures (typically technical aspects of surgery) accounted for 60 % and 32 % of outcomes respectively, compared to 6 % evaluating physical functioning post-surgery.

CONCLUSION

The vast number and diversity of outcomes in use demonstrates lack of discernment in choice and disparity over domains of importance. Further work is needed to embed uniform outcome definitions, harmonise data collection and refocus research on fewer outcomes of proven relevance. Developing consensus on these critical outcomes through a Core Outcome Set is recommended.

Reporting of core outcomes in gastric cancer surgery trials over the past 25 years (systematic review)

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer, a leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, has seen limited improvement in survival over the past 3 decades. Surgical resection is the cornerstone of curative management but the optimal approach remains unclear. Decision-making is hindered by inconsistent outcome reporting limiting data synthesis between trials. International consensus between healthcare professionals and patients has formed a core outcome set to be reported as a minimum. We appraised outcomes previously reported.

METHODS

Evidence Based Medicine Reviews, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of RCTs during years 1995-2021. We searched trial registries for protocols of ongoing and future trials.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine articles from 64 studies and 69 trial protocols were included. No study reported all core outcomes: average reported per trial was 4 (interquartile range: 2). 'Serious' adverse events were reported by 98%, completeness of tumour removal by 85% and surgery-related death by 74%. Outcomes important to patients were reported least: quality of life (22%) and nutritional effects (15%). Defining outcomes and time frames used was variable.

CONCLUSIONS

Critically important outcomes are poorly reported in the literature and the status has not improved in future trials. Further work is required to improve uptake.

Uncut Roux-en-Y reconstruction after distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Choosing an optimal reconstruction method is pivotal for patients with gastric cancer undergoing distal gastrectomy. The uncut Roux-en-Y reconstruction, a variant of the conventional Roux-en-Y approach (or variant of the Billroth II reconstruction), employs uncut devices to occlude the afferent loop of the jejunum. This modification is designed to mitigate postgastrectomy syndrome and enhance long-term functional outcomes. However, the comparative benefits and potential harms of this approach compared to other reconstruction techniques remain a topic of debate.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of uncut Roux-en-Y reconstruction after distal gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, WanFang Data, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and clinical trial registries for published and unpublished trials up to November 2023. We also manually reviewed references from relevant systematic reviews identified by our search. We did not impose any language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing uncut Roux-en-Y reconstruction versus other reconstructions after distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. The comparison groups encompassed other reconstructions such as Billroth I, Billroth II (with or without Braun anastomosis), and Roux-en-Y reconstruction.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The critical outcomes included health-related quality of life at least six months after surgery, major postoperative complications within 30 days after surgery according to the Clavien-Dindo Classification (grades III to V), anastomotic leakage within 30 days, changes in body weight (kg) at least six months after surgery, and incidence of bile reflux, remnant gastritis, and oesophagitis at least six months after surgery. We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified eight trials, including 1167 participants, which contributed data to our meta-analyses. These trials were exclusively conducted in East Asian countries, predominantly in China. The studies varied in the types of uncut devices used, ranging from 2- to 6-row linear staplers to suture lines. The follow-up periods for long-term outcomes spanned from 3 months to 42 months, with most studies focusing on a 6- to 12-month range. We rated the certainty of evidence from low to very low. Uncut Roux-en-Y reconstruction versus Billroth II reconstruction In the realm of surgical complications, very low-certainty evidence suggests that uncut Roux-en-Y reconstruction compared with Billroth II reconstruction may make little to no difference to major postoperative complications (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 4.05; I² = 0%; risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.04; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 282 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and incidence of anastomotic leakage (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.44; I² not applicable; RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.02; I² = 32%; 3 studies, 615 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about these results. Focusing on long-term outcomes, low- to very low-certainty evidence suggests that uncut Roux-en-Y reconstruction compared with Billroth II reconstruction may make little to no difference to changes in body weight (mean difference (MD) 0.04 kg, 95% CI -0.84 to 0.92 kg; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 233 participants; low-certainty evidence), may reduce the incidence of bile reflux into the remnant stomach (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.83; RD -0.29, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.16; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 4, 95% CI 3 to 7; 1 study, 141 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may have little or no effect on the incidence of remnant gastritis (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.01 to 5.06; I2 = 78%; RD -0.15, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.07; I2 = 0%; NNTB 7, 95% CI 5 to 15; 2 studies, 265 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported on quality of life or the incidence of oesophagitis. Uncut Roux-en-Y reconstruction versus Roux-en-Y reconstruction In the realm of surgical complications, very low-certainty evidence suggests that uncut Roux-en-Y reconstruction compared with Roux-en-Y reconstruction may make little to no difference to major postoperative complications (RR 4.74, 95% CI 0.23 to 97.08; I² not applicable; RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.04; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 256 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and incidence of anastomotic leakage (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.08; I² = 0%; RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.02; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 213 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about these results. Focusing on long-term outcomes, very low-certainty evidence suggests that uncut Roux-en-Y reconstruction compared with Roux-en-Y reconstruction may increase the incidence of bile reflux into the remnant stomach (RR 10.74, 95% CI 3.52 to 32.76; RD 0.57, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.71; NNT for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 2, 95% CI 2 to 3; 1 study, 108 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and may make little to no difference to the incidence of remnant gastritis (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.01; I² = 60%; RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.08; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 361 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and incidence of oesophagitis (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.26; I² = 0%; RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.03; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 361 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about these results. Data were insufficient to assess the impact on quality of life and changes in body weight.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Given the predominance of low- to very low-certainty evidence, this Cochrane review faces challenges in providing definitive clinical guidance. We found the majority of critical outcomes may be comparable between the uncut Roux-en-Y reconstruction and other methods, but we are very uncertain about most of these results. Nevertheless, it indicates that uncut Roux-en-Y reconstruction may reduce the incidence of bile reflux compared to Billroth-II reconstruction, albeit with low certainty. In contrast, compared to Roux-en-Y reconstruction, uncut Roux-en-Y may increase bile reflux incidence, based on very low-certainty evidence. To strengthen the evidence base, further rigorous and long-term trials are needed. Additionally, these studies should explore variations in surgical procedures, particularly regarding uncut devices and methods to prevent recanalisation. Future research may potentially alter the conclusions of this review.

Impact of surgical resection on the survival in Mexican patients with gastric cancer: A meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer (GC) is one of the most frequent cancer types in Mexico. The primary method used as a treatment is surgical resection. The role of surgery in increasing survival is controversial. This study aimed to determine whether surgical resection increases the survival of patients with GC in a Mexican population.

METHODS

A systematic review of literature searches (Evidence-based MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and SciELO) and meta-analysis were performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis criteria. The published articles from 2000 to the current time were divided into cross-sectional and randomized studies. The inclusion criteria were survival, surgical resections, patients treated in Mexico, and primary GC. The effect estimation was calculated using the risk ratio (RR). The random-effects model and a confidence interval (CI) of 95% were used.

RESULTS

The RR of the pooled studies was 1.09 (95% CI, 0.71-1.67). RR of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.63-1.07) was obtained in cross-sectional studies, and randomized studies showed a RR of 2.08 (95% CI, 0.25-17.07).

CONCLUSION

This work is the first systematic study that assesses the role of surgery on the survival of patients with GC in the Mexican population, the results showed that surgical resection did not improve survival in patients with GC.

Interventions, outcomes and outcome measurement instruments in stillbirth care research: A systematic review to inform the development of a core outcome set

BACKGROUND

A core outcome set could address inconsistent outcome reporting and improve evidence for stillbirth care research, which have been identified as an important research priority.

OBJECTIVES

To identify outcomes and outcome measurement instruments reported by studies evaluating interventions after the diagnosis of a stillbirth.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Amed, BNI, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and WHO ICTRP from 1998 to August 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and non-randomised comparative or non-comparative studies reporting a stillbirth care intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Interventions, outcomes reported, definitions and outcome measurement tools were extracted.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty randomised and 200 non-randomised studies were included. Fifty-eight different interventions were reported, labour and birth care (52 studies), hospital bereavement care (28 studies), clinical investigations (116 studies), care in a multiple pregnancy (2 studies), psychosocial support (28 studies) and care in a subsequent pregnancy (14 studies). A total of 391 unique outcomes were reported and organised into 14 outcome domains: labour and birth; postpartum; delivery of care; investigations; multiple pregnancy; mental health; emotional functioning; grief and bereavement; social functioning; relationship; whole person; subsequent pregnancy; subsequent children and siblings and economic. A total of 242 outcome measurement instruments were used, with 0-22 tools per outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Heterogeneity in outcome reporting, outcome definition and measurement tools in care after stillbirth exists. Considerable research gaps on specific intervention types in stillbirth care were identified. A core outcome set is needed to standardise outcome collection and reporting for stillbirth care research.

Evaluation of outcome reporting in clinical trials of physiotherapy in bronchiectasis: The first stage of core outcome set development

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study is to explore outcomes currently reported in physiotherapy trials for bronchiectasis and investigate the level of consistency in outcome reporting. This mapping of outcomes will be used to inform the development of a core outcome set (COS) for physiotherapy research in bronchiectasis. Outcomes reported in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and RCT protocols were reviewed and evaluated. We included trials with physiotherapy as the main intervention, including pulmonary rehabilitation, exercise prescription, airway clearance, positive expiratory pressure devices, breathing training, self-management plans, and home exercise program. Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the physiotherapy evidence database (PEDro) were searched from inception using a prespecified search strategy. Records including adult patients with bronchiectasis were included. Outcomes were listed verbatim and categorised into domains based on a pre-specified system, frequency of reporting and sources of variation were inspected.

RESULTS

Of 2158 abstracts screened, 37 trials (1202 participants) and 17 trial protocols were identified. Eighteen different physiotherapy techniques were investigated. A total of 331 outcomes were reported. No single outcome was reported by all trials. The most reported outcomes were lung function (27 trials, 50%), health related quality of life (26 trials, 48.1%), and dyspnoea (18 trials, 33.3%). A list of 104 unique outcomes covering 23 domains was created. Trials focus on physiological outcomes, mainly those related to respiratory system functions. Outcomes related to functioning and life impact are often neglected.

CONCLUSION

Outcome reporting in physiotherapy research for bronchiectasis was found to be inconsistent in terms of choosing and defining outcomes. Developing a core outcome set in this area of research is needed to facilitate aggregation of future trial results in systematic reviews that will in turn inform the strength of evidence for the effectiveness of physiotherapy. Outcome choice should include all stakeholders, including patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered in the PROSPERO registry under the number CRD42021266247.

How are trial outcomes prioritised by stakeholders from different regions? Analysis of an international Delphi survey to develop a core outcome set in gastric cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

International stakeholder participation is important in the development of core outcome sets (COS). Stakeholders from varying regions may value health outcomes differently. Here, we explore how region, health income and participant characteristics influence prioritisation of outcomes during development of a COS for gastric cancer surgery trials (the GASTROS study).

METHODS

952 participants from 55 countries participating in a Delphi survey during COS development were eligible for inclusion. Recruits were grouped according to region (East or West), country income classification (high and low-to-middle income) and other characteristics (e.g. patients; age, sex, time since surgery, mode of treatment, surgical approach and healthcare professionals; clinical experience). Groups were compared with respect to how they categorised 56 outcomes identified as potentially important to include in the final COS ('consensus in', 'consensus out', 'no consensus'). Outcomes categorised as 'consensus in' or 'consensus out' by all 3 stakeholder groups would be automatically included in or excluded from the COS respectively.

RESULTS

In total, 13 outcomes were categorised 'consensus in' (disease-free survival, disease-specific survival, surgery-related death, recurrence of cancer, completeness of tumour removal, overall quality of life, nutritional effects, all-cause complications, intraoperative complications, anaesthetic complications, anastomotic complications, multiple organ failure, and bleeding), 13 'consensus out' and 31 'no consensus'. There was little variation in prioritisation of outcomes by stakeholders from Eastern or Western countries and high or low-to-middle income countries. There was little variation in outcome prioritisation within either health professional or patient groups.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that there is little variation in opinion within stakeholder groups when participant region and other characteristics are considered. This finding may help COS developers when designing their Delphi surveys and recruitment strategies. Further work across other clinical fields is needed before broad recommendations can be made.

Does minimally invasive liver resection improve long-term survival compared to open resection for hepatocellular carcinoma? A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive liver surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma has gained widespread interest as an alternative to conventional open liver surgery. However, long-term survival benefits of this approach seem unclear. This meta-analysis was conducted to investigate long-term survival following minimally invasive liver surgery.

METHOD

A systematic review was performed to identify studies comparing long-term survival after minimally invasive liver surgery and open liver surgery until January 2020. The I² test was used to test for statistical heterogeneity and publication bias was assessed using Egger test. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed for all-cause 5-year (main outcome) and 3-year mortality, and disease-specific 5-year and 3-year mortality. Meta-regression was performed for the 5-year and 3-year survival outcomes with adjustment for study factors (region, design), annual center volume, patient factors (American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, gender, age, body mass index, cirrhosis, tumor size, and number), and resection extent. Sensitivity analyses were performed on studies by study year, region, annual center volume, and resection type.

RESULT

The review identified 50 relevant studies including 13,731 patients undergoing liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma of which 4071 (25.8%) underwent minimally invasive liver surgery. Pooled analysis revealed similar all-cause (odds ratio: 0.83, 95% confidence interval: 0.70-1.11, p = 0.3) and disease-specific (odds ratio: 0.93, 95% confidence interval: 0.80-1.09, p = 0.4) 5-year mortality after minimally invasive liver surgery compared with open liver surgery. Sensitivity analysis of published studies from 2010 to 2019 demonstrated a significantly lower disease-specific 3-year mortality (odds ratio: 0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.59-0.96, p = 0.022) and all-cause 5-year mortality (odds ratio: 0.63, 95% confidence interval: 0.50-0.81, p = 0.002). Meta-regression identified no confounding factors in all analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvement in minimally invasive liver surgery techniques over the past decade appears to demonstrate superior disease-specific mortality with minimally invasive liver surgery compared to open liver surgery. Therefore, minimally invasive liver surgery can be recommended as an alternative surgical approach for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Developing a core outcome set on traditional Chinese medicine (COS-TCM) for chronic heart failure (CHF): a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Chronic heart failure (CHF) is a serious and advanced stage of various cardiovascular diseases and portends poor prognosis. An increase in clinical studies has reported the effectiveness of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). For example, intravenous Chinese medicine can significantly improve cardiac function and biomarkers in patients with CHF. However, there exists inconsistency, lack of practicality and unclear reporting of outcomes in these clinical trials causing difficulty in the comparison of results across similar studies during data synthesis. A core outcome set (COS) can help in the standardisation of outcomes reported across studies from the same healthcare area. The aim of this study is to develop a COS on TCM for CHF (COS-TCM-CHF) to reduce heterogeneity in reporting and improve quality assessment in clinical trials to support data synthesis in addressing the effectiveness of TCM treatment.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study will include constructing an outcome pool which will identify potential outcomes through systematic reviews of TCM randomised clinical trials, two clinical registry databases, semi-structured interviews of patients and the clinicians' questionnaire. According to the characteristics of TCM and a taxonomy recommended by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative, all outcomes in the outcome pool will be classified into different domains. A preliminary list of outcomes which will then be used in the Delphi survey is generated using a certain criteria based on the length of the pool. The Delphi survey will include two rounds with seven key stakeholder groups to select candidate items for a consensus meeting. A final COS-TCM-CHF will be developed at a face-to-face consensus meeting involving representatives from the different stakeholders.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval of this study has been granted by Evidence-based Medicine Centre of Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Research Ethics Committee (TJUTCMEC201200002). We will disseminate our research findings of the final COS on the website of Chinese Clinical Trials for Core Outcome Set, with open access publications and present at international conferences to reach a wide range of knowledge users.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1486.

Core outcome set for surgical trials in gastric cancer (GASTROS study): international patient and healthcare professional consensus

BACKGROUND

Surgery is the primary treatment that can offer potential cure for gastric cancer, but is associated with significant risks. Identifying optimal surgical approaches should be based on comparing outcomes from well designed trials. Currently, trials report different outcomes, making synthesis of evidence difficult. To address this, the aim of this study was to develop a core outcome set (COS)-a standardized group of outcomes important to key international stakeholders-that should be reported by future trials in this field.

METHODS

Stage 1 of the study involved identifying potentially important outcomes from previous trials and a series of patient interviews. Stage 2 involved patients and healthcare professionals prioritizing outcomes using a multilanguage international Delphi survey that informed an international consensus meeting at which the COS was finalized.

RESULTS

Some 498 outcomes were identified from previously reported trials and patient interviews, and rationalized into 56 items presented in the Delphi survey. A total of 952 patients, surgeons, and nurses enrolled in round 1 of the survey, and 662 (70 per cent) completed round 2. Following the consensus meeting, eight outcomes were included in the COS: disease-free survival, disease-specific survival, surgery-related death, recurrence, completeness of tumour removal, overall quality of life, nutritional effects, and 'serious' adverse events.

CONCLUSION

A COS for surgical trials in gastric cancer has been developed with international patients and healthcare professionals. This is a minimum set of outcomes that is recommended to be used in all future trials in this field to improve trial design and synthesis of evidence.

Identification and categorisation of relevant outcomes for symptomatic uncomplicated gallstone disease: in-depth analysis to inform the development of a core outcome set

BACKGROUND

Many completed trials of interventions for uncomplicated gallstone disease are not as helpful as they could be due to lack of standardisation across studies, outcome definition, collection and reporting. This heterogeneity of outcomes across studies hampers useful synthesis of primary studies and ultimately negatively impacts on decision making by all stakeholders. Core outcome sets offer a potential solution to this problem of heterogeneity and concerns over whether the 'right' outcomes are being measured. One of the first steps in core outcome set generation is to identify the range of outcomes reported (in the literature or by patients directly) that are considered important.

OBJECTIVES

To develop a systematic map that examines the variation in outcome reporting of interventions for uncomplicated symptomatic gallstone disease, and to identify other outcomes of importance to patients with gallstones not previously measured or reported in interventional studies.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 794 potentially relevant titles and abstracts of which 137 were deemed eligible for inclusion. A total of 129 randomised controlled trials, 4 gallstone disease specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and 8 qualitative studies were included. This was supplemented with data from 6 individual interviews, 1 focus group (n=5 participants) and analysis of 20 consultations. A total of 386 individual recorded outcomes were identified across the combined evidence: 330 outcomes (which were reported 1147 times) from trials evaluating interventions, 22 outcomes from PROMs, 17 outcomes from existing qualitative studies and 17 outcomes from primary qualitative research. Areas of overlap between the evidence sources existed but also the primary research contributed new, unreported in this context, outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study took a rigorous approach to catalogue and map the outcomes of importance in gallstone disease to enhance the development of the COS 'long' list. A COS for uncomplicated gallstone disease that considers the views of all relevant stakeholders is needed.

Methods for conducting international Delphi surveys to optimise global participation in core outcome set development: a case study in gastric cancer informed by a comprehensive literature review

Background

Core outcome sets (COS) should be relevant to key stakeholders and widely applicable and usable. Ideally, they are developed for international use to allow optimal data synthesis from trials. Electronic Delphi surveys are commonly used to facilitate global participation; however, this has limitations. It is common for these surveys to be conducted in a single language potentially excluding those not fluent in that tongue. The aim of this study is to summarise current approaches for optimising international participation in Delphi studies and make recommendations for future practice.

Methods

A comprehensive literature review of current approaches to translating Delphi surveys for COS development was undertaken. A standardised methodology adapted from international guidance derived from 12 major sets of translation guidelines in the field of outcome reporting was developed. As a case study, this was applied to a COS project for surgical trials in gastric cancer to translate a Delphi survey into 7 target languages from regions active in gastric cancer research.

Results

Three hundred thirty-two abstracts were screened and four studies addressing COS development in rheumatoid and osteoarthritis, vascular malformations and polypharmacy were eligible for inclusion. There was wide variation in methodological approaches to translation, including the number of forward translations, the inclusion of back translation, the employment of cognitive debriefing and how discrepancies and disagreements were handled. Important considerations were identified during the development of the gastric cancer survey including establishing translation groups, timelines, understanding financial implications, strategies to maximise recruitment and regulatory approvals. The methodological approach to translating the Delphi surveys was easily reproducible by local collaborators and resulted in an additional 637 participants to the 315 recruited to complete the source language survey. Ninety-nine per cent of patients and 97% of healthcare professionals from non-English-speaking regions used translated surveys.

Conclusion

Consideration of the issues described will improve planning by other COS developers and can be used to widen international participation from both patients and healthcare professionals.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05338-x.

Outcomes Evaluated in Controlled Clinical Trials on the Management of COVID-19: A Methodological Systematic Review

It is crucial that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) evaluate the outcomes that are critical to patients and clinicians, to facilitate relevance, interpretability, and comparability. This methodological systematic review describes the outcomes evaluated in 415 RCTs on the management of COVID-19, that were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, by 5 May 2020, and the instruments used to measure these outcomes. Significant heterogeneity was observed in the selection of outcomes and instruments. Mortality, adverse events and treatment success or failure are only evaluated in 64.4%, 48.4% and 43% of the included studies, respectively, while other outcomes are selected less often. Studies focusing on more severe presentations (hospitalized patients or requiring intensive care) most frequently evaluate mortality (72.5%) and adverse events (55.6%), while hospital admission (50.8%) and viral detection/load (55.6%) are most frequently assessed in the community setting. Outcome measurement instruments are poorly reported and heterogeneous. Follow-up does not exceed one month in 64.3% of these earlier trials, and long-term COVID-19 burden is rarely assessed. The methodological issues identified could delay the introduction of potentially life-saving treatments in clinical practice. Our findings demonstrate the need for greater consistency, to enable decision makers to compare and contrast studies.

Inconsistency and low transparency were found between core outcome set protocol and full text publication: a comparative study

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to assess inconsistencies between individual protocols and associated full-text publications in the development of core outcome sets (COSs).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Protocols and subsequent full-text publications were retrieved by searching the following electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials database from inception to October 1, 2019. We summarized changes in the general and methodological characteristics by comparing the protocols with the full-text publications and reported change as information frequency and proportion.

RESULTS

A total of 24 protocols and 32 corresponding full-text publications that encompassed 14 study topics were identified from databases. In the identified initial list of outcomes, five COSs (20.8%) changed the included study type, none of which explained the reasons for these changes. In addition, eight COSs showed inconsistencies between the protocols and full-text publications in the searched databases, of which, only two studies explained the reasons for these changes. Compared with the protocols, three COSs changed the number of Delphi rounds, eight COSs changed the participants (stakeholder groups), and three COSs changed the consensus definition of the Delphi survey. Only two COSs explained the reason for changing the number of Delphi rounds, and none of the studies explained why the participants changed. For the face-to-face consensus meeting, we found that nine COSs changed the participants and none explained the reasons for these changes.

CONCLUSION

Our study found many inconsistencies between protocols and the full-text publications concerning COS development. These inconsistencies related to the included study types, databases searched, Delphi surveys, and face-to-face consensus meetings. As it is necessary to publish protocols before developing COSs, transparency regarding any changes to the methods is needed.

Survival Advantage of Laparoscopic Versus Open Resection For Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Meta-analysis of Individual Patient Data From Randomized Trials and Propensity-score Matched Studies

OBJECTIVE

To perform an individual participant data meta-analysis using randomized trials and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies which compared laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLM).

BACKGROUND

Randomized trials and PSM studies constitute the highest level of evidence in addressing the long-term oncologic efficacy of laparoscopic versus open resection for CLM. However, individual studies are limited by the reporting of overall survival in ways not amenable to traditional methods of meta-analysis, and violation of the proportional hazards assumption.

METHODS

Survival information of individual patients was reconstructed from the published Kaplan-Meier curves with the aid of a computer vision program. Frequentist and Bayesian survival models (taking into account random-effects and nonproportional hazards) were fitted to compare overall survival of patients who underwent laparoscopic versus open surgery. To handle long plateaus in the tails of survival curves, we also exploited "cure models" to estimate the fraction of patients effectively "cured" of disease.

RESULTS

Individual patient data from 2 randomized trials and 13 PSM studies involving 3148 participants were reconstructed. Laparoscopic resection was associated with a lower hazard rate of death (stratified hazard ratio = 0.853, 95% confidence interval: 0.754-0.965, P = 0.0114), and there was evidence of time-varying effects (P = 0.0324) in which the magnitude of hazard ratios increased over time. The fractions of long-term cancer survivors were estimated to be 47.4% and 18.0% in the laparoscopy and open surgery groups, respectively. At 10-year follow-up, the restricted mean survival time was 8.6 months (or 12.1%) longer in the laparoscopy arm (P < 0.0001). In a subgroup analysis, elderly patients (≥65 years old) treated with laparoscopy experienced longer 3-year average life expectancy (+6.2%, P = 0.018), and those who live past the 5-year milestone (46.1%) seem to be cured of disease.

CONCLUSIONS

This patient-level meta-analysis of high-quality studies demonstrated an unexpected survival benefit in favor of laparoscopic over open resection for CLM in the long-term. From a conservative viewpoint, these results can be interpreted to indicate that laparoscopy is at least not inferior to the standard open approach.

Quality of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of surgical randomized clinical trials

Background

Well designed and conducted systematic reviews are essential to clinical practice. Surgical intervention is more complex than medical intervention when considering special items related to procedures. There has been no cross‐sectional study of the reporting quality of systematic reviews of surgical randomized trials focused on special items relating to surgical interventions.

Methods

A cross‐sectional survey of systematic reviews of surgical randomized trials published in 2007 and 2017 was undertaken via a PubMed search. Quality of reporting was assessed by the PRISMA checklist, with intervention details containing 27 items. Univariable and multivariable linear regression was used to explore factors in the checklist as indicators of reporting quality.

Results

A total of 204 systematic reviews were identified. The median score for the PRISMA checklist was 22 (i.q.r. 20–24), and systematic reviews published in 2017 had a significantly higher median score than those from 2007 (22 (i.q.r. 21–24) versus 20 (17–22); P < 0·001). Among the 27 items, 15 were reported adequately and three were reported poorly (in less than 50 per cent of reports). The proportion of other items reported ranged from 54·4 to 77·9 per cent. In multivariable analysis, systematic reviews published in 2017 (coefficient 0·59, 95 per cent c.i. 0·50 to 0·69) and Cochrane reviews (coefficient 0·67, 0·55 to 0·81) were associated with better reporting.

Conclusion

The quality of reporting of systematic reviews of surgical randomized trials has improved in the past 10 years. Some information relating to specific surgical interventions is, however, still reported poorly.

Patient priorities in relation to surgery for gastric cancer: qualitative interviews with gastric cancer surgery patients to inform the development of a core outcome set

OBJECTIVE

The reporting of outcomes in surgical trials for gastric cancer is inconsistent. The GASTROS study (GAstric Cancer Surgery TRials Reported Outcome Standardisation) aims to address this by developing a core outcome set (COS) for use in all future trials within this field. A COS should reflect the views of all stakeholders, including patients. We undertook a series of interviews to identify outcomes important to patients which would be considered for inclusion in a COS.

SETTING

All interviews took place within the UK. Interviews were carried out face-to-face at hospitals and cancer support centres or via the telephone.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty participants at varying stages of recovery following surgery for gastric cancer with curative intent.

DESIGN

Qualitative design using semistructured interviews, supported by an interview guide which was iteratively modified; thematic analysis was used to explore patient priorities.

RESULTS

Six themes enveloping 38 outcomes were identified; surviving and controlling cancer, technical aspects of surgery, adverse events from surgery, recovering from surgery, long-term problems following surgery and long-term life impact of surgery. The 'most important' patient priority was to be 'cured of cancer'.

CONCLUSION

Surgical trials for gastric cancer should consider broader priorities of patients when choosing which outcomes to report. This study highlighted the importance of longer-term outcomes such as cancer survival. Outcomes identified in this study will be used to inform an international Delphi survey to develop a COS in this field.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) versus standard recovery for elective gastric cancer surgery: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have been effective in improving postoperative recovery after major abdominal surgeries including colorectal cancer surgery, however its impact after gastric cancer surgery is unclear. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of ERAS after gastric cancer surgery. Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and PubMed was searched from database inception to December 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ERAS versus standard care in gastric cancer surgery were included. Outcomes included the postoperative length of stay (LOS), hospital costs, time to first flatus, defecation, oral intake, and ambulation after surgery, and complications. Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. The GRADE approach assessed overall quality of evidence. 18 RCTs involving 1782 patients were included. ERAS significantly reduced the LOS (Mean Difference (MD) -1.78 days, 95%CI -2.17 to -1.40, P < 0.0001), reduced hospital costs (MD -650 U S. dollars, 95%CI -840 to -460, P < 0.0001), and reduced time to first flatus, defecation, ambulation, and oral intake. ERAS had significantly lower rates of pulmonary infections (Risk Ratio (RR) 0.48, 95%CI 0.28 to 0.82, P = 0.007), but not surgical site infections, anastomotic leaks, and postoperative complications. However, ERAS significantly increased readmissions (RR 2.43, 95%CI 1.09 to 5.43, P = 0.03). The quality of evidence was low to moderate for all outcomes. Implementation of an ERAS protocol may reduce LOS, costs, and time to return of function after gastric cancer surgery compared to conventional recovery. However, ERAS may increase the number of postoperative readmissions, albeit with no impact on the rate of postoperative complications.

Outcome reporting from clinical trials of non-valvular atrial fibrillation treated with traditional Chinese medicine or Western medicine: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To examine variation in outcomes, outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) and measurement times in clinical trials of non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and to identify outcomes for prioritisation in developing a core outcome set (COS) in this field.

DESIGN

This study was a systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Clinical trials published between January 2015 and March 2019 were obtained from PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wanfang Database, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure and SinoMed.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies were considered. Interventions included traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine. The required treatment duration or follow-up time was ≥4 weeks. The required sample size was ≥30 and≥50 in each group in RCTs and observational studies, respectively. We excluded trials that aimed to investigate the outcome of complications of NVAF, to assess the mechanisms or pharmacokinetics, or for which full text could not be acquired.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The general information and outcomes, OMIs and measurement times were extracted. The methodological and outcome reporting quality were assessed. The results were analysed by descriptive analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 218 articles were included from 25 255 articles. For clinical trials of antiarrhythmic therapy, 69 outcomes from 16 outcome domains were reported, and 28 (31.82%, 28/88) outcomes were reported only once; the most frequently reported outcome was ultrasonic cardiogram. Thirty-one outcomes (44.93%, 31/69) were provided definitions or OMIs; the outcome measurement times ranged from 1 to 20 with a median of 3. For clinical trials of anticoagulation therapy, 82 outcomes from 18 outcome domains were reported; 38 (29.23%, 38/130) outcomes were reported only once. The most frequently reported outcome was ischaemic stroke. Forty (48.78%, 40/82) outcomes were provided OMIs or definitions; and the outcome measurement times ranged from 1 to 27 with a median of 8.

CONCLUSION

Outcome reporting in NVAF is inconsistent. Thus, developing a COS that can be used in clinical trials is necessary.