Development of a core outcome set for myocardial infarction in clinical trials of traditional Chinese medicine: a study protocol

Development of a core outcome set for cardiac rehabilitation in patients with myocardial infarction: a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Heterogeneous outcome reporting is common in clinical trials focused on cardiac rehabilitation for myocardial infarction (MI); this practice often results in the exclusion of data from clinical trials in systematic reviews. Developing a core outcome set (COS) may solve this problem.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will first identify a preliminary list of outcomes through a systematic review. Next, we will conduct semistructured interviews with patients to explore additional potential outcomes deemed important by patients. Then, we will engage various stakeholders such as clinicians, researchers and methodologists in two Delphi survey tends to refine and prioritise the identified outcomes. Subsequently, we will gather insights directly from patients with MI by administering plain language patient surveys; patients will be involved in questionnaire development. Finally, we will hold two face-to-face consensus meetings for patients and other stakeholders to develop the final COS for cardiac rehabilitation in MI.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Ethics Committee of Dongzhimen Hospital, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine approved this study (2022DZMEC-349). The final COS will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated in conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

We registered this study in the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative (COMET) platform.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

1725 (http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1725).

Core outcome sets for myocardial infarction in clinical trials of traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and Western medicine showed there was heterogeneity of outcome reporting in myocardial infarction (MI). Developing a core outcome set (COS) might improve the consistency of outcome reporting in future clinical trials.

METHODS

A list of outcomes was developed based on a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of MI and semistructured interviews with MI patients. Two rounds of Delphi survey for clinicians, researchers, journal editors, and methodologists were conducted. An online questionnaire sent to nurses. After an online consensus meeting, a COS for MI RCTs was developed.

RESULTS

After extracted data from clinical trials and discussed, 216 outcomes were included in round 1 of the Delphi survey. Seventy-four participants completed round 1 of the Delphi survey. Sixty-five participants completed round 2 of the Delphi survey. Twenty-two nurses completed the online questionnaire. Fifteen participants attended the online consensus meeting, and 14 of them voted and determined the final COS. For all types of MI, it was recommended that left ventricular ejection fraction and quality of life be measured and reported. For acute MI, the participants in the consensus meeting recommended the following core outcomes: death from cardio-cerebrovascular disease, cardiogenic shock, heart failure, troponin I, troponin T, creatine kinase isoenzyme, Killip class, target vessel revascularization, and emergency CABG. For previous MI, recurrent MI, recurrent angina pectoris, and heart failure readmission were recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

The COS for MI in RCTs provides recommendations for clinical trials that seek to improve outcomes for patients with MI.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

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

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

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

Developing a core outcome set for assessing clinical safety outcomes of cardiovascular diseases in clinical trials of integrated traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine: study protocol

Background

Integrative medicine is commonly used in China. Researchers prefer to report efficacy outcomes rather than safety outcomes in clinical trials; thus, evidence regarding safety in integrative medicine is unclear. Developing a core outcome set (COS) for safety outcomes is necessary. In this study, a representative example of the methodology for developing COS to assess safety outcomes of cardiovascular diseases in clinical trials investigating integrated medicine will be developed.

Methods and analysis

Safety information will be extracted from package inserts and through systematic reviews of treatments for cardiovascular diseases (including angina pectoris, myocardial infarction, heart failure, arrhythmia, and hypertension) to develop an extensive list of safety outcomes, which will then be categorized according to whether subjective or objective outcomes. Questionnaires for clinician-reported safety outcomes and patient-reported safety outcomes will be developed. Two rounds of the Delphi survey will then be conducted for different stakeholders (traditional Chinese medicine clinicians and researchers in cardiovascular diseases, Western medicine clinicians and researchers in cardiovascular diseases, integrated medicine clinicians and researchers of cardiovascular diseases, pharmacologists, methodologists of evidence-based medicine, and patients). After round 2 of the Delphi analysis, a face-to-face consensus meeting will be held to determine the final COS for assessing safety outcomes in cardiovascular diseases.

Discussion

A COS for safety outcomes in cardiovascular diseases may improve the consistency of reporting results and will help identify potential bias of selective reporting in the future.

Trial registration

This study was registered in the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials database as study 1564.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06166-3.

Development of a Core Outcome Set in the Clinical Trials of Traditional Chinese Medicine for Stroke: A Study Protocol

Introduction

Stroke, an acute cerebrovascular disease, is mainly caused by the sudden rupture or occlusion of blood vessels, and is subdivided into ischemic stroke and hemorrhagic stroke. It has become the second leading cause of death worldwide. In Chinese clinical practice, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM)/Integrative Medicine has been widely used for the treatment of stroke. Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of TCM/Integrative Medicine for stroke have been conducted to improve the efficacy and safety outcomes. However, their conclusions should be treated with caution because of the methodological quality defects in the clinical research. Pervasive inconsistencies are present in the outcomes collected and reported across these studies, which may lead to the pooling of discrepant data and preclude meta-analysis. The issue could be addressed by developing a core outcome set (COS).

Aim

The aim of this study is to develop a COS in the clinical trials of TCM/Integrative Medicine in the treatment of stroke.

Method and Analysis

A steering group will be set up to organize and guide the development of the COS. The study contains three phases: (I) development of an initial outcome list covering all relevant outcomes, via two steps: (i) systematic reviews of outcomes for clinical trials of TCM/ Integrative Medicine for stroke; (ii) semi-structured interviews with patients suffering from stroke; (II) conduction of three round of Delphi surveys with different stakeholder groups to prioritize important outcomes; (III) integration of outcomes into a core outcome set by a consensus meeting.

Ethics and Dissemination

This study has been granted by the Ethics Committee of Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TJUTCM-EC20210003). When the COS is completed, we will publish it in an appropriate journal to promote further widespread use.

Registration

This study has been registered at the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials initiative, COMET database (Registration #1678).

Methods for development of a core outcome set for clinical trials integrating traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine

Clinical trial outcome reporting differs between studies integrating traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and Western medicine, so that some clinical trials are not eligible for inclusion in a systematic review. The excluded studies are therefore less widely disseminated, and even valid studies are less likely to yield impact. This problem may be addressed by developing core outcome sets (COSs) for integrative medicine in specific healthcare areas. The first stage of development is to define the scope of the COS for integrative medicine, the second stage is to establish the need for such a COS, and the third stage is to develop a protocol and register the COS. The final stage involves three steps: (i) development of a comprehensive list of outcomes (including efficacy outcomes and safety outcomes and TCM syndromes) using systematic review, qualitative or cross-sectional research, and reviews of package inserts and medical records; (ii) merging and grouping of outcomes within domains; (iii) conducting two rounds of Delphi survey and consensus meetings with a range of stakeholders. The final COS will include a general COS and core TCM syndrome- set. Development of COSs for clinical trials of integrative medicine may help to standardize outcome reporting and reduce publication bias in the future.

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.

Development of a Core Outcome Set for the Benefits and Adverse Events of Acute Heart Failure in Clinical Trials of Traditional Chinese Medicine and Western Medicine: A Study Protocol

Aims: To identify a minimum set of efficacy and adverse events for patients with acute heart failure (AHF) among different stakeholders in clinical trials of traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine. Methods and Analysis: First, we will develop a preliminary long list of outcomes that includes efficacy and adverse events/reactions via three steps: (i) systematic reviews of efficacy and safety outcomes for clinical trials of AHF; (ii) drugs included in the National Medical Insurance Catalog, the National Essential Medicines Catalog, and the WHO Essential Medicines List will be collected and safety outcomes extracted from the package inserts; and (iii) patients' or caregivers' semi-structured interviews will be carried out to add new viewpoints to the list. Second, after merging outcomes and grouping them under different outcome domains, questionnaires for health professionals and patients will be separately developed. Further, two rounds of Delphi survey for health professionals and a survey for patients and the public will be carried out. Third, different stakeholders will discuss and determine the final core outcome set (COS) for AHF in a consensus meeting. Ethics and Dissemination: The entire project has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the main institution. After the final COS is developed, it will be published and discussed widely in conferences. Clinical Trial Registration: This study is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials database as study 1566 (available at: https://www.cometinitiative.org/Studies/Details/1566).

Core outcomes sets for studies evaluating critical illness and patient recovery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Given the growing body of critical care clinical research publications, core outcome sets (COSs) are important to help mitigate heterogeneity in outcomes assessed and measurement instruments used, and have potential to reduce research waste. This article provides an update on COS projects in critical care medicine, and related resources and tools for COS developers.

RECENT FINDINGS

We identified 28 unique COS projects, of which 15 have published results as of May 2020. COS topics relevant to critical care medicine include mechanical ventilation, cardiology, stroke, rehabilitation, and long-term outcomes (LTOs) after critical illness. There are four COS projects for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with a 'meta-COS' summarizing common outcomes across these projects. To help facilitate COS development, there are existing resources, standards, guidelines, and tools available from the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative (www.comet-initiative.org/) and the National Institutes of Health-funded Improve LTO project (www.improvelto.com/).

SUMMARY

Many COS projects have been completed in critical care, with more on-going COS projects, including foci from across the spectrum of acute critical care, COVID-19, critical care rehabilitation, and patient recovery and LTOs. Extensive resources are accessible to help facilitate rigorous COS development.

Core Outcome Set for Clinical Trials of COVID-19 Based on Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine

Background

Development of a core outcome set (COS) for clinical trials for COVID-19 is urgent because of the pandemic wreaking havoc worldwide and the heterogeneity of outcomes in clinical trials.

Methods

A preliminary list of outcomes was developed after a systematic review of protocols of clinical trials for COVID-19. Then, two rounds of the Delphi survey were conducted. Stakeholders were traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) experts, Western medicine (WM) experts, nurses, and the public. Patients with confirmed COVID-19 were also invited to participate in a questionnaire written in understandable language. Then different stakeholders participated in a consensus meeting by video conference to vote.

Results

Ninety-seven eligible study protocols were identified from 160 clinical trials. Seventy-six outcomes were identified from TCM clinical trials and 126 outcomes were identified from WM clinical trials. Finally, 145 outcomes were included in the first round of the Delphi survey. Then, a COS for clinical trials of TCM and WM was developed. The COS included clinical outcomes (recovery/improvement/progression/death), etiology (SARS-CoV-2 nucleic-acid tests, viral load), inflammatory factor (C-reactive protein), vital signs (temperature, respiration), blood and lymphatic-system parameters (lymphocytes, virus antibody), respiratory outcomes (pulmonary imaging, blood oxygen saturation, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, arterial blood gas analysis, mechanical ventilation, oxygen intake, pneumonia severity index), clinical efficacy (prevalence of preventing patients with mild-to-moderate disease progressing to severe disease), and symptoms (clinical symptom score). Outcomes were recommended according to different types of disease. Outcome measurement instruments/definitions were also recommended.

Conclusion

Though there are some limitations for the research, such as insufficient patients and the public involvement, and the unbalanced stakeholders' region, the COS for COVID-19 may improve consistency of outcome reporting in clinical trials. It also should be updated with research progression.