A core outcome set for damage control laparotomy via modified Delphi method

A core outcome set for acute necrotizing pancreatitis: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma modified Delphi method consensus study

BACKGROUND

The management of acute necrotizing pancreatitis (ANP) has changed dramatically over the past 20 years including the use of less invasive techniques, the timing of interventions, nutritional management, and antimicrobial management. This study sought to create a core outcome set (COS) to help shape future research by establishing a minimal set of essential outcomes that will facilitate future comparisons and pooling of data while minimizing reporting bias.

METHODS

A modified Delphi process was performed through involvement of ANP content experts. Each expert proposed a list of outcomes for consideration, and the panel anonymously scored the outcomes on a 9-point Likert scale. Core outcome consensus defined a priori as >70% of scores receiving 7 to 9 points and <15% of scores receiving 1 to 3 points. Feedback and aggregate data were shared between rounds with interclass correlation trends used to determine the end of the study.

RESULTS

A total of 19 experts agreed to participate in the study with 16 (84%) participating through study completion. Forty-three outcomes were initially considered with 16 reaching consensuses after four rounds of the modified Delphi process. The final COS included outcomes related to mortality, organ failure, complications, interventions/management, and social factors.

CONCLUSION

Through an iterative consensus process, content experts agreed on a COS for the management of ANP. This will help shape future research to generate data suitable for pooling and other statistical analyses that may guide clinical practice.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management; Level V.

A core outcome set for appendicitis: A consensus approach utilizing modified Delphi methodology

BACKGROUND

Appendicitis is one of the most common pathologies encountered by general and acute care surgeons. The current literature is inconsistent, as it is fraught with outcome heterogeneity, especially in the area of nonoperative management. We sought to develop a core outcome set (COS) for future appendicitis studies to facilitate outcome standardization and future data pooling.

METHODS

A modified Delphi study was conducted after identification of content experts in the field of appendicitis using both the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) landmark appendicitis articles and consensus from the EAST ad hoc COS taskforce on appendicitis. The study incorporated three rounds. Round 1 utilized free text outcome suggestions, then in rounds 2 and 3 the suggests were scored using a Likert scale of 1 to 9 with 1 to 3 denoting a less important outcome, 4 to 6 denoting an important but noncritical outcome, and 7 to 9 denoting a critically important outcome. Core outcome status consensus was defined a priori as >70% of scores 7 to 9 and <15% of scores 1 to 3.

RESULTS

Seventeen panelists initially agreed to participate in the study with 16 completing the process (94%). Thirty-two unique potential outcomes were initially suggested in round 1 and 10 (31%) met consensus with one outcome meeting exclusion at the end of round 2. At completion of round 3, a total of 17 (53%) outcomes achieved COS consensus.

CONCLUSION

An international panel of 16 appendicitis experts achieved consensus on 17 core outcomes that should be incorporated into future appendicitis studies as a minimum set of standardized outcomes to help frame future cohort-based studies on appendicitis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic Test or Criteria; Level V.

The Blunt Liver and Spleen Trauma (BLAST) audit: national survey and prospective audit of children with blunt liver and spleen trauma in major trauma centres

PURPOSE

To compare the reported and observed management of UK children with blunt liver or spleen injury (BLSI) to the American Pediatric Surgical Association (APSA) 2019 BLSI guidance.

METHODS

UK Paediatric Major Trauma Centres (pMTCs) undertook 1 year of prospective data collection on children admitted to or discussed with those centres with BLSI and an online questionnaire was distributed to all consultants who care for children with BLSI in those centres.

RESULTS

All 21/21 (100%) pMTCs participated; 131 patients were included and 100/152 (65%) consultants responded to the survey. ICU care was reported and observed to be primarily determined using haemodynamic status or concomitant injuries rather than injury grade, in accordance with APSA guidance. Bed rest was reported to be determined by grade of injury by 63% of survey respondents and observed in a similar proportion of patients. Contrary to APSA guidance, follow-up radiological assessment of the injured spleen or liver was undertaken in 44% of patients before discharge and 32% after discharge, the majority of whom were asymptomatic.

CONCLUSIONS

UK management of BLSI differs from many aspects of APSA guidance. A shift towards using clinical features to determine ICU admission and readiness for discharge is demonstrated, in line with a strong evidence base. However, routine bed rest and re-imaging after BLSI is common, contrary to APSA guidance. This disparity may exist due to concern that evidence around the incidence, presentation and natural history of complications after conservatively managed BLSI, particularly bleeding from pseudoaneurysms, is weak.

Establishing a core outcome set for blunt cerebrovascular injury: an EAST modified Delphi method consensus study

Objectives

Our understanding of blunt cerebrovascular injury (BCVI) has changed significantly in recent decades, resulting in a heterogeneous description of diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes in the literature which is not suitable for data pooling. Therefore, we endeavored to develop a core outcome set (COS) to help guide future BCVI research and overcome the challenge of heterogeneous outcomes reporting.

Methods

After a review of landmark BCVI publications, content experts were invited to participate in a modified Delphi study. For round 1, participants submitted a list of proposed core outcomes. In subsequent rounds, panelists used a 9-point Likert scale to score the proposed outcomes for importance. Core outcomes consensus was defined as >70% of scores receiving 7 to 9 and <15% of scores receiving 1 to 3. Feedback and aggregate data were shared between rounds, and four rounds of deliberation were performed to re-evaluate the variables not achieving predefined consensus criteria.

Results

From an initial panel of 15 experts, 12 (80%) completed all rounds. A total of 22 items were considered, with 9 items achieving consensus for inclusion as core outcomes: incidence of postadmission symptom onset, overall stroke incidence, stroke incidence stratified by type and by treatment category, stroke incidence prior to treatment initiation, time to stroke, overall mortality, bleeding complications, and injury progression on radiographic follow-up. The panel further identified four non-outcome items of high importance for reporting: time to BCVI diagnosis, use of standardized screening tool, duration of treatment, and type of therapy used.

Conclusion

Through a well-accepted iterative survey consensus process, content experts have defined a COS to guide future research on BCVI. This COS will be a valuable tool for researchers seeking to perform new BCVI research and will allow future projects to generate data suitable for pooled statistical analysis with enhanced statistical power.

Level of evidence

Level IV.

Establishing a core outcomes set for massive transfusion: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma modified Delphi method consensus study

BACKGROUND

The management of severe hemorrhage has changed significantly over recent decades, resulting in a heterogeneous description of diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes in the literature, which is not suitable for data pooling. Therefore, we sought to develop a core outcome set (COS) to help guide future massive transfusion (MT) research and overcome the challenge of heterogeneous outcomes reporting.

METHODS

Massive transfusion content experts were invited to participate in a modified Delphi study. For Round 1, participants submitted a list of proposed core outcomes. In subsequent rounds, panelists used a 9-point Likert scale to score proposed outcomes for importance. Core outcomes consensus was defined as >85% of scores receiving 7 to 9 and <15% of scores receiving 1 to 3. Feedback and aggregate data were shared between rounds.

RESULTS

From an initial panel of 16 experts, 12 (75%) completed three rounds of deliberation to reevaluate variables not achieving predefined consensus criteria. A total of 64 items were considered, with 4 items achieving consensus for inclusion as core outcomes: blood products received in the first 6 hours, 6-hour mortality, time to mortality, and 24-hour mortality.

CONCLUSION

Through an iterative survey consensus process, content experts have defined a COS to guide future MT research. This COS will be a valuable tool for researchers seeking to perform new MT research and will allow future trials to generate data that can be used in pooled analyses with enhanced statistical power.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic Test or Criteria; Level V.