A core outcome set for localised prostate cancer effectiveness trials: protocol for a systematic review of the literature and stakeholder involvement through interviews and a Delphi survey

PRACTICE: Development of a Core Outcome Set for Trials of Physical Rehabilitation in Critical Illness

Rationale: Findings from individual trials of physical rehabilitation interventions in critically ill adults have limited potential for meta-analysis and informing clinical decision-making because of the heterogeneity in selection and reporting of outcomes used for evaluation. Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine a core outcome set (COS) for use in all future trials evaluating physical rehabilitation interventions delivered across the critical illness continuum of recovery. Methods: An international, two-round, online, modified Delphi consensus process, following recommended standards, was conducted. Participants (N = 329) comprised three stakeholder groups-researchers, n = 58 (18%); clinicians, n = 247 (75%); and patients and caregivers, n = 24 (7%)-and represented 26 countries and nine healthcare professions. Participants rated the importance of a range of relevant outcomes. Outcomes included in the COS were those prioritized of "critical importance" by all three stakeholder groups. Results: Survey response rates were 88% (Round 1) and 91% (Round 2). From a total of 32 initial outcomes, the following outcomes reached consensus for inclusion in the COS: physical function, activities of daily living, survival, health-related quality of life, exercise capacity, cognitive function, emotional and mental well-being, and frailty. Conclusions: This study developed a consensus-generated COS for future clinical research evaluating physical rehabilitation interventions in critically ill adults across the continuum of recovery. Ascertaining recommended measurement instruments for these core outcomes is now required to facilitate implementation of the COS.

Prioritization of research engaged with rare disease stakeholders: a systematic review and thematic analysis

BACKGROUND

Although rare diseases (RD) are increasingly becoming a priority for healthcare activities and services around the world, developing research policy for investigating RD in public settings proves challenging due to the limited nature of existing evidence. Rare conditions require the involvement of a wide range of stakeholders in order to promote general awareness and garner political support. Consequently, it is critically important to identify trends in the various types of research focusing on rare disease stakeholders, including the specific topics or issues to be included in surveys and studies focused on RD stakeholders. This systematic review and thematic analysis analyses the existing literature based on RD surveys, including the stakeholders involved, and proposes potential research priorities and initiatives for policy-making related to RD.

METHODS

Articles were downloaded and analyzed from across five electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, and CINHAL) and 115 studies were included.

RESULTS

Across 115 studies, the main research participants were patients and/or caregivers (n = 77, 67.0%), health professionals (n = 18, 15.7%), and the public (n = 7, 6.1%). The studies discussed RDs in general (n = 46, 40.0%), endocrine, nutritional, and metabolic diseases (n = 20, 17.4%) and other RDs. Experiences with RD were examined by more than half of the selected studies (n = 74, 64.3%), followed by the opinions of stakeholders (n = 24, 20.9%). Most of the studies used surveys in order to collect relevant data (n = 114, 99.1%). Additionally, the majority of the studies were conducted in high-income countries (n = 92, 80.0%) and rarely in middle and low-income countries (n = 12, 13.8%).

CONCLUSION

Stakeholder research on RD reveals that there are significant instances of unmet needs and various challenges faced by the medical system in dealing with RDs. Furthermore, public awareness and support is critical to ensuring political feasibility of increasing national-level investments for RDs and development of medical products and treatment.

A Systematic Review to Evaluate Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for Metastatic Prostate Cancer According to the COnsensus-Based Standard for the Selection of Health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) Methodology

Simple Summary

Metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) is one of the most common solid tumors in men and both the disease and the treatments affect patients’ quality of life (QoL). Patient-reported Outcome Measurements (PROMs) are important to assess the patient’s subjective experience with disease and treatment. Our aim is to appraise, compare, and summarize the psychometric properties of Patient-reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Our findings can improve patients’ care and their quality of life during treatment and the disease path.

Abstract

Introduction: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) represent important endpoints in metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa). However, the clinically valid and accurate measurement of health-related quality of life depends on the psychometric properties of the PROMs considered. Objective: To appraise, compare, and summarize the properties of PROMs in mPCa. Evidence acquisition: We performed a review of PROMs used in RCTs, including patients with mPCa, using Medline in September 2021, according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) criteria. This systematic review is part of PIONEER (an IMI2 European network of excellence for big data in PCa). Results: The most frequently used PROMs in RCTs of patients with mPCa were the Functional Assessment for Cancer Therapy—Prostate (FACT-P) (n = 18), the Brief Pain Inventory—Short Form (BPI-SF) (n = 8), and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) (n = 6). A total of 283 abstracts were screened and 12 full-text studies were evaluated. A total of two, one, and two studies reported the psychometric proprieties of FACT-P, Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), and BPI-SF, respectively. FACT-P and BPI showed a high content validity, while BPI-SF showed a moderate content validity. FACT-P and BPI showed a high internal consistency (summarized by Cronbach’s α 0.70–0.95). Conclusions: The use of BPI and FACT-P in mPCa patients is supported by their high content validity and internal consistency. Since BPI is focused on pain assessment, we recommend FACT-P, which provides a broader assessment of QoL and wellbeing, for the clinical evaluation of mPCa patients. However, these considerations have been elaborated on in a very limited number of studies. Patient summary: In this paper, we review the psychometric properties of PROMs used with patients with mPCa to find the questionnaires that best assess patients’ QoL, in order to help professionals in their intervention and improve patients’ QoL. We recommend the use of BPI and FACT-P for their high content validity and internal consistency despite the limited number of studies considered.

Standardising the Assessment of Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Localised Prostate Cancer. A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common cancer among men worldwide. Urinary, bowel, and sexual function, as well as hormonal symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), were prioritised by patients and professionals as part of a core outcome set for localised PCa regardless of treatment type.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in localised PCa and recommend PROMs for use in routine practice and research settings.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The psychometric properties of PROMs measuring functional and HRQoL domains used in randomised controlled trials including patients with localised PCa were assessed according to the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) methodology. MEDLINE and Embase were searched to identify publications evaluating psychometric properties of the PROMs. The characteristics and methodological quality of the studies included were extracted, tabulated, and assessed according to the COSMIN criteria.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Overall, 27 studies evaluating psychometric properties of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), University of California-Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA-PCI), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality of life core 30 (QLQ-C30) and prostate cancer 25 (QLQ-PR25) modules, International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), and the 36-item (SF-36) and 12-item Short-Form health survey (SF-12) PROMs were identified and included in the systematic review. EPIC and EORTC QLQ-C30, a general module that assesses patients' physical, psychological, and social functions, were characterised by high internal consistency (Cronbach's α 0.46-0.96 and 0.68-0.94 respectively) but low content validity. EORTC QLQ-PR25, which is primarily designed to assess PCa-specific HRQoL, had moderate content validity and internal consistency (Cronbach's α 0.39-0.87). UCLA-PCI was characterised by moderate content validity and high internal consistency (Cronbach's α 0.21-0.94). However, it does not directly assess hormonal symptoms, whereas EORTC QLQ-PR25 does.

CONCLUSION

The tools with the best evidence for psychometric properties and feasibility for use in routine practice and research settings to assess PROMs in patients with localised PCa were EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PR25. Since EORTC QLQ-C30 is a general module that does not directly assess PCa-specific issues, it should be adopted in conjunction with the QLQ-PR25 module.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We reviewed and appraised the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measure questionnaires used for patients with localised prostate cancer. We found good evidence to suggest that two questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PR25) can be used to measure urinary, bowel, and sexual functions and health-related quality of life.

The Key Role of Patient Involvement in the Development of Core Outcome Sets in Prostate Cancer

Patients are the stewards of their own care and hence their voice is important when designing and implementing research. Patients should be involved not only as participants in research that impacts their care, as the recipients of that care and any associated harms, but also as research collaborators in prioritising important questions from the patient perspective and designing the research and the ways in which is it most appropriate to involve patients. The PIONEER Consortium, an international multistakeholder collaboration lead by the European Association of Urology, has developed a core outcome set (COS) for localised and metastatic prostate cancer relevant to all stakeholders in particular patients. Throughout the work of PIONEER, patient representatives were involved as collaborators in setting the research agenda, and a wider group of patients was involved as participants in developing COSs, for instance in consensus meetings on choosing important outcomes and appropriate definitions. This publication showcases the process for COS development and highlights the most important recommendations to ultimately inform future research projects co-created between patients and other stakeholders. PATIENT SUMMARY: An important step in involving patients in the selection of outcomes for clinical trials, clinical audits, and real-world evidence is the development of a core outcome set (COS) that is relevant to all stakeholders. This report highlights the patient participation throughout our PIONEER COS development. TAKE HOME  MESSAGE: An important step in involving patients in the selection of outcomes for clinical trials, clinical audits, and real-world evidence is to develop a core outcome set (COS) that is relevant to all stakeholders. As part of the work of the PIONEER Consortium, we aim to highlight the patient participation throughout our PIONEER COS development.

Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology - Chronic Kidney Disease (SONG-CKD): a protocol for establishing a core outcome set for adults with chronic kidney disease who do not require kidney replacement therapy

BACKGROUND

Globally, over 1.2 million people die from chronic kidney disease (CKD) every year. Patients with CKD are up to 10 times more likely to die prematurely than progress to kidney failure requiring kidney replacement therapy. The burden of symptoms and impaired quality of life in CKD may be compounded by comorbidities and treatment side effects. However, patient-important outcomes remain inconsistently and infrequently reported in trials in patients with CKD, which can limit evidence-informed decision-making. The Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology - Chronic Kidney Disease (SONG-CKD) aims to establish a consensus-based core outcome set for trials in patients with CKD not yet requiring kidney replacement therapy to ensure outcomes of relevance to patients, caregivers and health professionals are consistently reported in trials.

METHODS

SONG-CKD involves four phases: a systematic review to identify outcomes (domains and measures) that have been reported in randomised controlled trials involving adults with CKD who do not require kidney replacement therapy; stakeholder key informant interviews with health professionals involved in the care of adults with CKD to ascertain their views on establishing core outcomes in CKD; an international two-round online Delphi survey with patients, caregivers, clinicians, researchers, policy makers and industry representatives to obtain consensus on critically important outcome domains; and stakeholder consensus workshops to review and finalise the set of core outcome domains for trials in CKD.

DISCUSSION

Establishing a core outcome set to be reported in trials in patients with CKD will enhance the relevance, transparency and impact of research to improve the lives of people with CKD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable. This study is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database: http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1653 .

Radical Prostatectomy: Sequelae in the Course of Time

Objective: Radical prostatectomy (RP) is a frequent treatment for men suffering from localized prostate cancer (PCa). Whilst offering a high chance for cure, it does not come without a significant impact on health-related quality of life. Herein we review the common adverse effects RP may have over the course of time. Methods: A collaborative narrative review was performed with the identification of the principal studies on the topic. The search was executed by a relevant term search on PubMed from 2010 to February 2021. Results: Rates of major complications in patients undergoing RP are generally low. The main adverse effects are erectile dysfunction varying from 11 to 87% and urinary incontinence varying from 0 to 87% with a peak in functional decline shortly after surgery, and dependent on definitions. Different less frequent side effects also need to be taken into account. The highest rate of recovery is seen within the first year after RP, but even long-term improvements are possible. Nevertheless, for some men these adverse effects are long lasting and different, less frequent side effects also need to be taken into account. Despite many technical advances over the last two decades no surgical approach can be clearly favored when looking at long-term outcome, as surgical volume and experience as well as individual patient characteristics are still the most influential variables. Conclusions: The frequency of erectile function and urinary continence side effects after RP, and the trajectory of recovery, need to be taken into account when counseling patients about their treatment options for prostate cancer.

What outcomes should be measured in feline chronic kidney disease treatment trials? Establishing a core outcome set for research

Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) is an important cause of feline morbidity and mortality. There is currently no agreement on which outcomes are most important in CKD treatment trials to assist evidence-based decision making. Core Outcome Sets (COSs) originated in human healthcare and are an agreed set of outcomes to be measured and reported as a minimum in any trial conducted relating to a particular disease. To establish a COS for feline CKD, this study used a systematic review and two consensus methodologies (an electronic Delphi (eDelphi), and an in-person consensus meeting), with an international panel of key stakeholders. The systematic review identified 104 unique published parameters, which were rated by panellists in round 1 of the eDelphi. Panellists were also asked to suggest additional parameters. In round 2 these additional parameters were rated and any parameters not understood by >10 % of panellists in round 1 were redefined and re-rated. Parameters reaching consensus in rounds 1 and 2 were removed from round 3, when all remaining parameters were re-rated by panellists who could view their own previous rating alongside the median rating of the whole panel. To reach inclusion in the COS, parameters had to be rated 8 or 9 on a Likert scale of 1-9 (where 1 was not important and 9 was very important) by more than 80 % of panellists. In the consensus meeting, panellists discussed and re-rated borderline parameters and streamlined the final COS. Borderline parameters were those that had been closest to, but not achieved, the 80 % threshold for inclusion. The eDelphi panel (n = 73) rated 24/104 parameters highly enough for inclusion and proposed an additional 20 parameters, of which 3 reached the inclusion threshold. This totalled 27 parameters for inclusion. The consensus meeting panel (n = 16) rated an additional 6/20 borderline parameters highly enough for inclusion. During the streamlining process, 4 parameters were removed as one was considered not an outcome, and three were already addressed by other parameters. The remaining COS totalled 29 parameters. These were grouped into 9 core themes: clinical examination, quality of life, serum biochemistry, complete blood count, urinalysis, total amount of food eaten, CKD progression, survival time and cause of death. This is the first COS for feline medicine. In future treatment efficacy trials the COS will strengthen the evidence-base for this condition, by facilitating easier comparison of results between studies, and reduce research waste.

A core set of patient-reported outcomes for population-based cancer survivorship research: a consensus study

PURPOSE

Core outcome sets aim to improve the consistency and quality of research by providing agreed-upon recommendations regarding what outcomes should be measured as a minimum for a population and setting. This study aimed to identify a core set of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) representing the most important issues impacting on cancer survivors' long-term health, functioning, and quality of life, to inform population-based research on cancer survivorship.

METHODS

In phase I, a list of 46 outcomes was generated through focus groups (n = 5) with cancer survivors (n = 40) and a review of instruments for assessing quality of life in cancer survivorship. In phase II, 69 national experts in cancer survivorship practice, research, policy, and lived experience participated in a two-round Delphi survey to refine and prioritise the listed outcomes into a core outcome set. A consensus meeting was held with a sub-sample of participants to discuss and finalise the included outcomes.

RESULTS

Twelve outcome domains were agreed upon for inclusion in the core outcome set: depression, anxiety, pain, fatigue, cognitive problems, fear of cancer recurrence or progression, functioning in everyday activities and roles, financial toxicity, coping with cancer, overall bother from side effects, overall quality of life, and overall health status.

CONCLUSIONS

We established a core set of PROs to standardise assessment of cancer survivorship concerns at a population level.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Adoption of the core outcome set will ensure that survivorship outcomes considered important by cancer survivors are assessed as a minimum in future studies. Furthermore, its routine use will optimise the comparability, quality, and usefulness of the data cancer survivors provide in population-based research.

Newer Minimally Invasive Treatment Modalities to Treat Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Attributed to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

Context

Several newer device-based procedures have recently become available for treating men with lower urinary tract symptoms attributed to benign prostatic hyperplasia, but their effectiveness remains uncertain.

Objective

To assess the longer-term comparative effectiveness (defined as >12 mo of follow-up) of the newer treatment modalities prostatic urethral lift (PUL), transurethral prostate convective radiofrequency water vapor (Rezūm), Aquablation, and prostatic arterial embolization (PAE).

Evidence acquisition

Ovid Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality databases were searched through September 30, 2019; hand searches of references of relevant studies were also performed. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English language. We excluded observational studies.

Evidence synthesis

One RCT (n = 91) found that patients undergoing PUL may be less likely to respond (risk ratio [RR] 0.8; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.7-1.0; low certainty of evidence [CoE]) and have a higher mean International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS; mean difference 6.1; 95% CI 2.2-10.0; low CoE) than those undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Among patients undergoing PAE, one small RCT (n = 30) reported similar IPSS response rates (RR 0.9; 95% CI 0.7-1.1; low CoE) and one trial (n = 107) found similar mean IPSS (-0.7; 95% CI -1.3 to 2.7; moderate CoE) scores to those among patients undergoing TURP. A single study on Aquablation reported 12 mo of follow-up only, and a single 3-mo trial compared Rezūm with sham treatment.

Conclusions

The current best evidence underlying these newer therapies is limited to few trials (PUL and PAE), short-term follow-up of 12 mo (Aquablation and Rezūm), or sham comparison only (Rezūm).

Patient summary

Evidence for four of the newer surgical treatments for men with an enlarged prostate is limited to few small trials with short-term follow-up; only one trial compared a new treatment modality with sham surgery.

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.

Core Outcome Domains for Trials in Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease: An International Delphi Survey

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Outcomes reported in trials involving patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) are heterogeneous and rarely include patient-reported outcomes. We aimed to identify critically important consensus-based core outcome domains to be reported in trials in ADPKD.

STUDY DESIGN

An international 2-round online Delphi survey was conducted in English, French, and Korean languages.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Patients/caregivers and health professionals completed a 9-point Likert scale (7-9 indicating critical importance) and a Best-Worst Scale.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

The absolute and relative importance of outcomes were assessed. Comments were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

1,014 participants (603 [60%] patients/caregivers, 411 [40%] health professionals) from 56 countries completed round 1, and 713 (70%) completed round 2. The prioritized outcomes were kidney function (importance score, 8.6), end-stage kidney disease (8.6), death (7.9), blood pressure (7.9), kidney cyst size/growth (7.8), and cerebral aneurysm (7.7). Kidney cyst-related pain was the highest rated patient-reported outcome by both stakeholder groups. Seven themes explained the prioritization of outcomes: protecting life and health, directly encountering life-threatening and debilitating consequences, specificity to ADPKD, optimizing and extending quality of life, hidden suffering, destroying self-confidence, and lost opportunities.

LIMITATIONS

Study design precluded involvement from those without access to internet or limited computer literacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Kidney function, end-stage kidney disease, and death were the most important outcomes to patients, caregivers, and health professionals. Kidney cyst-related pain was the highest rated patient-reported outcome. Consistent reporting of these top prioritized outcomes may strengthen the value of trials in ADPKD for decision making.

Harnessing the patient voice in prostate cancer research: Systematic review on the use of patient-reported outcomes in randomized controlled trials to support clinical decision-making

Background

Given the growing importance of patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) as part of “big data” in improving patient care, there is a need to provide a state‐of‐the‐art picture of the added value of using PROs in prostate cancer (PCa) randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We aimed to synthetize the most recent high‐quality PRO evidence‐based knowledge from PCa RCTs and to examine whether quality of PRO reporting in PCa research improved over time.

Methods

We conducted a systematic literature search using PubMed, from April 2012 until February 2019. For benchmarking purposes, we also included RCTs identified in our previously published review of RCTs (2004‐2012). Methodology for study identification and evaluation followed standardized criteria and a predefined data extraction form was used to abstract information. PRO quality of the studies was evaluated using the International Society of Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) recommended criteria.

Results

A total of 55 new RCTs were published between April 2012 and February 2019. About 24 (43.6%) RCTs were found to be of high‐quality regarding PRO assessments. Of these, 13 (54.2%) have been reported in the most recent European Association of Urology (EAU) PCa Guidelines. Overall QoL and sexual, urinary, and bowel function were the most commonly reported PROs. FACT‐P, EPIC‐26, and EORTC QLQ‐C30 and/or its module PR25 were most frequently used as measurement tools. An overall improvement in the completeness of PRO reporting was noted over time.

Conclusion

Many PRO trials are currently not included in the EAU guidelines. Our findings suggest that there has to be a better consensus on the use of PRO data for PCa patients, which will then be reflected in the PCa Guidelines and future data collection. Homogeneity in PROs collection and measurement tools will in turn enable “big data” Consortia to increase the patients’ voice in clinical research.

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.

Development of a Core Set of Patient-Reported Outcomes for Population-Based Cancer Survivorship Research: Protocol for an Australian Consensus Study

BACKGROUND

Core outcome sets seek to improve the consistency and quality of research by providing agreed-upon recommendations regarding what outcomes should be measured as a minimum for a population and setting. The problems arising from a lack of outcome standardization in population-based cancer survivorship research indicate the need for agreement on a core set of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to enhance data quality, consistency, and comparability.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to identify a core set of PROs, representing the most important issues impacting on cancer survivors' long-term health, functioning and quality of life, to inform population-based research on cancer survivorship.

METHODS

In Phase I, a list of all potentially important outcomes will be generated through focus group discussions with cancer survivors and a review of measures for assessing quality of life in cancer survivorship. The consolidated list will be advanced to Phase II, where a stakeholder consensus process will be conducted with national experts in cancer survivorship to refine and prioritize the outcomes into a core outcome set. The process will consist of a two-round Delphi survey and a consensus meeting. Cancer survivors, oncology health care professionals, and potential end users of the core outcome set with expertise in cancer survivorship research or policy will be invited to participate. In Phase III, recommended measures for assessment of the core outcome set will be selected with advice from experts on the assessment, analysis, and interpretation of PROs.

RESULTS

As of April 2019, data collection for Phase I is complete and data analysis is underway. These data will inform the list of outcomes to be advanced into Phase II. Recruitment for Phase II will commence in June 2019, and it is anticipated that it will take 6 months to complete the three-step consensus process and identify a provisional core outcome set. The study results are expected to be published in early 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

Expert consensus-driven recommendations on outcome measurement will facilitate the inclusion of survivorship outcomes considered important by cancer survivors and health professionals in future research. Adoption of the core outcome set will enable comparison and synthesis of evidence across studies and enhance the quality of PRO data collected in cancer survivorship research, particularly when applied to address macro-level questions.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/14544.

How to evaluate the clinical outcome of joint-preserving treatment for osteonecrosis of the femoral head: development of a core outcome set

Background

This study aimed to develop a core outcome set (COS) for clinical trials of joint-preserving treatment for osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH), that is, to define a minimal set of outcomes that should be reported in such trials.

Methods

A mixed research method was adopted in this study. First, clinical trials of hip preservation therapy were systematically researched and analyzed. Second, a three-round Delphi survey involving both doctors and patients was carried out to obtain the core outcome indicators. Round 1 was a modified Delphi questionnaire for doctors and patients to determine which outcomes are important to these stakeholders, round 2 determined what clinical evaluation core outcomes should be included for the joint-preserving treatment of ONFH, and round 3 determined how core outcomes should be measured. Finally, a consensus meeting was held to discuss and vote on the established COS.

Results

The results of the systematic review showed that 42 outcome indicators were classified according to common signs and symptoms, quality of life, long-term outcomes, radiological evaluation, blood biochemistry, and indexes of safety. The three rounds of Delphi surveys completed the selection of indicators for the COS and the determination of the corresponding measurements.

A total of 73 orthopedic doctors and 103 patients participated in round 1, and the top 10 indicators selected were basically the same. In round 2, 32 experts identified the following indicators: pain, range of motion (ROM) of hip flexion, walking distance, and stable rating of X-ray images. In round 3, 35 experts defined the measurement of each indicator. Finally, the consensus meeting identified the four indicators aforementioned that constituted the COS.

The scores for pain, ROM of hip flexion, and walking distance are from 0 to 10; 0 represents the best scores, while 10 represents the most serious impairment. The stable rating of X-ray images is determined by the morphology of the femoral head and the change in the density of the necrotic area.

Conclusions

We established a COS for hip-preserving treatment of ONFH that includes four indicators: pain, ROM of hip flexion, walking distance, and stable rating of X-ray images.

Linking surgical skills to postoperative outcomes: a Delphi study on the robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

OBJECTIVE

To develop an assessment instrument for the evaluation of surgical videos to elucidate the association between surgical skills and postoperative outcomes after a robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

DESIGN

A Delphi study consisting of two consecutive online surveys and a consensus group meeting.

SETTING

Urology departments of general, teaching and university hospitals in the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

All Dutch urologists with a specialization in RARP.

RESULTS

Of 18 invited experts, 12 (67%) participated in the first online survey. In the second round, 9 of the 18 invited experts participated (50%). The Delphi meeting was attended by 5 of the 18 (27%) invited experts. The panel identified seven surgical steps with a possible association to postoperative outcomes. The experts also expected an association between adverse postoperative outcomes and the frequency of camera removals, the number of stitches placed, the amount of bleeding, and the extent of coagulation. These factors were incorporated into an assessment instrument.

CONCLUSIONS

Experts in the field of RARP achieved consensus on 7 surgical steps and 4 aspects of the RARP procedure that may be related to adverse postoperative outcomes. The resulting assessment instrument will be tested in future research to determine its validity.

A core outcome set for clinical trials of chemoradiotherapy interventions for anal cancer (CORMAC): a patient and health-care professional consensus

Chemoradiotherapy is the primary treatment for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the anus, but variations in the reported outcomes have restricted between-study comparisons. Treatment-related morbidity is considerable; however, no trial has comprehensively quantified long-term side-effects or quality of life. Therefore, we established the first international health-care professional and patient consensus to develop a core outcome set, using the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials method. We used the results from our previous systematic review and combined them in this Review with patient interviews to derive a comprehensive list of outcomes, followed by a two-round Delphi survey completed by 149 participants (55 patients and 94 health-care professionals) from 11 countries. The Delphi results were discussed at a consensus meeting of health-care professionals and patients. Agreement was reached on 19 outcomes across four domains: disease activity, survival, toxicity, and life impact. Implementation of the Core Outcome Research Measures in Anal Cancer (CORMAC) set in future trials will serve as a framework to achieve standardisation, facilitate selection of health-area-specific evaluation tools, reduce redundancy of outcome lists, allow between-study comparisons, and ultimately enhance the relevance of trial findings to health-care professionals, trialists, and patients.

A randomized trial comparing three Delphi feedback strategies found no evidence of a difference in a setting with high initial agreement

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to explore the impact of different feedback strategies on (1) subsequent agreement and (2) variability in Delphi studies.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A two-round Delphi survey, with a list of outcomes generated from the results of a systematic review and interviews, was undertaken while developing a core outcomes set for prostate cancer including two stakeholder groups (health professionals and patients). Seventy-nine outcomes were scored on a scale of one (not important) to nine (critically important). Participants were randomized in round 2 to receive round 1 feedback from peers only, multiple stakeholders separately, or multiple stakeholders combined.

RESULTS

Agreement on outcomes retained for all feedback groups was high (peer: 92%, multiple separate: 90%, multiple combined: 84%). There were no statistically significant reduction in variability for peer vs. multiple separate (0.016 [-0.035, 0.067]; P = 0.529), or multiple separate vs. multiple combined feedback (0.063 [-0.003, 0.129]; P = 0.062). Peer feedback statistically significantly reduced variability compared with multiple combined feedback (0.079 [0.001, 0.157]; P = 0.046).

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence of a difference between different feedback strategies in terms of the number of outcomes retained or reduction in variability of opinion. However, this may be explained by the high level of existing agreement in round 1. Further methodological studies nested within Delphi surveys will help clarify the best strategy.

Outcome Measurement for Vascular Malformations of the Head and Neck

Vascular malformations are congenital anomalies of the vascular and/or lymphatic system that affect the head and neck region. The most common treatment options are sclerotherapy, laser therapy, surgery, and embolization. Because vascular malformations are variable in type, size, extent, and location, it is a challenge to select methods for evaluation of treatment outcome. Without standardized outcome reporting, it is difficult to compare and combine scientific evidence to support therapeutic decision making. Standardized collection and reporting of outcome data are the first steps toward a fair comparison between treatments. This article describes outcome measurements for vascular malformations and initiatives to improve outcome reporting.

Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology-Polycystic Kidney Disease (SONG-PKD): study protocol for establishing a core outcome set in polycystic kidney disease

Background

Autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) is the most common potentially life threatening inherited kidney disease and is responsible for 5–10% of cases of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Cystic kidneys may enlarge up to 20 times the weight of a normal kidney due to the growth of renal cysts, and patients with ADPKD have an increased risk of morbidity, premature mortality, and other life-time complications including renal and hepatic cyst and urinary tract infection, intracranial aneurysm, diverticulosis, and kidney pain which impair quality of life. Despite some therapeutic advances and the growing number of clinical trials in ADPKD, the outcomes that are relevant to patients and clinicians, such as symptoms and quality of life, are infrequently and inconsistently reported. This potentially limits the contribution of trials to inform evidence-based decision-making. The Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology—Polycystic Kidney Disease (SONG-PKD) project aims to establish a consensus-based set of core outcomes for trials in PKD (with an initial focus on ADPKD but inclusive of all stages) that patients and health professionals identify as critically important.

Methods

The five phases of SONG-PKD are: a systematic review to identify outcomes that have been reported in existing PKD trials; focus groups with nominal group technique with patients and caregivers to identify, rank, and describe reasons for their choices; qualitative stakeholder interviews with health professionals to elicit individual values and perspectives on outcomes for trials involving patients with PKD; an international three-round Delphi survey with all stakeholder groups (including patients, caregivers, healthcare providers, policy makers, researchers, and industry) to gain consensus on critically important core outcome domains; and a consensus workshop to review and establish a set of core outcome domains and measures for trials in PKD.

Discussion

The SONG-PKD core outcome set is aimed at improving the consistency and completeness of outcome reporting across ADPKD trials, leading to improvements in the reliability and relevance of trial-based evidence to inform decisions about treatment and ultimately improve the care and outcomes for people with ADPKD.

A core outcome set for localised prostate cancer effectiveness trials

OBJECTIVE

To develop a core outcome set (COS) applicable for effectiveness trials of all interventions for localised prostate cancer. Many treatments exist for localised prostate cancer, although it is unclear which offers the optimal therapeutic ratio; which is confounded by inconsistencies in the selection, definition, measurement and reporting of outcomes in clinical trials.

PATIENTS, SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A list of 79 outcomes was derived from a systematic review of published localised prostate cancer effectiveness studies and semi-structured interviews with 15 patients with prostate cancer patients. A two-stage consensus process involving 118 patients and 56 international healthcare professionals (HCPs; cancer specialist nurses, urological surgeons and oncologists) was undertaken, consisting of a three-round Delphi survey followed by a face-to-face consensus panel meeting of 13 HCPs and eight patients.

RESULTS

The final COS included 19 outcomes. In all, 12 apply to all interventions: death from prostate cancer, death from any cause, local disease recurrence, distant disease recurrence/metastases, disease progression, need for salvage therapy, overall quality of life, stress urinary incontinence, urinary function, bowel function, faecal incontinence, and sexual function. Seven were intervention-specific: perioperative deaths (surgery), positive surgical margin (surgery), thromboembolic disease (surgery), bothersome or symptomatic urethral or anastomotic stricture (surgery), need for curative treatment (active surveillance), treatment failure (ablative therapy), and side-effects of hormonal therapy (hormone therapy). The UK-centric participants may limit the generalisability to other countries, but trialists should reason why the COS would not be applicable. The default position should not be that a COS developed in one country will automatically not be applicable elsewhere.

CONCLUSION

We have established a COS for trials of effectiveness in localised prostate cancer, applicable across all interventions that should be measured in all localised prostate cancer effectiveness trials.

Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Peritoneal Dialysis (SONG-PD): Study Protocol for Establishing a Core Outcome Set in PD

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, approximately 11% of patients on dialysis receive peritoneal dialysis (PD). Whilst PD may offer more autonomy to patients compared with hemodialysis, patient and caregiver burnout, technique failure, and peritonitis remain major challenges to the success of PD. Improvements in care and outcomes are likely to be mediated by randomized trials of innovative therapies, but will be limited if the outcomes measured and reported are not important for patients and clinicians. The aim of the Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology-Peritoneal Dialysis (SONG-PD) study is to establish a set of core outcomes for trials in patients on PD based on the shared priorities of all stakeholders, so that outcomes of most relevance for decision-making can be evaluated, and that interventions can be compared reliably.

METHODS

The 5 phases in the SONG-PD project are: a systematic review to identify outcomes and outcome measures that have been reported in randomized trials involving patients on PD; focus groups using nominal group technique with patients and caregivers to identify, rank, and describe reasons for their choice of outcomes; semi-structured key informant interviews with health professionals; a 3-round international Delphi survey involving a multi-stakeholder panel; and a consensus workshop to review and endorse the proposed set of core outcome domains for PD trials.

DISCUSSION

The establishment of 3 to 5 high-priority core outcomes, to be measured and reported consistently in all trials in PD, will enable patients and clinicians to make informed decisions about the relative effectiveness of interventions, based upon outcomes of common importance.

Outcomes of treatment in men with prostate cancer at the cancer centre Bahamas

PURPOSE

This is a first report from The Bahamas of management and long-term outcomes in men with non-metastatic prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy, with or without androgen deprivation therapy, from 2004 to 2016.

METHODS

Patients were characterized by baseline factors, stratified by risk groups using tumor stage (clinical T-stage), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test result and Gleason grade, and sorted by treatment combinations (by radiation volume and use of androgen deprivation).

RESULTS

Overall, 205/216 men were Afro-Caribbean. Median age was 66. There were 18 low-, 77 intermediate-, and 121 high-risk patients, treated with prostate-only versus pelvis plus prostate radiotherapy, many receiving 2 years of androgen suppression. Time to commence radiation was about 6 months from initial diagnosis. In those not relapsing, global PSA nadir was reached in 4 years and was under 1.0, reduced from a mean at baseline of 31. At 10 years, disease-free experience (32 relapses) was 68% and overall survival was 87%, although only 2/12 deaths were related to prostate cancer. This experience compares favorably with recently published outcomes from other countries using very similar treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

This study establishes benchmark statistics from diagnosis to long-term follow-up. Outcomes in Bahamian men are consistent with expectations from risk-stratified guidelines followed in developed countries.

Standardising the reporting of outcomes in gastric cancer surgery trials: protocol for the development of a core outcome set and accompanying outcome measurement instrument set (the GASTROS study)

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Whilst surgery is the mainstay of curative treatment, it is associated with significant risks. Surgical strategies for treating gastric cancer should be based on evidence from systematic reviews of well-designed randomised controlled trials. However, inconsistencies in the reporting of outcomes from these trials makes evidence synthesis unreliable. We present a protocol for an international consensus study to develop a standardised set of outcomes and measurement tools - a 'core outcome set' (COS) - to be used by all future trials examining therapeutic surgical interventions for gastric cancer. The GASTROS study aims to standardise the reporting of outcomes in gastric cancer surgery trials through an international consensus process of key stakeholders including health care professionals and patients.

METHODS

The first of three stages in the study will identify a 'long-list' of potentially important outcomes to be prioritised. These will be extracted from a systematic review of relevant academic literature and patient interviews. Stage 2 will comprise an eDelphi survey which will consider the views of patients, nurse specialists and surgeons to prioritise the most important outcomes. A meeting of stakeholder representatives will ratify the COS. Stage 3 will focus on identifying appropriate instruments to measure the prioritised outcomes by means of quality assessment of available measurement instruments and stakeholder consultation.

DISCUSSION

This study aims to standardise the reporting of outcomes in future trials examining therapeutic surgical interventions for gastric cancer. It is anticipated that standardisation of outcome reporting in these surgical effectiveness trials will enhance the evidence base for clinical practice. Highlighting outcomes of greatest importance to patients will ensure that their perspectives are central to research in this field.

The COMET Handbook: version 1.0

The selection of appropriate outcomes is crucial when designing clinical trials in order to compare the effects of different interventions directly. For the findings to influence policy and practice, the outcomes need to be relevant and important to key stakeholders including patients and the public, health care professionals and others making decisions about health care. It is now widely acknowledged that insufficient attention has been paid to the choice of outcomes measured in clinical trials. Researchers are increasingly addressing this issue through the development and use of a core outcome set, an agreed standardised collection of outcomes which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all trials for a specific clinical area.Accumulating work in this area has identified the need for guidance on the development, implementation, evaluation and updating of core outcome sets. This Handbook, developed by the COMET Initiative, brings together current thinking and methodological research regarding those issues. We recommend a four-step process to develop a core outcome set. The aim is to update the contents of the Handbook as further research is identified.

Development of a core outcome set for clinical trials in inflammatory bowel disease: study protocol for a systematic review of the literature and identification of a core outcome set using a Delphi survey

INTRODUCTION

Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), the main forms of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), are chronic, progressive and disabling disorders of the gastrointestinal tract. Although data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the foundation of evidence that validates medical therapy for IBD, considerable heterogeneity exists in the measured outcomes used in these studies. Furthermore, in recent years, there has been a paradigm shift in IBD treatment targets, moving from symptom-based scoring to improvement or normalisation of objective measures of inflammation such as endoscopic appearance, inflammatory biomarkers and histological and radiographic end points. The abundance of new treatment options and evolving end points poses opportunities and challenges for all stakeholders involved in drug development. Accordingly, there exists a need to harmonise measures used in clinical trials through the development of a core outcome set (COS).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The development of an IBD-specific COS includes four steps. First, a systematic literature review is performed to identify outcomes previously used in IBD RCTs. Second, semistructured qualitative interviews are conducted with key stakeholders, including patients, clinicians, researchers, pharmaceutical industry representatives, healthcare payers and regulators to identify additional outcomes of importance. Using the outcomes generated from literature review and stakeholder interviews, an international two-round Delphi survey is conducted to prioritise outcomes for inclusion in the COS. Finally, a consensus meeting is held to ratify the COS and disseminate findings for application in future IBD trials.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Given that over 30 novel therapeutic compounds are in development for IBD treatment, the design of robust clinical trials measuring relevant and standardised outcomes is crucial. Standardising outcomes through a COS will reduce heterogeneity in trial reporting, facilitate valid comparisons of new therapies and improve clinical trial quality.

Development of a core outcome set for effectiveness trials aimed at optimising prescribing in older adults in care homes

BACKGROUND

Prescribing medicines for older adults in care homes is known to be sub-optimal. Whilst trials testing interventions to optimise prescribing in this setting have been published, heterogeneity in outcome reporting has hindered comparison of interventions, thus limiting evidence synthesis. The aim of this study was to develop a core outcome set (COS), a list of outcomes which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, for all effectiveness trials involving optimising prescribing in care homes. The COS was developed as part of the Care Homes Independent Pharmacist Prescribing Study (CHIPPS).

METHODS

A long-list of outcomes was identified through a review of published literature and stakeholder input. Outcomes were reviewed and refined prior to entering a two-round online Delphi exercise and then distributed via a web link to the CHIPPS Management Team, a multidisciplinary team including pharmacists, doctors and Patient Public Involvement representatives (amongst others), who comprised the Delphi panel. The Delphi panellists (n = 19) rated the importance of outcomes on a 9-point Likert scale from 1 (not important) to 9 (critically important). Consensus for an outcome being included in the COS was defined as ≥70% participants scoring 7-9 and <15% scoring 1-3. Exclusion was defined as ≥70% scoring 1-3 and <15% 7-9. Individual and group scores were fed back to participants alongside the second questionnaire round, which included outcomes for which no consensus had been achieved.

RESULTS

A long-list of 63 potential outcomes was identified. Refinement of this long-list of outcomes resulted in 29 outcomes, which were included in the Delphi questionnaire (round 1). Following both rounds of the Delphi exercise, 13 outcomes (organised into seven overarching domains: medication appropriateness, adverse drug events, prescribing errors, falls, quality of life, all-cause mortality and admissions to hospital (and associated costs)) met the criteria for inclusion in the final COS.

CONCLUSIONS

We have developed a COS for effectiveness trials aimed at optimising prescribing in older adults in care homes using robust methodology. Widespread adoption of this COS will facilitate evidence synthesis between trials. Future work should focus on evaluating appropriate tools for these key outcomes to further reduce heterogeneity in outcome measurement in this context.

A review of patient and carer participation and the use of qualitative research in the development of core outcome sets

Background

To be meaningful, a core outcome set (COS) should be relevant to all stakeholders including patients and carers. This review aimed to explore the methods by which patients and carers have been included as participants in COS development exercises and, in particular, the use and reporting of qualitative methods.

Methods

In August 2015, a search of the Core Outcomes Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database was undertaken to identify papers involving patients and carers in COS development. Data were extracted to identify the data collection methods used in COS development, the number of health professionals, patients and carers participating in these, and the reported details of qualitative research undertaken.

Results

Fifty-nine papers reporting patient and carer participation were included in the review, ten of which reported using qualitative methods. Although patients and carers participated in outcome elicitation for inclusion in COS processes, health professionals tended to dominate the prioritisation exercises. Of the ten qualitative papers, only three were reported as a clear pre-designed part of a COS process. Qualitative data were collected using interviews, focus groups or a combination of these. None of the qualitative papers reported an underpinning methodological framework and details regarding data saturation, reflexivity and resource use associated with data collection were often poorly reported. Five papers reported difficulty in achieving a diverse sample of participants and two reported that a large and varied range of outcomes were often identified by participants making subsequent rating and ranking difficult.

Conclusions

Consideration of the best way to include patients and carers throughout the COS development process is needed. Additionally, further work is required to assess the potential role of qualitative methods in COS, to explore the knowledge produced by different qualitative data collection methods, and to evaluate the time and resources required to incorporate qualitative methods into COS development.

Core outcome sets for research and clinical practice

BACKGROUND

This masterclass introduces the topic of core outcome sets, describing rationale and methods for developing them, and providing some examples that are relevant for clinical research and practice.

METHOD

A core outcome set is a minimum consensus-based set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials for a specific health condition and/or intervention. Issues surrounding outcome assessment, such as selective reporting and inconsistency across studies, can be addressed by the development of a core set. As suggested by key initiatives in this field (i.e. OMERACT and COMET), the development requires achieving consensus on: (1) core outcome domains and (2) core outcome measurement instruments. Different methods can be used to reach consensus, including: literature systematic reviews to inform the process, qualitative research with clinicians and patients, group discussions (e.g. nominal group technique), and structured surveys (e.g. Delphi technique). Various stakeholders should be involved in the process, with particular attention to patients.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Several COSs have been developed for musculoskeletal conditions including a longstanding one for low back pain, IMMPACT recommendations on outcomes for chronic pain, and OMERACT COSs for hip, knee and hand osteoarthritis. There is a lack of COSs for neurological, geriatric, cardio-respiratory and pediatric conditions, therefore, future research could determine the value of developing COSs for these conditions.

Childhood vaccination communication outcomes unpacked and organized in a taxonomy to facilitate core outcome establishment

OBJECTIVES

We present a comprehensive taxonomy of outcomes for childhood vaccination communication interventions. Adding to our earlier map of trial outcomes, we aimed to (1) identify relevant outcomes not measured in trials, (2) identify outcomes from stakeholder focus groups, and (3) organize outcomes into a taxonomy.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We identified additional outcomes from nonvaccination health communication literature and through parent and health care professional focus groups. We organized outcomes into the taxonomy through iterative discussion and informed by organizational principles established by leaders in core outcome research.

RESULTS

The taxonomy includes three overarching core areas, divided into eight domains and then into outcomes. Core area one is psychosocial impact, including the domains "knowledge or understanding," "attitudes or beliefs," and "decision-making." Core area two is health impact, covering "vaccination status and behaviors" and "health status and well-being." Core area three is community, social, or health system impact, containing "intervention design and implementation," "community participation," and "resource use."

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this taxonomy is the first attempt to conceptualize the range of potential outcomes for vaccination communication. It can be used by researchers selecting outcomes for complex communication interventions. We will also present the taxonomy to stakeholders to establish core outcome domains.

A systematic review of the outcomes reported in trials of medication review in older patients: the need for a core outcome set

AIM

Medication review has been advocated as one of the measures to tackle the challenge of polypharmacy in older patients, yet there is no consensus on how best to evaluate its efficacy. This study aimed to assess outcome reporting in trials of medication review in older patients.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective studies and RCT protocols involving medication review performed in patients aged 65 years or older in any setting of care were identified from: (1) a recent systematic review; (2) RCT registries of ongoing studies; (3) the Cochrane library. The type, definition, and frequency of all outcomes reported were extracted independently by two researchers.

RESULTS

Forty-seven RCTs or prospective published studies and 32 RCT protocols were identified. A total of 327 distinct outcomes were identified in the 47 published studies. Only one fifth (21%) of the studies evaluated the impact of medication reviews on adverse events such as drug reactions or drug-related hospital admissions. Most of the outcomes were related to medication use (n = 114, 35%) and healthcare use (n = 74, 23%). Very few outcomes were patient-related (n = 24, 7%). A total of 248 distinct outcomes were identified in the 32 RCT protocols. Overall, the number of outcomes and the number and type of health domains covered by the outcomes varied largely.

CONCLUSION

Outcome reporting from RCTs concerning medication review in older patients is heterogeneous. This review highlights the need for a standardized core outcome set for medication review in older patients, to improve outcome reporting and evidence synthesis.

Acute and Late Adverse Events Associated With Radical Radiation Therapy Prostate Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Clinician and Patient Toxicity Reporting in Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

This review aimed to determine the clinician and patient reported outcome (PRO) instruments currently usedin randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of radical radiation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer to report acute and late adverse events (AEs), review the quality of methodology and PRO reporting, and report the prevalence of acute and late AEs.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched between April and August 2014 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. Identified reports were reviewed according to the PRO Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. In all, 1149 records were screened, and 21 articles were included in the final review.

RESULTS

We determined the acute and late AEs for 9040 patients enrolled in 15 different RCTs. Only clinician reported instruments were used to report acute AEs <3 months (eg, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group [RTOG] and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [CTCAE]). For late clinician reporting, the Late Effects on Normal Tissues-Subjective, Objective, Management and Analytic scale and RTOG were used and were often augmented with additional items to provide comprehensive coverage of sexual functioning and anorectal symptoms. Some late AEs were reported (48% articles) using PROs (eg, ULCA-PCI [University of California, Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index], FACT-G and P [Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy General & Prostate Module], EORTC QLQC-30 + PR25 [European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire & Prostate Module]); however, a definitive "preferred" instrument was not evident.

DISCUSSION

Our findings are at odds with recent movements toward including patient voices in reporting of AEs and patient engagement in clinical research. We recommend including PRO to evaluate radical radiation therapy before, during, and after the treatment to fully capture patient experiences, and we support the development of predictive models for late effects based on the severity of early toxicity.

CONCLUSION

Patient reporting of acute and late AEs is underrepresented in radiation therapy trials. We recommend working toward a consistent approach to PRO assessment of radiation therapy-related AEs.

Patient-Reported Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Robust data on patient-reported outcome measures comparing treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer are lacking. We investigated the effects of active monitoring, radical prostatectomy, and radical radiotherapy with hormones on patient-reported outcomes.

METHODS

We compared patient-reported outcomes among 1643 men in the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) trial who completed questionnaires before diagnosis, at 6 and 12 months after randomization, and annually thereafter. Patients completed validated measures that assessed urinary, bowel, and sexual function and specific effects on quality of life, anxiety and depression, and general health. Cancer-related quality of life was assessed at 5 years. Complete 6-year data were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

The rate of questionnaire completion during follow-up was higher than 85% for most measures. Of the three treatments, prostatectomy had the greatest negative effect on sexual function and urinary continence, and although there was some recovery, these outcomes remained worse in the prostatectomy group than in the other groups throughout the trial. The negative effect of radiotherapy on sexual function was greatest at 6 months, but sexual function then recovered somewhat and was stable thereafter; radiotherapy had little effect on urinary continence. Sexual and urinary function declined gradually in the active-monitoring group. Bowel function was worse in the radiotherapy group at 6 months than in the other groups but then recovered somewhat, except for the increasing frequency of bloody stools; bowel function was unchanged in the other groups. Urinary voiding and nocturia were worse in the radiotherapy group at 6 months but then mostly recovered and were similar to the other groups after 12 months. Effects on quality of life mirrored the reported changes in function. No significant differences were observed among the groups in measures of anxiety, depression, or general health-related or cancer-related quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis of patient-reported outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer, patterns of severity, recovery, and decline in urinary, bowel, and sexual function and associated quality of life differed among the three groups. (Funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Program; ProtecT Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN20141297 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02044172 .).

Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology-Children and Adolescents (SONG-Kids): a protocol for establishing a core outcome set for children with chronic kidney disease

Background

Children with chronic kidney disease (CKD), requiring dialysis or kidney transplantation, have a mortality rate of up to 30-fold higher than the general aged-matched population, and severely impaired quality of life. Symptoms such as fatigue and pain are prevalent and debilitating. Children with CKD are at risk of cognitive impairment, and poorer educational, vocational, and psychosocial outcomes compared with their well peers, which have consequences through to adulthood. Treatment regimens for children with CKD are long-term, complex, and highly intrusive. While many trials have been conducted to improve outcomes in children with CKD, the outcomes measured and reported are often not relevant to patients and clinicians, and are highly variable. These problems can diminish the value of trials as a means to improve the lives of children with CKD. The Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology—Children and Adolescents (SONG-Kids) study aims to develop a core outcome set for trials in children and adolescents with any stage of CKD that is based on the shared priorities of all stakeholders.

Methods/Design

SONG-Kids involves five phases: a systematic review to identify outcomes (both domains and measures) that have been reported in randomised controlled trials involving children aged up to 21 years with CKD; focus groups (using nominal group technique) with adolescent patients and caregivers of paediatric patients (all ages) to identify outcomes that are relevant and important to patients and their family and the reasons for their choices; semistructured key informant interviews with health professionals involved in the care of children with CKD to ascertain their views on establishing core outcomes in paediatric nephrology; an international three-round online Delphi survey with patients, caregivers, clinicians, researchers, policy-makers, and members from industry to develop consensus on important outcome domains; and a stakeholder workshop to review and finalise the set of core outcome domains for trials in children with CKD (including nondialysis-dependent, dialysis, and kidney transplantation).

Discussion

Establishing a core outcome set to be reported in all trials conducted in children with any stage of CKD will enhance the relevance, transparency, and impact of research to improve the lives of children and adolescents with CKD.

Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Transplantation: A Global Initiative to Develop a Core Outcome Set for Trials in Kidney Transplantation

Background

Although advances in treatment have dramatically improved short-term graft survival and acute rejection in kidney transplant recipients, long-term graft outcomes have not substantially improved. Transplant recipients also have a considerably increased risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and infection, which all contribute to appreciable morbidity and premature mortality. Many trials in kidney transplantation are short-term, frequently use unvalidated surrogate endpoints, outcomes of uncertain relevance to patients and clinicians, and do not consistently measure and report key outcomes like death, graft loss, graft function, and adverse effects of therapy. This diminishes the value of trials in supporting treatment decisions that require individual-level multiple tradeoffs between graft survival and the risk of side effects, adverse events, and mortality. The Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Transplantation initiative aims to develop a core outcome set for trials in kidney transplantation that is based on the shared priorities of all stakeholders.

Methods

This will include a systematic review to identify outcomes reported in randomized trials, a Delphi survey with an international multistakeholder panel (patients, caregivers, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, members from industry) to develop a consensus-based prioritized list of outcome domains and a consensus workshop to review and finalize the core outcome set for trials in kidney transplantation.

Conclusions

Developing and implementing a core outcome set to be reported, at a minimum, in all kidney transplantation trials will improve the transparency, quality, and relevance of research; to enable kidney transplant recipients and their clinicians to make better-informed treatment decisions for improved patient outcomes.

Effectiveness of prepregnancy care for women with pregestational diabetes mellitus: protocol for a systematic review of the literature and identification of a core outcomes set using a Delphi survey

Background

Women with pregnancy complicated by pregestational diabetes experience increased rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Prepregnancy care is the targeted support and additional care offered to those women who are planning pregnancy and is associated with improved outcomes. However, there is significant heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and reported in studies evaluating the effects of prepregnancy care, which makes meaningful comparison difficult. The aim of this article is to present a protocol for a study to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for trials and other studies evaluating the effectiveness of prepregnancy care for women with pregestational diabetes mellitus.

Methods/Design

This study will include a systematic review of the literature to identify outcomes that have previously been reported in studies evaluating prepregnancy care for women with pregestational diabetes. We will then prioritise these outcomes from the perspective of key stakeholders, including women with pregestational diabetes as well as clinicians, using a Delphi survey. A final consensus meeting will be held with stakeholders to review and finalise the outcomes.

Discussion

The expectation is that the COS will always be collected and reported in all clinical trials, audits of practice and other forms of research that involve prepregnancy care programs for women with pregestational diabetes. This will facilitate comparing and contrasting of studies and allow for combining of appropriate studies with the ultimate goal of improved patient care.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0894-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.