Creation of a core outcome set for clinical trials of people with shoulder pain: a study protocol

Innovative technologies for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in Australia: Market access challenges and implications for patients, decision-makers, and manufacturers

PURPOSE

The success of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has expanded its use for a broader range of shoulder indications worldwide. Evidence regarding the relative efficacy and long-term safety of medical technologies used in RTSA is subjected to rigorous assessment. Nonetheless, substantial challenges impede market access for innovative shoulder implant technologies for RTSA in Australia, resulting in delayed patient access.

APPROACH

This paper addresses the key challenges associated with generating evidence for the health technology assessments of innovative medical technologies for RTSA that are required for access to the Australian market. The transition to value-based care requires establishing a benchmarking reference that incorporates patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and combines revision outcomes with additional clinical outcomes to increase patient cohort sizes. Establishing the benchmark would require agreement on the outcome measures to be collected for each indication, and investment in reporting patient-reported outcomes for RTSA to the national orthopaedic registry.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The need for increased flexibility in developing evidence for health technology assessment of RTSA medical technologies is required. Optimised approaches for benchmarking RTSA require extensive stakeholder discussions, including the agreement on evidence requirements and follow-up periods, selection of clinical outcomes, as well as pre-operative and post-operative PROMs as a value assessment.

Protocol for the development of a core domain set for individuals with ankle osteoarthritis

Background

Ankle osteoarthritis (OA) is a debilitating health condition that is increasing in prevalence. Currently, there are no evidence-based guidelines for managing ankle OA. One of the current challenges to establishing guidelines is the lack of a widely agreed-upon set of outcome measures that are consistently used in ankle OA research. Without a set of agreed-upon outcome measures, it is difficult to synthesise clinical trial outcomes through meta-analysis—an essential element of evidence-informed practice. In order to develop an appropriate set of outcome measures for ankle OA, it is important first to develop a core domain set. In this protocol, we describe the methodological approach that we will use to develop such a core domain set for ankle OA.

Methods

We established an international steering committee to guide the development of a core domain set for ankle OA. The core domain set development will follow a multi-staged approach consisting of three phases, involving participation by patients and clinicians/healthcare professionals. In phase 1, a list of candidate domains will be gleaned from (a) a scoping review of outcome measures used in ankle OA research, (b) qualitative interviews with individuals with ankle OA, and (c) qualitative interviews with healthcare professionals with expertise in ankle OA. In phase 2, the steering committee will review and generate a list of candidate domains from those gleaned in phase 1. In phase 3, this list of candidate domains will be considered in a Delphi process to reach a consensus on a core domain set. We anticipated this will involve 3 rounds of surveys.

Conclusion

This protocol describes the methods that will be used to develop a core domain set of health-related aspects for ankle OA. Importantly, it will include both healthcare professional and patient involvement. This is a prerequisite step to developing a core outcome set for ankle OA that should be reported in all clinical trials for ankle OA. The findings will be widely disseminated across peer-refereed publication(s) and national and international conferences, as well as via relevant professional societies, patient support group organisations, and social media platforms.

Project registration

This project is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database on 17 March 2021. https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1837.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06692-0.

Outcome Domain and Measurement Instrument Reporting in Randomized Controlled Trials of Interventions for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To describe outcome measurement instruments and outcome domains in randomized controlled trials of any interventions for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

DESIGN

Systematic review.

LITERATURE SEARCH

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and PubMed were searched from inception to May 2020.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials were eligible if patients were diagnosed with LSS, with or without neurogenic claudication. Trials were eligible if they used at least 1 outcome measurement instrument.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Measurement instruments used in trials were extracted and then classified into outcome domains. We described the frequency of measurement instruments and outcome domains.

RESULTS

After study screening, 29 trials were included. In total, 54 different individual outcome measurement instruments were used. The Visual Analogue Scale (59%; n = 17) and the Oswestry Disability Index (52%; n = 15) were the most frequently used outcome measurement instruments in trials; function (90%; n = 26) and pain (62%; n = 18) were the most common outcome domains.

CONCLUSION

In total, 54 different measurement instruments were used in trials of interventions for LSS. This diverse range of observations contributes to outcome instrument heterogeneity between trials and impedes the analysis of data due to lack of comparability. The most common outcome domains assessed were pain and function, which will help inform a core outcome measure set for symptomatic LSS. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(7):446-456. Epub: 18 May 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10879.

Kinesio taping for rotator cuff disease

BACKGROUND

Kinesio Taping (KT) is one of the conservative treatments proposed for rotator cuff disease. KT is an elastic, adhesive, latex-free taping made from cotton, without active pharmacological agents. Clinicians have adopted it in the rehabilitation treatment of painful conditions, however, there is no firm evidence on its benefits.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of KT in adults with rotator cuff disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PEDro, CINAHL, Clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICRTP registry to July 27 2020, unrestricted by date and language.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including adults with rotator cuff disease. Major outcomes were overall pain, function, pain on motion, active range of motion, global assessment of treatment success, quality of life, and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 trials with 1054 participants. Nine studies (312 participants) assessed the effectiveness of KT versus sham therapy and fourteen studies (742 participants) assessed the effectiveness of KT versus conservative treatment. Most participants were aged between 18 and 50 years. Females comprised 52% of the sample. For the meta-analysis, we considered the last available measurement within 30 days from the end of the intervention. All trials were at risk of performance, selection, reporting, attrition, and other biases.  Comparison with sham taping Due to very low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain whether KT improves overall pain, function, pain on motion and active range of motion compared with sham taping. Mean overall pain (0 to 10 scale, 0 no pain) was 2.96 points with sham taping and 3.03 points with KT (3 RCTs,106 participants), with an absolute difference of 0.7% worse, (95% CI 7.7% better to 9% worse) and a relative difference of 2% worse (95% CI 21% better to 24% worse) at four weeks. Mean function (0 to 100 scale, 0 better function) was 47.1 points with sham taping and 39.05 points with KT (6 RCTs, 214 participants), with an absolute improvement of 8% (95% CI 21% better to 5% worse)and a relative improvement of 15% (95% CI 40% better to 9% worse) at four weeks. Mean pain on motion (0 to 10 scale, 0 no pain) was 4.39 points with sham taping and 2.91 points with KT even though not clinically important (4 RCTs, 153 participants), with an absolute improvement of 14.8% (95% CI 22.5% better to 7.1% better) and a relative improvement of 30% (95% CI 45% better to 14% better) at four weeks. Mean active range of motion (shoulder abduction) without pain was 174.2 degrees with sham taping and 184.43 degrees with KT (2 RCTs, 68 participants), with an absolute improvement of 5.7% (95% CI 8.9% worse to 20.3% better) and a relative improvement of 6% (95% CI 10% worse to 22% better) at two weeks. No studies reported global assessment of treatment success. Quality of life was reported by one study but data were disaggregated in subscales. No reliable estimates for adverse events (4 studies; very low-certainty) could be provided due to the heterogeneous description of events in the sample. Comparison with conservative treatments Due to very low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain if KT improves overall pain, function, pain on motion and active range of motion compared with conservative treatments. However, KT may improve quality of life (low certainty of evidence).  Mean overall pain (0 to 10 scale, 0 no pain) was 0.9 points with conservative treatment and 0.46 points with KT (5 RCTs, 266 participants), with an absolute improvement of 4.4% (95% CI 13% better to 4.6% worse) and a relative improvement of 15% (95% CI 46% better to 16% worse) at six weeks. Mean function (0 to 100 scale, 0 better function) was 46.6 points with conservative treatment and 33.47 points with KT (14 RCTs, 499 participants), with an absolute improvement of 13% (95% CI 24% better to 2% better) and a relative improvement of 18% (95% CI 32% better to 3% better) at four weeks. Mean pain on motion (0 to 10 scale, 0 no pain) was 4 points with conservative treatment and 3.94 points with KT (6 RCTs, 225 participants), with an absolute improvement of 0.6% (95% CI 7% better to 8% worse) and a relative improvement of 1% (95% CI 12% better to 10% worse) at four weeks. Mean active range of motion (shoulder abduction) without pain was 156.6 degrees with conservative treatment and 159.64 degrees with KT (3 RCTs, 143 participants), with an absolute improvement of 3% (95% CI 11% worse to 17 % better) and a relative improvement of 3% (95% CI 9% worse to 14% better) at six weeks.  Mean of quality of life (0 to 100, 100 better quality of life) was 37.94 points with conservative treatment and 56.64 points with KT (1 RCTs, 30 participants), with an absolute improvement of 18.7% (95% CI 14.48% better to 22.92% better) and a relative improvement of 53% (95% CI 41% better to 65% better) at four weeks.  No studies were found for global assessment of treatment success. No reliable estimates for adverse events (7 studies, very low certainty of evidence) could be provided due to the heterogeneous description of events in the whole sample.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Kinesio taping for rotator cuff disease has uncertain effects in terms of self-reported pain, function, pain on motion and active range of motion when compared to sham taping or other conservative treatments as the certainty of evidence was very low. Low-certainty evidence shows that kinesio taping may improve quality of life when compared to conservative treatment. We downgraded the evidence for indirectness due to differences among co-interventions, imprecision due to small number of participants across trials as well as selection bias, performance and detection bias. Evidence on adverse events was scarce and uncertain. Based upon the data in this review, the evidence for the efficacy of KT seems to demonstrate little or no benefit.

Co-producing a multi-stakeholder Core Outcome Set for distal Tibia and Ankle fractures (COSTA): a study protocol

BACKGROUND

Ankle fracture is a common injury with a strong evidence base focused on effectiveness of treatments. However, there are no reporting guidelines on distal tibia and ankle fractures. This has led to heterogeneity in outcome reporting and consequently, restricted the contribution of evidence syntheses. Over the past decade, core outcome sets have been developed to address this issue and are available for several common fractures, including those of the hip, distal radius, and open tibial fractures. This protocol describes the process to co-produce-with patient partners and other key stakeholders-a multi-stakeholder derived Core Outcome Set for distal Tibia and Ankle fractures (COSTA). The scope of COSTA will be for clinical trials.

METHODS

The study will have five-stages which will include the following: (i) systematic reviews of existing qualitative studies and outcome reporting in randomised controlled trial studies to inform a developing list of potential outcome domains; (ii) qualitative interviews (including secondary data) and focus groups with patients and healthcare professionals to explore the impact of ankle fracture and the outcomes that really matter; (iii) generation of meaningful outcome statements with the study team, international advisory group and patient partners; (iv) a multi-round, international e-Delphi study to achieve consensus on the core domain set; and (v) an evidence-based consensus on a core measurement set will be achieved through a structured group consensus meeting, recommending best assessment approaches for each of the domains in the core domain set.

DISCUSSION

Development of COSTA will provide internationally endorsed outcome assessment guidance for clinical trials for distal tibia and ankle fractures. This will enhance comparative reviews of interventions, potentially reducing reporting bias and research waste.

Systematic review of international Delphi surveys for core outcome set development: representation of international patients

OBJECTIVES

A core outcome set (COS) describes a minimum set of outcomes to be reported by all clinical trials of one healthcare condition. Delphi surveys are frequently used to achieve consensus on core outcomes. International input is important to achieve global COS uptake. We aimed to investigate participant representation in international Delphi surveys, with reference to the inclusion of patients and participants from low and middle income countries as stakeholders (LMICs).

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

EMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, COMET database and hand-searching.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Protocols and studies describing Delphi surveys used to develop an international COS for trial reporting, published between 1 January 2017 and 6 June 2019.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Delphi participants were grouped as patients or healthcare professionals (HCPs). Participants were considered international if their country of origin was different to that of the first or senior author. Data extraction included participant numbers, country of origin, country income group and whether Delphi surveys were translated. We analysed the impact these factors had on outcome prioritisation.

RESULTS

Of 90 included studies, 69% (n=62) were completed and 31% (n=28) were protocols. Studies recruited more HCPs than patients (median 60 (IQR 30-113) vs 30 (IQR 14-66) participants, respectively). A higher percentage of HCPs was international compared with patients (57% (IQR 37-78) vs 20% (IQR 0-68)). Only 31% (n=28) studies recruited participants from LMICs. Regarding recruitment from LMICs, patients were under-represented (16% studies; n=8) compared with HCPs (22%; n=28). Few (7%; n=6) studies translated Delphi surveys. Only 3% studies (n=3) analysed Delphi responses by geographical location; all found differences in outcome prioritisation.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a disproportionately lower inclusion of international patients, compared with HCPs, in COS-development Delphi surveys, particularly within LMICs. Future international Delphi surveys should consider exploring for geographical and income-based differences in outcome prioritisation.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019138519.

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.

What Do the OMERACT Shoulder Core Set Candidate Instruments Measure? An Analysis Using the Refined International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health Linking Rules

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this paper is to assess the content and measurement constructs of the candidate instruments for the domains of "pain" and "physical function/activity" in the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) shoulder core set. The results of this International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF)-based analysis may inform further decisions on which instruments should ultimately be included in the core set.

METHODS

The materials for the analysis were the 13 candidate measurement instruments within pain and physical function/activity in the shoulder core domain set, which either passed or received amber ratings (meaning there were some issues with the instrument) in the OMERACT filtering process. The content of the candidate instruments was extracted and linked to the ICF using the refined linking rules. The linking rules enhance the comparability of instruments by providing a comprehensive overview of the content of the instruments, the context in which the measurements take place, the perspectives adopted, and the types of response options.

RESULTS

The ICF content analysis showed a large variation in content and measurement constructs in the candidate instruments for the shoulder core outcome measurement set.

CONCLUSION

Two of 6 pain instruments include constructs other than pain. Within the physical function/activity domain, 2 candidate instruments matched the domain, 3 included additional content, and 2 included meaningful concepts in the response options, suggesting that they should be omitted as candidate instruments. The analyses show that the content in most existing instruments of shoulder pain and functioning extends across core set domains.

Hearing outcome measures for conductive and mixed hearing loss treatment in adults: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Rehabilitation options for conductive and mixed hearing loss are continually expanding, but without standard outcome measures comparison between different treatments is difficult. To meaningfully inform clinicians and patients core outcome sets (COS), determined via a recognised methodology, are needed. Following our previous work that identified hearing, physical, economic and psychosocial as core areas of a future COS, the AURONET group reviewed hearing outcome measures used in existing literature and assigned them into different domains within the hearing core area.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

STUDY SAMPLE

Literature including hearing outcome measurements for the treatment of conductive and/or mixed hearing loss.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 1434 studies, with 278 subsequently selected for inclusion. A total of 837 hearing outcome measures were reported and grouped into nine domains. The largest domain constituted pure-tone threshold measurements accounting for 65% of the total outcome measures extracted, followed by the domains of speech testing (20%) and questionnaires (9%). Studies of hearing implants more commonly included speech tests or hearing questionnaires compared with studies of middle ear surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

A wide range of outcome measures are currently used, highlighting the importance of developing a COS to inform individual practice and reporting in trials/research.

The use of a synthetic shoulder patch for large and massive rotator cuff tears - a feasibility study

Background

The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility of using a non-absorbable biocompatible polyester patch to augment open repair of massive rotator cuff tears (Patch group) and compare outcomes with other treatment options (Non-patch group).

Methods

Participants referred to orthopaedic clinics for rotator cuff surgery were recruited. Choice of intervention (Patch or Non-patch) was based on patient preference and intra-operative findings. Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), and Constant score were completed at baseline and 6 months. Shoulder MRI was performed at baseline and 6 months to assess fat fraction and Goutallier classification pre- and post- treatment. Feasibility outcomes (including retention, consent and missing data) were assessed.

Results

Sixty-eight participants (29 in the Patch group, 39 in Non-patch group) were included (mean age 65.3 years). Conversion to consent (92.6%), missing data (0% at baseline), and attrition rate (16%) were deemed successful feasibility endpoints. There was significant improvement in the Patch group compared to Non-patch at 6 months in OSS (difference in medians 9.76 (95% CI 2.25, 17.29) and SPADI: 22.97 (95% CI 3.02, 42.92), with no substantive differences in Constant score. The patch group had a higher proportion of participants improving greater than MCID for OSS (78% vs 62%) and SPADI (63% vs 50%) respectively. Analysis of the 48 paired MRIs demonstrated a slight increase in the fat fraction for supraspinatus (53 to 55%), and infraspinatus (26 to 29%) at 6 months. These differences were similar and in the same direction when the participants were analysed by treatment group. The Goutallier score remained the same or worsened one grade in both groups equally.

Conclusions

This study indicates that a definitive clinical trial investigating the use of a non-absorbable patch to augment repair of massive rotator cuff tears is feasible. In such patients, the patch has the potential to improve shoulder symptoms at 6 months.

Trial registration

ISRCTN, ISRCTN79844053, Registered 15th October 2014 (retrospectively registered).

Patients' experience of shoulder disorders: a systematic review of qualitative studies for the OMERACT Shoulder Core Domain Set

OBJECTIVES

To describe the experiences (including symptoms and perceived impacts on daily living) of people with a shoulder disorder.

METHODS

Systematic review of qualitative studies. We searched for eligible qualitative studies indexed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CINAHL (EBSCO), SportDiscus (EBSCO) and Ovid PsycINFO up until November 2017. Two authors independently screened studies for inclusion, appraised their methodological quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist, used thematic synthesis methods to generate themes describing the experiences reported by participants and assessed the confidence in the findings using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) approach.

RESULTS

The inclusion criteria were met by eight studies, which included 133 participants (49 females and 84 males) with either rotator cuff disease, adhesive capsulitis, proximal humeral fracture, shoulder instability or unspecified shoulder pain. We generated seven themes to describe what people in the included studies reported experiencing: pain; physical function/activity limitations; participation restriction; sleep disruption; cognitive dysfunction; emotional distress; and other pathophysiological manifestations (other than pain). There were interactions between the themes, with particular experiences impacting on others (e.g. pain leading to reduced activities and sleep disruption). Following grading of the evidence, we considered it likely that most of the review findings were a reasonable representation of the experiences of people with shoulder disorders.

CONCLUSION

Patients with shoulder disorders contend with considerable disruption to their life. The experiences described should be considered by researchers seeking to select the most appropriate outcomes to measure in clinical trials and other research studies in people with shoulder disorders.

The OMERACT Core Domain Set for Clinical Trials of Shoulder Disorders

OBJECTIVE

To reach consensus on the core domains to be included in a core domain set for clinical trials of shoulder disorders using the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.1 Core Domain Set process.

METHODS

At OMERACT 2018, the OMERACT Shoulder Working Group conducted a workshop that presented the OMERACT 2016 preliminary core domain set and its rationale based upon a systematic review of domains measured in shoulder trials and international Delphi sessions involving patients, clinicians, and researchers, as well as a new systematic review of qualitative studies on the experiences of people with shoulder disorders. After discussions in breakout groups, the OMERACT core domain set for clinical trials of shoulder disorders was presented for endorsement by OMERACT 2018 participants.

RESULTS

The qualitative review (n = 8) identified all domains included in the preliminary core set. An additional domain, cognitive dysfunction, was also identified, but confidence that this represents a core domain was very low. The core domain set that was endorsed by the OMERACT participants, with 71% agreement, includes 4 "mandatory" trial domains: pain, function, patient global - shoulder, and adverse events including death; and 4 "important but optional" domains: participation (recreation/work), sleep, emotional well-being, and condition-specific pathophysiological manifestations. Cognitive dysfunction was voted out of the core domain set.

CONCLUSION

OMERACT 2018 delegates endorsed a core domain set for clinical trials of shoulder disorders. The next step includes identification of a core outcome measurement set that passes the OMERACT 2.1 Filter for measuring each domain.

Acute postoperative pain after arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery: A review of methods of pain assessment

INTRODUCTION

Pain can be severe during the first days after arthroscopic surgery, and acute pain is an important outcome in clinical trials of surgical technique or anaesthetic strategy. A standardized, validated method of assessing acute postoperative pain would improve the quality of clinical studies, and facilitate systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A step on the way towards this standard is to investigate the methods most commonly used in recent literature.

METHODS

PubMed and CINAHL databases were searched, including studies of arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery with a primary pain-related outcome during the first postoperative week, published in English from 2012 to 2017.

RESULTS

A total of 47 studies were included, all measuring pain intensity using a pain rating scale. Most frequently used was the visual analogue scale using the anchors "no pain" and "worst pain imaginable", with recordings at 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 24 hours postoperatively. A total of 34 studies recorded analgesic consumption, usually as average cumulated consumption in mg. Time to first analgesic request or first pain were recorded in 11 studies, and 4 different starting points were used.

DISCUSSION

This review describes the currently most common methods of assessing acute postoperative pain in clinical trials of arthroscopic shoulder surgery involving rotator cuff repair, and the large variety of methods applied. Based on this study and international guidelines, several recommendations on how to measure and report postoperative pain outcomes in future trials are proposed.

A core outcome set for clinical trials in whiplash-associated disorders (WAD): a study protocol

Background

Whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) as a consequence of a motor vehicle crash are a costly health burden in Western societies. Up to 50% of injured people do not fully recover. There have been numerous clinical trials and cohort studies conducted for WAD with many varied outcome measures used, making data pooling difficult and hindering meta-analysis. These issues could be addressed through the development of a core outcome set (COS) that should be included in all clinical trials for WAD. The purpose of this project is to develop and disseminate a COS for clinical trials in WAD.

Methods/design

An international Steering Committee was formed to initiate and support the development of this COS. The project will comprise five phases: (1) a comprehensive review of core outcome domains used in clinical trials in WAD, (2) an international Delphi survey including individuals with WAD, health care providers, clinical researchers and insurance personnel to define the core outcome domains, (3) a meeting of relevant stakeholders to reach consensus regarding the final core outcome domains, (4) identification and evaluation of instruments used to measure the final core outcome domains, and (5) a consensus meeting to agree on the core outcome measurement instruments to be used.

Discussion

The aim of this proposal is to complete a five-stage process to develop a COS for all clinical trials in WAD. An implementation strategy will also be proposed.

Correlation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Physical Function Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Testing, With the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Assessment Form and Simple Shoulder Test in Patients With Shoulder Pain

PURPOSE

To evaluate the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Physical Function Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Testing (PROMIS PFUE CAT) measurement tool against the already validated American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) and the Simple Shoulder Test (SST) in patients presenting with shoulder pain and determine the responder burden for each of the 3 surveys.

METHODS

Ninety patients presenting with shoulder pain were asked to fill out the ASES, SST, and PROMIS PFUE CAT. The time for completion of each survey was measured to determine responder burden, and the Pearson correlation between the 3 instruments was defined as excellent (r > 0.7), excellent-good (0.61 ≤ r ≤ 0.7), good (0.31 ≤ r ≤ 0.6), and poor (0.2 ≤ r ≤ 0.3).

RESULTS

The PROMIS PFUE CAT showed an excellent correlation with the SST (r = 0.82, P < .001) and ASES (r = 0.72, P < .001). The average time to complete SST, ASES, and PROMIS PFUE CAT was 92.8 ± 35.8, 142.3 ± 60.1, and 61.3 ± 28.8 seconds, respectively. The time to complete the PROMIS PFUE CAT was significantly less than both the SST (P < .001) and ASES (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The PROMIS PFUE CAT showed an excellent correlation with the previously validated ASES and SST in patients with shoulder pain. The time saving of the PROMIS PFUE CAT was found to be smaller than that of the ASES and SST but shows that moving forward, using the PROMIS PFUE CAT would not place any additional burden on the patient filling out the survey. The lack of ceiling or floor effects with the PROMIS PFUE CAT indicates its ability to differentiate both high and low functioning patients. All of these findings indicate that the PROMIS PFUE CAT is an adequate tool for the evaluation of patients with shoulder pain and should be used in these patients going forward.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, diagnostic study.

Correlation of PROMIS Physical Function Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Test with American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons shoulder assessment form and Simple Shoulder Test in patients with shoulder arthritis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Informative System Physical Function Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Test (PROMIS PFUE CAT) measurement tool against the already validated American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) shoulder assessment form and the Simple Shoulder Test (SST) in patients with shoulder arthritis.

METHODS

Fifty-two patients with the primary diagnosis of shoulder arthritis were asked to fill out the ASES, SST, and PROMIS PFUE CAT. The time for completion of each survey was measured to determine responder burden, and correlation between the 3 instruments was defined as excellent (>0.7), strong-moderate (0.61-0.7), moderate (0.31-0.6), and poor (0.2-0.3).

RESULTS

The PROMIS PFUE CAT showed a strong-moderate correlation with the SST (r = 0.64; P < .001) and a moderate correlation with the ASES (r = 0.57; P < .001). The average times to complete the SST, ASES, and PROMIS PFUE CAT were determined to be 96.9 ± 25.1 seconds, 160.6 ± 51.5 seconds, and 62.6 ± 22.8 seconds, respectively. The time to complete the PROMIS PFUE CAT was significantly less than the time to complete the SST (P < .001) and the ASES (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

In patients with shoulder arthritis, The PROMIS PFUE CAT demonstrated strong-moderate correlation with the SST and moderate correlation with the ASES. The time savings of the PROMIS PFUE CAT were small compared with the ASES and SST but demonstrate that moving forward, using the PROMIS PFUE CAT would not place any additional burden on the patient filling out the survey. These findings indicate that the PROMIS PFUE CAT is an appropriate measurement tool for patients with shoulder arthritis.

Outcome Reporting in Randomized Trials for Shoulder Disorders: Literature Review to Inform the Development of a Core Outcome Set

OBJECTIVE

To explore the outcome domains and measurement instruments reported across randomized trials of any interventions for various shoulder disorders.

METHODS

We searched for shoulder trials included in Cochrane reviews published up to Issue 10, 2015, or indexed in PubMed between 2006 and 2015. Trials were eligible for inclusion if they focused on any intervention for rotator cuff disease, adhesive capsulitis, shoulder instability, glenohumeral or acromioclavicular osteoarthritis, shoulder dislocation, proximal humeral or humeral head fractures, or unspecified shoulder pain. Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted information on the domains and measurement instruments reported, with consensus discussion among all authors where required.

RESULTS

We included 409 trials, published between 1954 and 2015. Across the trials, we identified 319 different instruments that were classified into 32 domains. Most trials reported a measure of pain (90%), range of motion (78%), and physical function (71%). The recording of adverse events was reported in only 31% of the trials. Muscle strength was reported in 44% of the trials and imaging outcomes in 21%. Other patient-reported outcome measures, such as global assessment of treatment success, health-related quality of life, work ability, and psychological functioning, were each reported in ≤15% of the trials. Most of the domains were reported at similar frequencies across different shoulder disorders.

CONCLUSION

The domains and measurement instruments reported were widely diverse. Our results provide a foundation for the development of a core outcome set for use in future trials across all shoulder disorders.

A Preliminary Core Domain Set for Clinical Trials of Shoulder Disorders: A Report from the OMERACT 2016 Shoulder Core Outcome Set Special Interest Group

Objective.

The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Shoulder Core Outcome Set Special Interest Group (SIG) was established to develop a core outcome set (COS) for clinical trials of shoulder disorders.

Methods.

In preparation for OMERACT 2016, we systematically examined all outcome domains and measurement instruments reported in 409 randomized trials of interventions for shoulder disorders published between 1954 and 2015. Informed by these data, we conducted an international Delphi consensus study including shoulder trial experts, clinicians, and patients to identify key domains that should be included in a shoulder disorder COS. Findings were discussed at a stakeholder premeeting of OMERACT. At OMERACT 2016, we sought consensus on a preliminary core domain set and input into next steps.

Results.

There were 13 and 15 participants at the premeeting and the OMERACT 2016 SIG meeting, respectively (9 attended both meetings). Consensus was reached on a preliminary core domain set consisting of an inner core of 4 domains: pain, physical function/activity, global perceived effect, and adverse events including death. A middle core consisted of 3 domains: emotional well-being, sleep, and participation (recreation and work). An outer core of research required to inform the final COS was also formulated.

Conclusion.

Our next steps are to (1) analyze whether participation (recreation and work) should be in the inner core, (2) conduct a third Delphi round to finalize definitions and wording of domains and reach final endorsement for the domains, and (3) determine which instruments fulfill the OMERACT criteria for measuring each domain.