Development of a core outcome set for clinical trials in basal cell carcinoma: study protocol for a systematic review of the literature and identification of a core outcome set using a Delphi survey

Diabetic retinopathy progression in patients under monitoring for treatment or vision loss: external validation and update of a multivariable prediction model

INTRODUCTION

The number of people with diabetes mellitus is increasing globally and consequently so too is diabetic retinopathy (DR). Most patients with diabetes are monitored through the diabetic eye screening programme (DESP) until they have signs of retinopathy and these changes progress, requiring referral into hospital eye services (HES). Here, they continue to be monitored until they require treatment. Due to current pressures on HES, delays can occur, leading to harm. There is a need to triage patients based on their individual risk. At present, patients are stratified according to retinopathy stage alone, yet other risk factors like glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) may be useful. Therefore, a prediction model that combines multiple prognostic factors to predict progression will be useful for triage in this setting to improve care.We previously developed a Diabetic Retinopathy Progression model to Treatment or Vision Loss (DRPTVL-UK) using a large primary care database. The aim of the present study is to externally validate the DRPTVL-UK model in a secondary care setting, specifically in a population under care by HES. This study will also provide an opportunity to update the model by considering additional predictors not previously available.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will use a retrospective cohort of 2400 patients with diabetes aged 12 years and over, referred from DESP to the NHS hospital trusts with referable DR between 2013 and 2016, with follow-up information recorded until December 2021.We will evaluate the external validity of the DRPTVL-UK model using measures of discrimination, calibration and net benefit. In addition, consensus meetings will be held to agree on acceptable risk thresholds for triage within the HES system.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by REC (ref 22/SC/0425, 05/12/2022, Hampshire A Research Ethics Committee). The results of the study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at clinical conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN 10956293.

Development of a Core Outcome Set for Basal Cell Carcinoma (BCC), Including Low-Risk and Advanced Tumors

BACKGROUND

There is variation in the outcomes reported in clinical studies of basal cell carcinoma (BCC). This can prevent effective meta-analyses to answer important clinical questions.

OBJECTIVE

To identify a recommended minimum set of core outcomes for BCC clinical trials.

METHODS

Patient and professional Delphi process to cull a long-list, culminating in a consensus meeting. To be provisionally accepted, outcomes needed to be deemed 'important' (score: 7-9, of maximum of 9) by 70% of each stakeholder group.

RESULTS

235 candidate outcomes identified via a systematic literature review and survey of key stakeholders were reduced to 74 that were rated by 100 health care professionals and patients in two Delphi rounds. 27 outcomes were provisionally accepted. The final core set of 5 agreed-upon outcomes after the consensus meeting was: complete response; persistent or serious adverse events; recurrence-free survival; quality of life; and patient satisfaction, including with cosmetic outcome.

LIMITATIONS

English-speaking patients and professionals rated outcomes extracted from English-language studies.

CONCLUSIONS

A core outcome set (COS) for basal cell carcinoma has been developed. Use of relevant measures may improve the utility of clinical research and the quality of therapeutic guidance available to clinicians.

International eDelphi Study to Reach Consensus on the Methotrexate Dosing Regimen in Patients With Psoriasis

Importance

A clear dosing regimen for methotrexate in psoriasis is lacking, and this might lead to a suboptimal treatment. Because methotrexate is affordable and globally available, a uniform dosing regimen could potentially optimize the treatment of patients with psoriasis worldwide.

Objective

To reach international consensus among psoriasis experts on a uniform dosing regimen for treatment with methotrexate in adult and pediatric patients with psoriasis and identify potential future research topics.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Between September 2020 and March 2021, a survey study with a modified eDelphi procedure that was developed and distributed by the Amsterdam University Medical Center and completed by 180 participants worldwide (55 [30.6%] resided in non-Western countries) was conducted in 3 rounds. The proposals on which no consensus was reached were discussed in a conference meeting (June 2021). Participants voted on 21 proposals with a 9-point scale (1-3 disagree, 4-6 neither agree nor disagree, 7-9 agree) and were recruited through the Skin Inflammation and Psoriasis International Network and European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology in June 2020. Apart from being a dermatologist/dermatology resident, there were no specific criteria for participation in the survey. The participants worked mainly at a university hospital (97 [53.9%]) and were experienced in treating patients with psoriasis with methotrexate (163 [91.6%] had more than 10 years of experience).

Main Outcomes and Measures

In a survey with eDelphi procedure, we tried to reach consensus on 21 proposals. Consensus was defined as less than 15% voting disagree (1-3). For the consensus meeting, consensus was defined as less than 30% voting disagree.

Results

Of 251 participants, 180 (71.7%) completed all 3 survey rounds, and 58 participants (23.1%) joined the conference meeting. Consensus was achieved on 11 proposals in round 1, 3 proposals in round 2, and 2 proposals in round 3. In the consensus meeting, consensus was achieved on 4 proposals. More research is needed, especially for the proposals on folic acid and the dosing of methotrexate for treating subpopulations such as children and vulnerable patients.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this eDelphi consensus study, consensus was reached on 20 of 21 proposals involving methotrexate dosing in patients with psoriasis. This consensus may potentially be used to harmonize the treatment with methotrexate in patients with psoriasis.

Interventions for basal cell carcinoma: abridged Cochrane systematic review and GRADE assessments

BACKGROUND

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common cancer affecting white-skinned individuals, and the worldwide incidence is increasing. Although rarely fatal, BCC is associated with significant morbidity and costs.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions for primary BCC in immunocompetent adults.

METHODS

We updated our searches of the following databases to November 2019: Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and LILACS. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

RESULTS

We included 52 randomized controlled trials with 6990 participants (median age 65 years; range 20-95). Mean study duration was 13 months (range 6 weeks-10 years). Ninety-two per cent (n = 48/52) of studies exclusively included histologically low-risk BCC (nodular and superficial subtypes). The certainty of evidence was predominantly low or moderate for the outcomes of interest. Overall, surgical interventions have the lowest recurrence rates, and there may be slightly fewer recurrences with Mohs micrographic surgery over surgical excision for primary, facial BCC (high-risk histological subtype or located in the 'H-zone' or both) (low-certainty evidence). Nonsurgical treatments, when used for low-risk BCC, are less effective than surgical treatments, but recurrence rates are acceptable and cosmetic outcomes are probably superior.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical interventions have lower recurrence rates and remain the gold standard for high-risk BCC. Of the nonsurgical treatments, topical imiquimod has the best evidence to support its efficacy for low-risk BCC. Priorities for future research include agreement on core outcome measures and studies with longer follow-up.

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.

Interventions for basal cell carcinoma of the skin

BACKGROUND

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the commonest cancer affecting white-skinned individuals, and worldwide incidence is increasing. Although rarely fatal, BCC is associated with significant morbidity and costs. First-line treatment is usually surgical excision, but alternatives are available. New published studies and the development of non-surgical treatments meant an update of our Cochrane Review (first published in 2003, and previously updated in 2007) was timely.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions for BCC in immunocompetent adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our searches of the following databases to November 2019: Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and LILACS.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for BCC in immunocompetent adults with histologically-proven, primary BCC. Eligible comparators were placebo, active treatment, other treatments, or no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcome measures were recurrence at three years and five years (measured clinically) (we included recurrence data outside of these time points if there was no measurement at three or five years) and participant- and observer-rated good/excellent cosmetic outcome. Secondary outcomes included pain during and after treatment, early treatment failure within six months, and adverse effects (AEs). We used GRADE to assess evidence certainty for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 52 RCTs (26 new) involving 6690 participants (median 89) in this update. All studies recruited from secondary care outpatient clinics. More males than females were included. Study duration ranged from six weeks to 10 years (average 13 months). Most studies (48/52) included only low-risk BCC (superficial (sBCC) and nodular (nBCC) histological subtypes). The majority of studies were at low or unclear risk of bias for most domains. Twenty-two studies were industry-funded: commercial sponsors conducted most of the studies assessing imiquimod, and just under half of the photodynamic therapy (PDT) studies. Overall, surgical interventions have the lowest recurrence rates. For high-risk facial BCC (high-risk histological subtype or located in the facial 'H-zone' or both), there may be slightly fewer recurrences with Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) compared to surgical excision (SE) at three years (1.9% versus 2.9%, respectively) (risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 2.64; 1 study, 331 participants; low-certainty evidence) and at five years (3.2% versus 5.2%, respectively) (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.18 to 2.04; 1 study, 259 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, the 95% CI also includes the possibility of increased risk of recurrence and no difference between treatments. There may be little to no difference regarding improvement of cosmetic outcomes between MMS and SE, judged by participants and observers 18 months post-operatively (one study; low-certainty evidence); however, no raw data were available for this outcome. When comparing imiquimod and SE for nBCC or sBCC at low-risk sites, imiquimod probably results in more recurrences than SE at three years (16.4% versus 1.6%, respectively) (RR 10.30, 95% CI 3.22 to 32.94; 1 study, 401 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and five years (17.5% versus 2.3%, respectively) (RR 7.73, 95% CI 2.81 to 21.3; 1 study, 383 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in the number of participant-rated good/excellent cosmetic outcomes (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.06; 1 study, 326 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, imiquimod may result in greater numbers of good/excellent cosmetic outcomes compared to SE when observer-rated (60.6% versus 35.6%, respectively) (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.15; 1 study, 344 participants; low-certainty evidence). Both cosmetic outcomes were measured at three years. Based on one study of 347 participants with high- and low-risk primary BCC of the face, radiotherapy may result in more recurrences compared to SE under frozen section margin control at three years (5.2% versus 0%, respectively) (RR 19.11, 95% CI 1.12 to 325.78; low-certainty evidence) and at four years (6.4% versus 0.6%, respectively) (RR 11.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 84.77; low-certainty evidence). Radiotherapy probably results in a smaller number of good participant- (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.91; 50.3% versus 66.1%, respectively) or observer-rated (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.62; 28.9% versus 60.3%, respectively) good/excellent cosmetic outcomes compared to SE, when measured at four years, where dyspigmentation and telangiectasia can occur (both moderate-certainty evidence). Methyl-aminolevulinate (MAL)-PDT may result in more recurrences compared to SE at three years (36.4% versus 0%, respectively) (RR 26.47, 95% CI 1.63 to 429.92; 1 study; 68 participants with low-risk nBCC in the head and neck area; low-certainty evidence). There were no useable data for measurement at five years. MAL-PDT probably results in greater numbers of participant- (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.27; 97.3% versus 82.5%) or observer-rated (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.54 to 2.26; 87.1% versus 46.6%) good/excellent cosmetic outcomes at one year compared to SE (2 studies, 309 participants with low-risk nBCC and sBCC; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on moderate-certainty evidence (single low-risk sBCC), imiquimod probably results in fewer recurrences at three years compared to MAL-PDT (22.8% versus 51.6%, respectively) (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.62; 277 participants) and five years (28.6% versus 68.6%, respectively) (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.57; 228 participants). There is probably little to no difference in numbers of observer-rated good/excellent cosmetic outcomes at one year (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.16; 370 participants). Participant-rated cosmetic outcomes were not measured for this comparison. AEs with surgical interventions include wound infections, graft necrosis and post-operative bleeding. Local AEs such as itching, weeping, pain and redness occur frequently with non-surgical interventions. Treatment-related AEs resulting in study modification or withdrawal occurred with imiquimod and MAL-PDT.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Surgical interventions have the lowest recurrence rates, and there may be slightly fewer recurrences with MMS over SE for high-risk facial primary BCC (low-certainty evidence). Non-surgical treatments, when used for low-risk BCC, are less effective than surgical treatments, but recurrence rates are acceptable and cosmetic outcomes are probably superior. Of the non-surgical treatments, imiquimod has the best evidence to support its efficacy. Overall, evidence certainty was low to moderate. Priorities for future research include core outcome measures and studies with longer-term follow-up.

Outcome assessment in dermatology clinical trials and cochrane reviews: call for a dermatology-specific outcome taxonomy

BACKGROUND

Standardized outcome reporting is crucial for trial evidence synthesis and translation of findings into clinical decision-making. The OMERACT 2.0 Filter and COMET outcome domain taxonomy propose frameworks for consistent reporting of outcomes. There is an absence of a uniform dermatology-specific reporting strategy that uses precise and consistent outcome definitions.

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to map efficacy/effectiveness outcomes assessed in dermatological trials to the OMERACT 2.0 Filter as a starting point for developing an outcome taxonomy in dermatology.

METHODS

We critically appraised 10 Cochrane Skin Reviews randomly selected from all 69 Cochrane Skin Reviews published until 01/2015 and the 220 trials included covering a broad spectrum of dermatological conditions and interventions. Efficacy/effectiveness outcomes were mapped to core areas and domains according to the OMERACT 2.0 Filter. The extracted trial outcomes were used for critical appraisal of outcome reporting in dermatology trials and for the preliminary development of a dermatology-specific outcome taxonomy.

RESULTS

The allocation of 1086 extracted efficacy/effectiveness outcomes to the OMERACT 2.0 Filter resulted in a hierarchically structured dermatology-specific outcome classification. In 506 outcomes (47%), the outcome concept to be measured was insufficiently described, hindering meaningful evidence synthesis. Although the core areas assessed in different dermatology trials of the same condition overlap considerably, quantitative evidence synthesis usually failed due to imprecise outcome definitions, non-comparable outcome measurement instruments, metrics and reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

We present an efficacy/effectiveness outcome classification as a starting point for a dermatology-specific taxonomy to provide trialists and reviewers with the opportunity to better synthesize and compare evidence.

Biological Treatment and the Potential Risk of Adverse Postoperative Outcome in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: An Open-Source Expert Panel Review of the Current Literature and Future Perspectives

Background

There is widespread concern that treatment with biologic agents may be associated with suboptimal postoperative outcome after surgery for inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD).

Aim

We aimed to search and analyze the literature regarding the potential association of biologic treatment on adverse postoperative outcome in patients with IBD. We used the subject as a case in point for surgical research. The aim was not to conduct a new systematic review.

Method

This is an updated narrative review written in a collaborative method by authors invited through Twitter via the following hashtags (#OpenSourceResearch and #SoMe4Surgery). The manuscript was presented as slides on Twitter to allow discussion of each section of the paper sequentially. A Google document was created, which was shared across social media, and comments and edits were verified by the primary author to ensure accuracy and consistency.

Results

Forty-one collaborators responded to the invitation, and a total of 106 studies were identified that investigated the potential association of preoperative biological treatment on postoperative outcome in patients with IBD. Most of these studies were retrospective observational cohorts: 3 were prospective, 4 experimental, and 3 population-based studies. These studies were previously analyzed in 10 systematic/narrative reviews and 14 meta-analyses. Type of biologic agents, dose, drug concentration, antidrug antibodies, interval between last dose, and types of surgery varied widely among the studies. Adjustment for confounders and bias control ranged from good to very poor. Only 10 studies reported postoperative outcome according to Clavien–Dindo classification.

Conclusion

Although a large number of studies investigated the potential effect of biological treatment on postoperative outcomes, many reported divergent results. There is a need for randomized controlled trials. Future studies should focus on the avoiding the weakness of prior studies we identified. Seeking collaborators and sharing information via Twitter was integral to widening the contributors/authors and peer review for this article and was an effective method of collaboration.

Electrochemotherapy and Ablative Therapies in Non-melanoma Skin Cancer

Although surgery and radiotherapy remain the most commonly used treatments for non-melanoma skin cancer, there are a variety of alternatives. Here we discuss the use of electrochemotherapy and ablative treatments and examine the evidence for their effectiveness against a number of non-melanoma skin cancers.

Patient-reported outcome measures for facial skin cancer: a systematic review and evaluation of the quality of their measurement properties

BACKGROUND

Skin cancer is the commonest malignancy worldwide, often occurring on the face. Both the condition and treatment can lead to scarring and facial disfigurement, affecting a patient's health-related quality of life (HRQoL), which can be measured using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review identifies PROMs for facial skin cancer and appraises their methodological quality and psychometric properties using up-to-date methods.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane and CINAHL were searched systematically in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, identifying all PROMs designed for or validated in facial skin cancer. Methodological quality and evidence of psychometric properties were assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist and criteria proposed by Terwee and colleagues. A best-evidence synthesis and assessment of instrument focus on post-resection reconstruction was also performed.

RESULTS

We included 24 studies on 11 PROMs. Methodological quality and psychometric evidence was variable, with the Patient Outcome of Surgery - Head/Neck (POS-H/N), Skin Cancer Index (SCI), Skin Cancer Quality of Life Impact Tool (SCQOLIT) and Essers and colleagues demonstrating the greatest level of validation. None scored well in their relevance to post-skin cancer reconstruction of the face.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review critically appraises PROMs for facial skin cancer using internationally accepted criteria. The identified PROMs demonstrate a variation in the quality of validation performed, with a need to improve this across all PROMs in the field. Only through improving the quality of available PROMs and their focus on the post-treatment aesthetic and functional outcome will we be able to truly appreciate the concerns of our patients and improve the management of facial skin cancer.

Treatments of Primary Basal Cell Carcinoma of the Skin: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Most interventions for basal cell carcinoma (BCC) have not been compared in head-to-head randomized trials.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of treatments of primary BCC in adults.

DATA SOURCES

English-language searches of MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Embase from inception to May 2018; reference lists of guidelines and systematic reviews; and a search of ClinicalTrials.gov in August 2016.

STUDY SELECTION

Comparative studies of treatments currently used in adults with primary BCC.

DATA EXTRACTION

One investigator extracted data on recurrence, histologic clearance, clinical clearance, cosmetic outcomes, quality of life, and mortality, and a second reviewer verified extractions. Several investigators evaluated risk of bias for each study.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Forty randomized trials and 5 nonrandomized studies compared 18 interventions in 9 categories. Relative intervention effects and mean outcome frequencies were estimated using frequentist network meta-analyses. Estimated recurrence rates were similar for excision (3.8% [95% CI, 1.5% to 9.5%]), Mohs surgery (3.8% [CI, 0.7% to 18.2%]), curettage and diathermy (6.9% [CI, 0.9% to 36.6%]), and external-beam radiation (3.5% [CI, 0.7% to 16.8%]). Recurrence rates were higher for cryotherapy (22.3% [CI, 10.2% to 42.0%]), curettage and cryotherapy (19.9% [CI, 4.6% to 56.1%]), 5-fluorouracil (18.8% [CI, 10.1% to 32.5%]), imiquimod (14.1% [CI, 5.4% to 32.4%]), and photodynamic therapy using methyl-aminolevulinic acid (18.8% [CI, 10.1% to 32.5%]) or aminolevulinic acid (16.6% [CI, 7.5% to 32.8%]). The proportion of patients reporting good or better cosmetic outcomes was better for photodynamic therapy using methyl-aminolevulinic acid (93.8% [CI, 79.2% to 98.3%]) or aminolevulinic acid (95.8% [CI, 84.2% to 99.0%]) than for excision (77.8% [CI, 44.8% to 93.8%]) or cryotherapy (51.1% [CI, 15.8% to 85.4%]). Data on quality of life and mortality were too sparse for quantitative synthesis.

LIMITATION

Data are sparse, and effect estimates are imprecise and informed by indirect comparisons.

CONCLUSION

Surgical treatments and external-beam radiation have low recurrence rates for the treatment of low-risk BCC, but substantial uncertainty exists about their comparative effectiveness versus other treatments. Gaps remain regarding high-risk BCC subtypes and important outcomes, including costs.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42016043353).

Development of a survey form through Delphi study about adverse events associated with the miniscalpel needle, for application in prospective observational studies regarding safety of miniscalpel needles: Study protocol

BACKGROUND

Despite the wide usage of miniscalpel-needles (MSNs), information about MSN treatment-related adverse events (AEs) is insufficient. As the definition of AE might vary among physicians, without an exact definition for pain and hemorrhage, it is difficult to provide accurate information about AEs in MSN treatment to physicians, researchers, and patients. The aim of our study is to reach a consensus about the items and definitions of AEs that should be included in the survey form for prospective observational multicenter studies to record MSN treatment-related AEs. We will especially focus on obtaining a consensus on the definition of pain and hemorrhage caused by MSN treatment.

METHODS

Our study protocol is composed of 6 steps. First, we will identify the aim of the study. Next, we will conduct a systematic review to investigate MSN treatment-related AEs reported till date in Korea. Third, we will conduct a pilot observational prospective single-center study on AEs in MSN treatment. We will develop a standardized case report form to record MSN treatment-related AEs, including the causality, severity, and details of the MSN procedure at every site. Next, based on the pilot study, the Delphi study questionnaire will be developed by a panel composed of 13 physicians. The Delphi study will have 4 rounds with open questions and 4-point Likert-scale closed questions. Through these rounds, we will develop a consensus about the items and definitions of AEs that should be included in the survey form for future multicenter studies about MSN treatment-related AEs. Following this, a face-to-face consensus meeting will be held for a final agreement of survey form. The final survey form will then be approved by the related academic society for dissemination.

DISCUSSION

The aim of this protocol is to develop a survey form for future prospective observational multicenter studies on MSN treatment-related AEs. This protocol will present the research methodology for developing a survey form, which will improve consistency and reliability between MSN treatment studies. We believe that this protocol can evaluate the safety of MSN treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Research Information Service: KCT0002849.