Core Outcome Set-STAndardised Protocol Items: the COS-STAP Statement

Concerns beyond ankle symptoms predominate healthcare professionals' views of patients with ankle osteoarthritis: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

Explore healthcare professionals' perspectives on the main problems that their patients with ankle osteoarthritis experience and to propose health-related domains.

METHODS

A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews was conducted with an international multidisciplinary group of healthcare professionals identified as ankle experts. Eligibility criteria were aged ≥18 years, and a certified healthcare professional with ≥ 5-year experience post-qualification in working with ankle osteoarthritis and/or chronic ankle pain. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed.

RESULTS

Twenty-one healthcare professionals (20 males; mean (range) age 49 (34-72) years) from four professions (orthopaedic surgeons (n = 9), athletic trainers (n = 5), physiotherapists (n = 4) and podiatrists (n = 3)) were interviewed. Four main themes were identified: 1) people with ankle osteoarthritis have difficulty with weight-bearing activities; 2) symptoms of pain and stiffness predominate, alongside swelling, instability, weakness and poor balance; 3) chronic pain in ankle osteoarthritis has psychosocial consequences; and 4) the loss of activities of daily living and independence compromises quality of life. We proposed 15 health-related domains that emerge from the interview data.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare professionals recognise that ankle osteoarthritis patients have difficulty in physical, sporting, and occupational weight-bearing activities, and they live with persistent ankle pain, stiffness and other symptoms that have physical and psychosocial consequences. The health-related domains derived from interviews with expert healthcare professionals will contribute to the development of a core domain set for ankle osteoarthritis.

Developments in the Design, Conduct, and Reporting of Child Health Trials

To identify priority areas to improve the design, conduct, and reporting of pediatric clinical trials, the international expert network, Standards for Research (StaR) in Child Health, was assembled and published the first 6 Standards in Pediatrics in 2012. After a recent review summarizing the 247 publications by StaR Child Health authors that highlight research practices that add value and reduce research "waste," the current review assesses the progress in key child health trial methods areas: consent and recruitment, containing risk of bias, roles of data monitoring committees, appropriate sample size calculations, outcome selection and measurement, and age groups for pediatric trials. Although meaningful change has occurred within the child health research ecosystem, measurable progress is still disappointingly slow. In this context, we identify and review emerging trends that will advance the agenda of increased clinical usefulness of pediatric trials, including patient and public engagement, Bayesian statistical approaches, adaptive designs, and platform trials. We explore how implementation science approaches could be applied to effect measurable improvements in the design, conducted, and reporting of child health research.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

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

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

REGISTRATION NUMBER

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

Surgical Handover Core Outcome Measures (SH-CORE): a protocol for the development of a core outcome set for trials in surgical handover

BACKGROUND

Surgical handover is associated with a significant risk of care failures. Existing research displays methodological deficiencies and little consensus on the outcomes that should be used to evaluate interventions in this area. This paper reports a protocol to develop a core outcome set (COS) to support standardisation, comparability, and evidence synthesis in future studies of surgical handover between doctors.

METHODS

This study adheres to the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative guidance for COS development, including the COS-Standards for Development (COS-STAD) and Reporting (COS-STAR) recommendations. It has been registered prospectively on the COMET database and will be led by an international steering group that includes surgical healthcare professionals, researchers, and patient and public partners. An initial list of reported outcomes was generated through a systematic review of interventions to improve surgical handover (PROSPERO: CRD42022363198). Findings of a qualitative evidence synthesis of patient and public perspectives on handover will augment this list, followed by a real-time Delphi survey involving all stakeholder groups. Each Delphi participant will then be invited to take part in at least one online consensus meeting to finalise the COS.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (RCSI) Research Ethics Committee (202309015, 7th November 2023). Results will be presented at surgical scientific meetings and submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. A plain English summary will be disseminated through national websites and social media. The authors aim to integrate the COS into the handover curriculum of the Irish national surgical training body and ensure it is shared internationally with other postgraduate surgical training programmes. Collaborators will be encouraged to share the findings with relevant national health service functions and national bodies.

DISCUSSION

This study will represent the first published COS for interventions to improve surgical handover, the first use of a real-time Delphi survey in a surgical context, and will support the generation of better-quality evidence to inform best practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative 2675.  http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2675 .

Developing a core outcome set for acetabular fractures: a systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials investigating acetabular fractures are heterogeneous in their investigated outcomes and their corresponding measurements. Standardization may facilitate comparability and pooling of research results, which would lead to an increase in knowledge about the optimal treatment of acetabular fractures, resulting in long-term evidence-based treatment decisions and improvements in patient care. The aim of this systematic review is to identify the reported outcomes and their measurements from studies on treatments for acetabular fractures to develop a core outcome set which contains the most relevant outcome measures to be included in future studies.

METHODS

Studies published in English and German including patients aged 16 years and older, with a surgically treated acetabular fracture, will be included. Studies with nonsurgical treatment, pathologic fractures, polytraumatized patients, and patients younger than 16 years of age will be excluded because other outcomes may be of interest in these cases. Any prospective and retrospective study will be included. Systematic reviews will be excluded, but their included studies will be screened for eligibility. The literature will be searched on MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP. Risk of selective reporting of outcomes will be assessed using the Outcome Reporting Bias in Trials classification system. Heterogeneously defined outcomes that measure the same outcome will be grouped and subsequently categorized into outcome domains using the taxonomy of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative.

DISCUSSION

It is expected that a high number of studies will be included, and many outcomes will be identified using different definitions and measurement instruments. A limitation of this systematic review is that only previously investigated outcomes will be detected, thus disregarding potentially relevant outcomes.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022357644.

Increasing uptake through collaboration in the development of core outcome sets: Lessons learned at OMERACT 2023

OBJECTIVE

This manuscript highlights the importance of enhancing the uptake of Core Outcome Sets (COS) by building partnerships with Collaborators and addressing their needs in COS development.

METHODS AND SETTING

This session was structured as a simulation, resembling a format akin to a classic television game show. The moderator posed a series of questions to eight different Collaborator groups who briefly described the importance of COS within their areas of interest. Previous studies examining the uptake of individual core outcomes revealed disparities in uptake rates. The Identified barriers to the uptake of COS include the lack of recommendations for validated instruments for each domain, insufficient involvement of patients and key Collaborator groups in COS development, and a lack of awareness regarding the existence of COS.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis underscores the need for COS development approaches that prioritize the inclusion of patients and diverse Collaborator groups at every stage. While current studies on COS uptake are limited, future research should explore the broader implementation of COS across diverse disease categories and delve into the factors that hinder or facilitate their uptake such as, the importance of COS developers extending their work to recommending domains with well validated instruments. Embracing patient leadership and multifaceted engagement is essential for advancing the relevance and impact of COS in clinical research.

Towards a core outcome set for dysarthria after stroke: What should we measure?

OBJECTIVE

To identify and agree on what outcome domains should be measured in research and clinical practice when working with stroke survivors who have dysarthria.

DESIGN

Delphi process, two rounds of an online survey followed by two online consensus meetings.

SETTING

UK and Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

Stroke survivors with experience of dysarthria, speech and language therapists/pathologists working in stroke and communication researchers.

METHODS

Initial list of outcome domains generated from existing literature and with our patient and public involvement group to develop the survey. Participants completed two rounds of this survey to rate importance. Outcomes were identified as 'in', 'unclear' or 'out' from the second survey. All participants were invited to two consensus meetings to discuss these results followed by voting to identify critically important outcome domains for a future Core Outcome Set. All outcomes were voted on in the consensus meetings and included if 70% of meeting participants voted 'yes' for critically important.

RESULTS

In total, 148 surveys were fully completed, and 28 participants attended the consensus meetings. A core outcome set for dysarthria after stroke should include four outcome domains: (a) intelligibility of speech, (b) ability to participate in conversations, (c) living well with dysarthria, (d) skills and knowledge of communication partners (where relevant).

CONCLUSIONS

We describe the consensus of 'what' speech outcomes after stroke are valued by all stakeholders including those with lived experience. We share these findings to encourage the measurement of these domains in clinical practice and research and for future research to identify 'how' best to measure these outcomes.

Frequency of Prenatal Care Visits: A Core Outcome Set for Prenatal Care Schedules

Objective: The aim of this study is to develop a core outcome set for the frequency and modality of prenatal care visits. Material and Methods: A consensus development study was conducted in the United States with participants, including 31 health care professionals, 12 public policy members or public health payers, and 18 public members, representing 24 states. A modified Delphi method and modified nominal group technique were utilized. Results: Twenty-one potential core outcomes were developed by combining the outcomes reported in three systematic reviews that evaluated the frequency of prenatal care visits or modality of prenatal visit type (e.g., in person, telemedicine, or hybrids of both). Eighteen consensus outcomes were identified from the Delphi process, following which 10 maternal and 4 neonatal outcomes were agreed at the consensus development meeting. Maternal core outcomes include maternal quality of life; maternal mental health outcomes; the experience of maternity care; lost time; attendance of recommended visits; unplanned care utilization; completion of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists-recommended services; diagnosis of obstetric complications-proportion and timing; disparities in care outcomes; and severe maternal morbidity or mortality. Neonatal core outcomes include gestational age at birth, birth weight, stillbirth or perinatal death, and neonatal intensive care unit admissions. Conclusions: The core outcome set for the frequency and modality of prenatal visits should be utilized in forthcoming randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews. Such application will warrant that in future research, consistent reporting will enrich care and improve outcomes. Clinical Trial Registration number: 2021.

Transforming a Large-Scale Prostate Cancer Outcomes Dataset to the OMOP Common Data Model-Experiences from a Scientific Data Holder's Perspective

To enhance international and joint research collaborations in prostate cancer research, data from different sources should use a common data model (CDM) that enables researchers to share their analysis scripts and merge results. The OMOP CDM maintained by OHDSI is such a data model developed for a federated data analysis with partners from different institutions that want to jointly investigate research questions using clinical care data. The German Cancer Society as the scientific lead of the Prostate Cancer Outcomes (PCO) study gathers data from prostate cancer care including routine oncological care data and survey data (incl. patient-reported outcomes) and uses a common data specification (called OncoBox Research Prostate) for this purpose. To further enhance research collaborations outside the PCO study, the purpose of this article is to describe the process of transferring the PCO study data to the internationally well-established OMOP CDM. This process was carried out together with an IT company that specialised in supporting research institutions to transfer their data to OMOP CDM. Of n = 49,692 prostate cancer cases with 318 data fields each, n = 392 had to be excluded during the OMOPing process, and n = 247 of the data fields could be mapped to OMOP CDM. The resulting PostgreSQL database with OMOPed PCO study data is now ready to use within larger research collaborations such as the EU-funded EHDEN and OPTIMA consortium.

COS-PPA: protocol to develop a core outcome set for primary progressive aphasia

INTRODUCTION

The term primary progressive aphasia (PPA) describes a group of language-led dementias. Disease-modifying treatments that delay, slow or reverse progression of PPA are currently lacking, though a number of interventions to manage the symptoms of PPA have been developed in recent years. Unfortunately, studies exploring the effectiveness of these interventions have used a variety of different outcome measures, limiting comparability. There are more constructs, apart from word retrieval, that are important for people with PPA that have not received much attention in the research literature. Existing core outcome sets (COS) for dementia and non-progressive aphasia do not meet the needs of people with PPA, highlighting a need to develop a specific COS for PPA.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol describes a three-stage study to identify a COS for PPA interventions in research and clinical practice. The stage 1 systematic review will identify existing speech, language and communication measures used to examine the effectiveness of interventions for PPA in the research literature. Employing a nominal group technique, stage 2 will identify the most important outcomes for people with PPA and their families. The data collected in stages 1 and 2 will be jointly analysed with the project PPI group and will inform the stage 2 modified Delphi consensus study to identify a core outcome measurement set for PPA among a range of research disciplines undertaking intervention studies for people with PPA.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval for stage 2 of the study has been sought individually in each country at collaborating institutions and is stated in detail in the manuscript. Stage 3 has been granted ethical approval by the Chairs of UCL Language and Cognition Department Ethics, Project ID LCD-2023-06. Work undertaken at stages 1, 2 and 3 will be published in open-access peer-reviewed journal articles and presented at international scientific conferences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022367565.

Development Methodology, Availability, and Implementation of Core Outcome Sets in Pediatric Surgery

Core outcome sets (COSs) provide a mechanism to guide researchers and clinicians when deciding which outcomes to report in research related to a specific clinical condition or intervention. The intention behind creating a COS for a specific condition is to improve the reporting of important and meaningful outcomes, thus enhancing the relevance of research. Additionally, a COS helps facilitate comparison of outcomes between different clinical studies and reduces research waste. In this paper, we discuss the availability of COSs in the field of pediatric general surgery. We provide an overview of the methodologies used to develop a COS, including common pitfalls, and finally, we discuss COS uptake and implementation. An understanding of all these aspects is important for researchers considering developing a new COS and for those reading research where a COS has been developed or used within a study. Failure to adequately appreciate the nuances of COS development, in particular, risks fundamental flaws that may jeopardize COS validity and subsequently hinder COS uptake and implementation.

A core outcome set for patient-reported dysphagia for use in head and neck cancer clinical trials: An international multistakeholder Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Measuring dysphagia-related patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in Head and Neck Cancer (HNC) patients is challenging due to dysphagia's multidimensional impact, causing inconsistency in outcome reporting. To address this issue, this study derived a consensus-based core outcome set (COS) for patient-reported dysphagia in HNC clinical trials where swallowing is a primary or secondary endpoint.

METHODS

A sample of HNC clinicians, researchers, patients, and caregivers participated in a 2-Round Delphi technique. A Delphi survey, containing a comprehensive list of dysphagia-related PROs, was developed. In Round 1, participants rated item importance on a 5-point scale. Items rated ≥4 by >70% advanced to Round 2, where a consensus meeting addressed items with varied opinions, and the Delphi survey with remaining items was completed. Items rated ≥4 by >70% formed the final COS.

RESULTS

Forty-five participants from nine countries were recruited. After Round 1, 40 items were excluded and 64 advanced to Round 2. After Round 2, a 7-outcome COS was established, comprising the domains of dysphagia symptoms, health status and quality of life.

CONCLUSION

This study achieved consensus among HNC stakeholders on essential dysphagia PROs for HNC clinical trials. It is advisable to include these 7-core concepts in clinical trials involving people with HNC to facilitate treatment comparisons and data synthesis.

Study protocol: a core outcome set for perioperative exercise clinical effectiveness trials for lung cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Outcome assessment in perioperative exercise trials for lung cancer is heterogeneous, often omitting those that are important and patient-relevant. This heterogeneity hinders the synthesis of evidence. To address this issue, a core outcome set, an agreed-upon standardized set of outcomes to be measured and reported, is required to reduce heterogeneity among outcome measurements. This study protocol describes the methodology, aiming to develop a core outcome set for perioperative exercise intervention trials for lung cancer in clinical practice.

METHODS

The project will follow the standard methodology recommended by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative, which is divided into four steps. Stage I: Conducting a scoping review of outcomes reported in clinical trials and protocols to develop a list of potential outcome domains. Stage II: Conducting semi-structured interviews to obtain important outcomes for patients. Stage III: Choosing the most important outcomes by conducting two rounds of the Delphi exercise. Stage IV: Achieving a consensus in a face-to-face meeting to discuss the final core outcome set.

DISCUSSION

This is the first project identified for the core outcome set of perioperative exercise trials in lung cancer, which will enhance the quality, comparability, and usability of future trials and positively impact perioperative exercise and the care of patients with lung cancer.

TRIALS REGISTRATION

Core Outcome Measurement in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative database registration: https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2091.

Systematic review for the development of a core outcome set for monofocal intraocular lenses for cataract surgery

Introduction

The aim of the study was to define a core outcome set (COS) to be measured following cataract surgery for the postoperative evaluation of monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs). Compared to current COSs, the present work provides updates considering the advances in the technology due to the development of new generation monofocal IOLs, which are characterized by a safety profile comparable to standard monofocal IOLs but with an extended range of intermediate vision.

Methods

Healthcare professionals (ophthalmologist surgeons) and patients were involved in the selection of outcomes to be included in the COS, starting from a list of indicators retrieved from a systematic literature search. The search considered observational studies with both a retrospective or prospective design, case studies and classic randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A mixed methodology integrating a Delphi-driven and an expert panel approach was adopted to reach an agreement among clinicians, while patients were involved in the completion of a questionnaire.

Results

The final COS included 15 outcomes. Eleven outcomes, all clinical, were considered for inclusion after a joint discussion among ophthalmologists; seven outcomes were linked to visual acuity, while the remaining to contrast sensitivity, refractive errors, aberrations and adverse events. Measurement metrics, method of aggregation and measurement time point of these outcomes were specified. The most important aspects for the patients were (1) quality of life after cataract surgery, (2) the capacity to perform activities requiring good near vision (e.g., reading), (3) spectacle independence, and (4) safety of movements without fear of getting hurt or falling (intermediate vision).

Discussion

In a context with limited healthcare resources, it is important to optimize their use considering also the preferences of end-users, namely patients. The proposed COS, developed involving both ophthalmologists and patients, provides an instrument for the postoperative evaluation of different technologies in the context of monofocal IOLs, which can be used not only in clinical trials but also in clinical practice to increase the body of real-world evidence.

Development of a Core Outcome Set for Dysphagia Interventions in Parkinson's disease (COS-DIP): study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Current clinical trials on swallowing disorders (dysphagia) in Parkinson's disease (PD) apply a high variety of outcomes and different outcome measures making comparative effectiveness research challenging. Furthermore, views of patients and dysphagia clinicians when selecting trial outcomes have not been considered in the past, thus study results may have little importance to them. This study aims to develop an agreed standardised Core Outcome Set for Dysphagia Interventions in Parkinson's disease (COS-DIP), systematically measured and reported as a minimum for all clinical trials. It will also comprise guidance on outcome definitions, outcome measures and time points of measurement.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The COS-DIP development will comprise five stages following established methodology: (1) a recent scoping review on all applied outcomes, their definitions, methods and time points of measurement in clinical trials in dysphagia in PD, (2) online surveys and focus groups with clinicians, patients, caregivers and family members to identify outcomes that are important to them, (3) an identified list of outcomes based on results of stage 1 and 2, (4) three round online Delphi survey with up to 200 key stakeholders to determine core outcomes and (5) two online consensus meetings with up to 40 representative key stakeholders to agree on all outcomes, definitions, methods and time points of measurement in the final COS-DIP.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Full ethical approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee, School of Linguistic, Speech and Communication Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, on 15 May 2023 (HT27). Dissemination of the COS-DIP will be enhanced through presentations at (inter-) national conferences and through peer-reviewed, open access publications of related manuscripts. Lay and professional information sheets and infographics will be circulated through relevant patient and professional organisations and networks.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The COS-DIP study was registered prospectively with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database on 24 September 2021 (www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1942).

Beating the empty pelvis syndrome: the PelvEx Collaborative core outcome set study protocol

INTRODUCTION

The empty pelvis syndrome is a significant source of morbidity following pelvic exenteration surgery. It remains poorly defined with research in this field being heterogeneous and of low quality. Furthermore, there has been minimal engagement with patient representatives following pelvic exenteration with respect to the empty pelvic syndrome. 'PelvEx-Beating the empty pelvis syndrome' aims to engage both patient representatives and healthcare professionals to achieve an international consensus on a core outcome set, pathophysiology and mitigation of the empty pelvis syndrome.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A modified-Delphi approach will be followed with a three-stage study design. First, statements will be longlisted using a recent systematic review, healthcare professional event, patient and public engagement, and Delphi piloting. Second, statements will be shortlisted using up to three rounds of online modified Delphi. Third, statements will be confirmed and instruments for measurable statements selected using a virtual patient-representative consensus meeting, and finally a face-to-face healthcare professional consensus meeting.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The University of Southampton Faculty of Medicine ethics committee has approved this protocol, which is registered as a study with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative. Publication of this study will increase the potential for comparative research to further understanding and prevent the empty pelvis syndrome.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05683795.

Protocol for the development of a Core Outcome Set (COS) for Adolescents and Young Adults (AYAs) with cancer

BACKGROUND

Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer, defined as individuals aged 15-39 years at initial cancer diagnosis, form a unique population; they face age-specific issues as they transition to adulthood. This paper presents the protocol for the development of a core outcome set (COS) for AYAs with cancer.

METHODS

The methodological standards from the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) and the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) for COS development will guide the development of the COS for AYAs with cancer. The project will consist of the following phases: (1) define the scope of the COS; (2) establish the need for a COS in this field (3) assemble an international, multi-stakeholder working group; (4) develop a detailed protocol; (5) determine "what to measure" (i.e., outcomes); (6) determine "how to measure" (i.e., measures); and (7) determine "case-mix" variables.

CONCLUSIONS

The development of a COS for AYAs with cancer will facilitate the implementation of efficient and relevant standards for data collection, both for clinical trials and in routine healthcare, thereby increasing the usefulness of these data to improve the value of the care given to these underserved young cancer patients.

The NeoPACE study: study protocol for the development of a core outcome set for neonatal palliative care

BACKGROUND

Neonatal death is the leading category of death in children under the age of 5 in the UK. Many babies die following decisions between parents and the neonatal team; when a baby is critically unwell, with the support of healthcare professionals, parents may make the decision to stop active treatment and focus on ensuring their baby has a 'good' death. There is very little evidence to support the clinical application of neonatal palliative care and/or end-of-life care, resulting in variation in clinical provision between neonatal units. Developing core outcomes for neonatal palliative care would enable the development of measures of good practice and enhance our care of families. The aim of this study is to develop a core outcome set with associated tools for measuring neonatal palliative care.

METHOD

This study has four phases: (1) identification of potential outcomes through systematic review and qualitative interviews with key stakeholders, including parents and healthcare professionals (2) an online Delphi process with key stakeholders to determine core outcomes (3) identification of outcome measures to support clinical application of outcome use (4) dissemination of the core outcome set for use across neonatal units in the UK. Key stakeholders include parents, healthcare professionals, and researchers with a background in neonatal palliative care.

DISCUSSION

Developing a core outcome set will standardise minimum reported outcomes for future research and quality improvement projects designed to determine the effectiveness of interventions and clinical care during neonatal palliative and/or end-of-life care. The core outcome set will provide healthcare professionals working in neonatal palliative and/or end-of-life support with an increased and consistent evidence base to enhance practice in this area.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study has been registered with the COMET initiative ( https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1470 ) and the systematic review is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42023451068).

What should be measured and reported in clinical trials for the treatment of patients with acute pancreatitis? A study protocol for establishing a core outcome set

INTRODUCTION

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is characterised by inflammation of the exocrine pancreas, which potentially leads to local complications and organ failure resulting in significant morbidity and mortality. A long-term follow-up by an experienced team is needed. Currently, a variety of outcome measures are used in clinical trials for patients with AP. However, due to heterogeneous and selective outcome reporting across trials of interventions, it is hard to combine or compare the trial results compromising systematic evaluations of effectiveness and safety. A core outcome set is demanded to standardise reporting for the management of AP in clinical trials, so as to conduct systematic reviews and to improve the quality of the existing evidence base on the management of AP. We designed a study to establish a core outcome set (COS) on what indicators should be measured and reported in clinical trials of patients with AP (COS-AP).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study protocol outlines the following five phases: Phase I will be a systematic review of randomised control trials and semistructured interviews with patients to initially establish a preliminary list of potential outcomes. Phase II will be the recruitment of key stakeholders' groups comprising experts in pancreatic disease, clinical researchers, methodologists, journal editors and patients. Phase III will be two rounds of the Delphi surveys with key stakeholder groups. Phase IV will be a consensus on the outcomes that should be included in a final COS-AP. Phase V will be dissemination of COS-AP.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Biomedical Research Ethics Committee (BREC) of West China Hospital of Sichuan University (2020 No.691). The findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered with Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database as study 2573.

Development of a core outcome set for cardiovascular diabetology: a methodological framework

Background

Cardiovascular diabetology is an emergent field focusing on all aspects of diabetes/cardiovascular interrelationship and metabolic syndrome. High-quality evidence needs to be provided to determine the efficacy and safety of interventions in cardiovascular diabetology. The heterogeneity of outcomes among trials limits the comparison of results, and some outcomes are not always meaningful to end-users. The cardiovascular diabetology core outcome set (COS) study aims to develop a COS of interventions for cardiovascular diabetology. In this paper, we introduce the methodological framework for developing the COS.

Methods

The COS development will include the following steps: (a) establish the COS groups of stakeholders, including international steering committee, Delphi survey group, and consensus meeting group; (b) systematic reviews of outcomes used in trials of cardiovascular diabetology; (c) semistructured interview of stakeholders for outcomes of cardiovascular diabetology; (d) generate a list of candidate outcomes and determine the original outcome pool; (e) Delphi survey with stakeholders of cardiovascular diabetology to select potential core outcomes; and (f) review and endorse the cardiovascular diabetology COS by expert consensus meeting.

Conclusions

This current study reports the methodological framework to develop a COS in cardiovascular diabetology and will provide evidence for the future development of COS in cardiovascular diabetology.

Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for neonatal sepsis (NESCOS)

Neonatal sepsis is a serious public health problem; however, there is substantial heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and reported in research evaluating the effectiveness of the treatments. Therefore, we aim to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for studies evaluating the effectiveness of treatments for neonatal sepsis. Since a systematic review of key outcomes from randomised trials of therapeutic interventions in neonatal sepsis was published recently, we will complement this with a qualitative systematic review of the key outcomes of neonatal sepsis identified by parents, other family members, parent representatives, healthcare providers, policymakers, and researchers. We will interpret the outcomes of both studies using a previously established framework. Stakeholders across three different groups i.e., (1) researchers, (2) healthcare providers, and (3) patients' parents/family members and parent representatives will rate the importance of the outcomes in an online Real-Time Delphi Survey. Afterwards, consensus meetings will be held to agree on the final COS through online discussions with key stakeholders. This COS is expected to minimize outcome heterogeneity in measurements and publications, improve comparability and synthesis, and decrease research waste.

The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) implementation roadmap

BACKGROUND

Core outcome sets (COS) are consensus-driven sets of minimum outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials. COS aim to reduce heterogeneity in outcome measurement and reporting, and selective outcome reporting. Implementing COS into clinical trials is challenging. Guidance to improve COS uptake in dermatology is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To develop a structured practical guide to COS implementation.

METHODS

Members of the Harmonising Outcome Measurement for Eczema (HOME) executive committee developed an expert opinion-based roadmap founded on a combination of a review of the COS implementation literature, the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative resources, input from HOME members and experience in COS development and clinical trials.

RESULTS

The data review and input from HOME members was synthesized into themes, which guided roadmap development: (a) barriers and facilitators to COS uptake based on stakeholder awareness/engagement and COS features; and (b) key implementation science principles (assessment-driven, data-centred, priority-based and context-sensitive). The HOME implementation roadmap follows three stages. Firstly, the COS uptake scope and goals need to be defined. Secondly, during COS development, preparation for future implementation is supported by establishing the COS as a credible evidence-informed consensus by applying robust COS development methodology, engaging multiple stakeholders, fostering sustained and global engagement, emphasizing COS ease of use and universal applicability, and providing recommendations on COS use. Thirdly, incorporating completed COS into primary (trials) and secondary (reviews) research is an iterative process starting with mapping COS uptake and stakeholders' attitudes, followed by designing and carrying out targeted implementation projects. Main themes for implementation projects identified at HOME are stakeholder awareness/engagement; universal applicability for different populations; and improving ease-of-use by reducing administrative and study burden. Formal implementation frameworks can be used to identify implementation barriers/facilitators and to design implementation strategies. The effect of these strategies on uptake should be evaluated and implementation plans adjusted accordingly.

CONCLUSIONS

COS can improve the quality and applicability of research and, so, clinical practice but can only succeed if used and reported consistently. The HOME implementation roadmap is an extension of the original HOME roadmap for COS development and provides a pragmatic framework to develop COS implementation strategies.

Outcome Reporting in Interventional Necrotizing Enterocolitis Studies: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Despite an increasing necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) incidence, treatment strategies have failed to make major advancements towards improved NEC outcomes. Heterogeneity in outcome reporting and a lack of treatment efficacy studies potentially hamper these advancements. We aimed to analyze outcome reporting in recent interventional NEC studies.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review identifying interventional studies on NEC between 1st of January 2016 and 1st of June 2023 in MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and Cochrane reviews. Systematic reviews, clinical trials and change-in-practice cohort studies reporting any therapeutic intervention for NEC patients (Bell's stage ≥ IIa) were eligible. We excluded studies on NEC diagnostics or prevention and non-English publications. Outcomes were categorized into five core areas and presented descriptively. The review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022302712).

RESULTS

Out of 1.642 screened records, 65 were eligible for full-text review and 15 were finally included for data extraction. Median number of reported outcomes per article was six (range 1-19). We identified 66 unique outcomes, which were mapped to 53 outcome terms. Thirty-four out of the 53 of the outcome terms (64%) were only reported in a single article. Mortality was the most reported outcome (11/15 articles, 73%). Core area 'Adverse outcomes' contained the most outcome terms (n = 19), whereas 'Life impact' contained the least outcome terms (n = 4) and was represented in 3 articles (20%).

CONCLUSIONS

Considerable heterogeneity in outcome reporting and a paucity of outcomes concerning 'Life impact' exist in interventional NEC studies. Development of a NEC core outcome set may improve consistency and patient-relevance in outcome reporting.

STUDY TYPE

Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Development of a core outcome set for ventilation trials in neurocritical care patients with acute brain injury: protocol for a Delphi consensus study of international stakeholders

INTRODUCTION

There is little consensus and high heterogeneity on the optimal set of relevant clinical outcomes in research studies regarding extubation in neurocritical care patients with brain injury undergoing mechanical ventilation. The aims of this study are to: (1) develop a core outcome set (COS) and (2) reach consensus on a hierarchical composite endpoint for such studies.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study will include a broadly representative, international panel of stakeholders with research and clinical expertise in this field and will involve four stages: (1) a scoping review to generate an initial list of outcomes represented in the literature, (2) an investigator meeting to review the outcomes for inclusion in the Delphi surveys, (3) four rounds of online Delphi consensus-building surveys and (4) online consensus meetings to finalise the COS and hierarchical composite endpoint.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study received ethical approval from the French Society of Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine Institutional Review Board (SFAR CERAR-IRB 00010254-2023-029). The study results will be disseminated through communication to stakeholders, publication in a peer-reviewed journal, and presentations at conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

This study is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative.

A protocol for the development of core outcome sets for effectiveness trials and clinical audits in renal cell cancer (R-COS)

Background

There is inconsistency in outcomes collected in renal cell cancer (RCC) intervention effectiveness studies and variability in their definitions. This makes critical summaries of the evidence base difficult and sub-optimally informative for clinical practice guidelines and decision-making by patients and healthcare professionals. A solution is to develop a core outcome set (COS), an agreed minimum set of outcomes to be reported in all trials in a clinical area.

Objectives

To develop three COS for (a) localised, (b) locally advanced and (c) metastatic.

RCC study design participants and methods

The methods are the same for each of our three COS and are structured in two phases. Phase 1 identifies potentially relevant outcomes by conducting both a systematic literature review and patient interviews (N ~ 30 patients). Qualitative data will be analysed using framework analysis. In phase 2, all outcomes identified in phase 1 will be entered in a modified eDelphi, whereby patients and healthcare professionals (50 of each) will score each outcome's importance (Likert scale from 1 [not important] to 9 [critically important]). Outcomes scored in the 7-9 range by ≥70% and 1-3 by ≤15% will be regarded as 'consensus in', and the vice versa of this will constitute 'consensus out'. All other combinations will be regarded as equivocal and discussed at consensus meetings (including 10 patients and 10 healthcare professionals) in order to vote on them and ratify the results of the eDelphi.

Discussion

The R-COS will reduce outcome reporting heterogeneity and improve the evidence base for RCC.

Study registration

The study is registered with the COMET initiative: https://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1406.

Developing a Core Outcome Set for Prognostic Research in Palliative Cancer Care: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Studies exploring the impact of receiving end-of-life prognoses in patients with advanced cancer use a variety of different measures to evaluate the outcomes, and thus report often conflicting findings. The standardization of outcomes reported in studies of prognostication in palliative cancer care could enable uniform assessment and reporting, as well as intertrial comparisons. A core outcome set promotes consistency in outcome selection and reporting among studies within a particular population. We aim to develop a set of core outcomes to be used to measure the impact of end-of-life prognostication in palliative cancer care.

OBJECTIVE

This protocol outlines the proposed methodology to develop a core outcome set for measuring the impact of end-of-life prognostication in palliative cancer care.

METHODS

We will adopt a mixed methods approach consisting of 3 phases using methodology recommended by the Core Outcome Measure in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative. In phase I, we will conduct a systematic review to identify existing outcomes that prognostic studies have previously used, so as to inform the development of items and domains for the proposed core outcome set. Phase II will consist of semistructured interviews with patients with advanced cancer who are receiving palliative care, informal caregivers, and clinicians, to explore their perceptions and experiences of end-of-life prognostication. Outcomes identified in the interviews will be combined with those found in existing literature and taken forward to phase III, a Delphi survey, in which we will ask patients, informal caregivers, clinicians, and relevant researchers to rate these outcomes until consensus is achieved as to which are considered to be the most important for inclusion in the core outcome set. The resulting, prioritized outcomes will be discussed in a consensus meeting to agree and endorse the final core outcome set.

RESULTS

Ethical approval was received for this study in September 2022. As of July 2023, we have completed and published the systematic review (phase I) and have started recruitment for phase II. Data analysis for phase II has not yet started. We expect to complete the study by October 2024.

CONCLUSIONS

This protocol presents the stepwise approach that will be taken to develop a core outcome set for measuring the impact of end-of-life prognostication in palliative cancer care. The final core outcome set has the potential for translation into clinical practice, allowing for consistent evaluation of emerging prognostic algorithms and improving communication of end-of-life prognostication. This study will also potentially facilitate the design of future clinical trials of the impact of end-of-life prognostication in palliative care that are acceptable to key stakeholders.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials 2136; https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2136.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/49774.

Developing a Core Outcome Set for Assessing Clinical Safety Outcomes of Prostate Cancer in Clinical Trials of Traditional Chinese Medicine: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Among the common malignant tumors in men worldwide, the incidence of prostate cancer ranks second to lung cancer. This disease will bring an economic burden to patients and their families and can reduce the quality of life of patients. Researchers have conducted numerous clinical trials on the efficacy and safety of different interventions in the treatment of prostate cancer with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) combined with standard treatment regimens. However, the currently published clinical trials exhibit inconsistent and irregular reporting of outcome measures.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this paper is to emphasize the need for a core outcome set (COS) to facilitate future prostate cancer research, aiming to improve the quality of trials and generate high-quality evidence.

METHODS

This mixed methods project has three phases, as follows: (1) a scoping review of the literature to identify outcomes that have been reported in clinical trials and systematic reviews of interventions involving TCM for the treatment of prostate cancer as well as a qualitative component using interviews to obtain the views of patients with prostate cancer, their families, and their caregivers who have a history of TCM treatment; (2) a Delphi survey among stakeholders to prioritize the core outcomes-Participants will include traditional Chinese and Western medicine clinicians in prostate cancer-related directions, nurses, and methodology experts who will participate in 2 rounds of the Delphi method expert consultation to score each outcome in the list of outcome indicators; and (3) a face-to-face consensus meeting to discuss and agree on the final COS for the application of TCM in the treatment of prostate cancer.

RESULTS

The protocol has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022356184) before the start of the review process, and we will initiate the review on August 1, 2023; results should be expected by September 1, 2023. The Delphi survey among stakeholders is expected to start in October 2023.

CONCLUSIONS

The development of a core outcome set for assessing clinical safety outcomes of prostate cancer in clinical trials of TCM will provide a significant first step to assist Chinese doctors, researchers, and policy makers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022356184; https://tinyurl.com/ysakz74r.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/46794.

Vaginal birth core information set: study protocol for a Delphi study to achieve a consensus on a 'core information set' for vaginal birth

INTRODUCTION

Studies have shown that women are often underinformed about potential benefits and risks of vaginal birth. This is in contrast to other modes of birth, such as caesarean birth, for which the risks/benefits are often conveyed prior to undergoing the procedure. A core information set (CIS) is an agreed set of information points that should be discussed with all patients prior to undergoing a procedure or intervention. This CIS could improve the quality of information given regarding mode of birth options, as women will be given information prioritised by patients and stakeholders regarding vaginal birth, empowering them to make informed decisions about their birth. We aim to describe the protocol for the development of this vaginal birth CIS.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will develop the CIS by: (1) Compiling a 'long-list' of information points about vaginal birth by: undertaking a scoping review of studies and patient information leaflets; interviews with antenatal/postnatal women, an online survey of stakeholders. (2) Collating the 'long-list' of information points and developing the Delphi survey. Think-aloud interviews will refine the survey. (3) Conducting a two-round Delphi survey. 200 stakeholder participants will be recruited. Items rated critically important by ≥80% of participants in one stakeholder group, or with no consensus, will be carried through to a stakeholder consensus meeting to decide the final CIS. Planned start date is 1 June 2022. Planned end date is 31 August 2023.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This project has been given a favourable ethics opinion by the University of Bristol Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 10530). Approval from the ethics committee will be sought for any protocol amendments, and the principal investigator will be responsible for these changes. Findings will be presented at relevant conferences and published in a high-impact journal. We will disseminate the CIS, via Policy Bristol, to clinical policy and guideline developers.

A systematic review of studies reporting the development of core outcome sets for use in routine care

OBJECTIVES

Core outcome sets (COS) represent the minimum health outcomes to be measured for a given health condition. Interest is growing in using COS within routine care to support delivery of patient-focused care. This review aims to systematically map COS developed for routine care to understand their scope, stakeholder involvement, and development methods.

METHODS

Medline (Ovid), Scopus, and Web of Science Core collection were searched for studies reporting development of COS for routine care. Data on scope, methods, and stakeholder groups were analyzed in subgroups defined by setting.

RESULTS

Screening 25,301 records identified 262 COS: 164 for routine care only and 98 for routine care and research. Nearly half of the COS (112/254, 44%) were developed with patients, alongside input from experts in registries, insurance, legal, outcomes measurement, and performance management. Research publications were often searched to generate an initial list of outcomes (115/198, 58%) with few searching routine health records (47/198, 24%).

CONCLUSION

An increasing number of COS is being developed for routine care. Although involvement of patient stakeholders has increased in recent years, further improvements are needed. Methodology and scope are broadly similar to COS for research but implementation of the final set is a greater consideration during development.

Patient participation impacts outcome domain selection in core outcome sets for research: an updated systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The importance of including patients, carers, and the public in health research is well recognized, including the need to consider outcomes in health care research that reflect the priorities of patients. Core outcome sets (COS) define the minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in research of a given condition, determined through consensus among key stakeholders. The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative undertakes an annual systematic review (SR) to identify newly published COS to update its online database of COS for research. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of patient participation on COS.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

SR methods used in previous updates were applied to identify research studies published or indexed in 2020 and 2021 (conducted as separate reviews) that report development of a COS, regardless of any specifications relating to condition, population, intervention, or setting. Studies were assessed according to published standards for COS development, and core outcomes extracted from study publications were categorized according to an outcome taxonomy and added to an existing database of core outcome classifications of all previously published COS. The effect of patient participation on core domains was examined.

RESULTS

Searches identified 56 new studies published in 2020 and 54 in 2021. All studies met all four minimum standards for scope, and 42 (75%) of the 2020 studies and 45 (83%) of the 2021 studies met all three standards for stakeholders involved. However, only 19 (34%) of the 2020 studies and 18 (33%) of the 2021 studies met all four standards for the consensus process. COS that involved patients or their representatives are more likely to include life impact outcomes (239, 86%) than COS without patient participation (193, 62%). Physiological/clinical outcomes are almost always specified at a granular level, whereas life impact outcomes are often described at a higher level.

CONCLUSION

This study adds to the body of evidence demonstrating the importance and impact of including patients, carers, and the public in COS development, in particular by demonstrating that the impact of interventions on patients' lives is more likely to be represented in COS that involve patients or their representatives. COS developers are encouraged to pay increased attention to methods and reporting relating to the consensus process. Further work is required to understand the appropriateness and rationale for the discrepancy in granularity levels between outcome domains.

Rehabilitation outcomes for people with lung cancer (UNITE): protocol for the development of a core outcome set

INTRODUCTION

With treatment-related improvements in survival, rehabilitation is essential to improve function and health-related quality of life and manage the high symptom burden associated with lung cancer. Despite this, significant heterogeneity exists in the outcomes and instruments used to evaluate lung cancer rehabilitation programme impact. This study aims to develop a core set of clinically relevant lung cancer rehabilitation outcomes for use in clinical practice.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

An international Delphi consensus study involving consumer, healthcare professional and researcher stakeholders to determine which outcomes to include and how to measure these. Stage 1 (preliminary): mixed methods to develop the potential list of outcomes (1) overview of systematic reviews of lung cancer exercise interventions and (2) focus groups and individual interviews with people with lung cancer. Stage 2: outcomes were grouped according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health domains. Stage 3: to determine priority outcomes for core outcome set (COS) inclusion participants will rate each outcome's importance (one-nine-point Likert scale) over two-three survey rounds. Stage 4: following review by the steering committee, a consensus meeting will be held if agreement on the COS has not been reached.Stage 5: recommendations will be made regarding a single instrument for measuring each COS outcome by reviewing existing resources where consensus has already been reached. Where resources do not exist the quality and feasibility of potential measurement instruments will be appraised, and the Delphi consensus survey and meeting process outlined in stages 3-4 will be repeated.This protocol adheres to the COS-Standardised Protocol statement and will be conducted and reported according to the COS-Standards for Development recommendations and the COS-Standards for Reporting.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval (20/9/22, University of Melbourne ID 2022-24839-32231-3). Dissemination in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.

Development of an international core outcome set for treatment trials in necrotizing enterocolitis-a study protocol

AIM

Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) is the most lethal disease of the gastrointestinal tract of preterm infants. New and existing management strategies need clinical evaluation. Large heterogeneity exists in the selection, measurement, and reporting of outcome measures in NEC intervention studies. This hampers meta-analyses and the development of evidence-based management guidelines. We aim to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for NEC that includes the most relevant outcomes for patients and physicians, from moment of diagnosis into adulthood. This COS is designed for use in NEC treatment trials, in infants with confirmed NEC.

METHODS

This study is designed according to COS-STAD (Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development) recommendations and the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative Handbook. We obtained a waiver from the Ethics Review Board and prospectively registered this study with COMET (Study 1920). We will approach 125 clinicians and/or researchers from low-middle and high-income countries based on their scientific output (using SCIVAL, a bibliometric tool). Patients and parents will be approached through local patient organisations. Participants will be separated into three panels, to assess differences in priorities between former patients and parents (1. lay panel), clinicians and researchers involved in the neonatal period (2. neonatal panel) and after the neonatal period (3. post-neonatal panel). They will be presented with outcomes currently used in NEC research, identified through a systematic review, in a Delphi process. Eligible outcome domains are also identified from the patients and parents' perspectives. Using a consensus process, including three online Delphi rounds and a final face-to-face consensus meeting, the COS will be finalised and include outcomes deemed essential to all stakeholders: health care professionals, parents and patients' representatives. The final COS will be reported in accordance with the COS-Standards for reporting (COS-STAR) statement.

CONCLUSIONS

Development of an international COS will help to improve homogeneity of outcome measure reporting in NEC, will enable adequate and efficient comparison of treatment strategies, and will help the interpretation and implementation of clinical trial results. This will contribute to high-quality evidence regarding the best treatment strategy for NEC in preterm infants.

Frequency Of pRenatal CAre viSiTs (FORCAST): study protocol to develop a core outcome set for prenatal care schedules

BACKGROUND

Prenatal care, one of the most common preventive care services in the United States, endeavors to improve pregnancy outcomes through evidence-based screenings and interventions. Despite the prevalence of prenatal care and its importance to maternal and infant health, there are several debates about the best methods of prenatal care delivery, including the most appropriate schedule frequency and content of prenatal visits. Current U.S. national guidelines recommend that low-risk individuals receive a standard schedule of 12 to 14 in-office visits, a care delivery model that has remained unchanged for almost a century.

OBJECTIVE

In early 2020, to mitigate individuals' exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, prenatal care providers implemented new paradigms that altered the schedule frequency, interval, and modality (e.g., telemedicine) of how prenatal care services were offered. In this manuscript, we describe development of a core outcome set (COS) that can be used to evaluate the effect of the frequency of prenatal care schedules on maternal and infant outcomes.

METHODS

We will systematically review the literature to identify previously reported outcomes important to individuals who receive prenatal care and the people who care for them. Stakeholders with expertise in prenatal care delivery (i.e., patients/family members, healthcare providers, and public health professionals and policymakers) will rate the importance of identified outcomes in an online survey using a three-round Delphi process. A virtual consensus meeting will be held for a group of stakeholder representatives to discuss and vote on the outcomes to include in the final COS.

RESULTS

The Delphi survey was initiated in July 2022 with 71 stakeholders invited. A virtual consensus conference was conducted on October 11, 2022. Data is currently under analysis with plans to submit in a subsequent manuscript.

CONCLUSIONS

More research about the optimal schedule frequency and modality for prenatal care delivery is needed. Standardizing outcomes that are measured and reported in evaluations of the recommended prenatal care schedules will assist evidence synthesis and results reported in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Overall, this COS will expand the consistency and patient-centeredness of reported outcomes for various prenatal care delivery schedules and modalities, hopefully improving the overall efficacy of recommended care delivery for pregnant people and their families.

CLINICALTRIAL

This study was registered in the Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness (COMET) database on January 18, 2022, registration #2021 http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2021.

A Foundation for Patient-Centered Core Impact Sets: Key Learnings from Past and Existing Approaches

Despite growing commitment to patient centricity, challenges persist in consistently identifying the impacts of disease and/or treatment that patients report as most important to them, especially across myriad potential downstream uses. Patient-centered core impact sets (PC-CIS), disease-specific lists of impacts that patients report as most important, are proposed as a solution. But, PC-CIS is a new concept, currently in the pilot stage with patient advocacy groups. We conducted an environmental scan to explore PC-CIS conceptual overlap with past/existing efforts [e.g., core outcome sets (COS)] and to inform general feasibility for further development and operationalization. With guidance and advice from an expert advisory committee, we conducted a search of the literature and relevant websites. Identified resources were reviewed for alignment with the PC-CIS definition, and key insights were gleaned. We identified 51 existing resources and five key insights: (1) no existing efforts identified meet the definition of PC-CIS as we have specified it in terms of patient centricity, (2) existing COS-development efforts are a valuable source of foundational resources for PC-CIS, (3) existing health-outcome taxonomies can be augmented with patient-prioritized impacts to create a comprehensive impact taxonomy, (4) current approaches/methods can inadvertently exclude patient priorities from core lists/sets and will need to be modified to protect the patient voice, and (5) there is need for clarity and transparency on how patients were engaged in individual past/existing efforts. PC-CIS is conceptually unique from past/existing efforts in its explicit emphasis on patient leadership and being patient driven. However, PC-CIS development can leverage many resources from the past/existing related work.

International Consensus on a Dental Antibiotic Stewardship Core Outcome Set

INTRODUCTION

Antibiotic resistance is a global health crisis. Ensuring responsible, appropriate use (stewardship) is an important for keeping antibiotics working as long as possible. Around 10% of antibiotics across health care are prescribed by oral health care professionals, with high rates of unnecessary use. To maximise the value from research to optimise antibiotic use in dentistry, this study developed international consensus on a core outcome set for dental antibiotic stewardship.

METHODS

Candidate outcomes were sourced from a literature review. International participants were recruited via professional bodies, patient organisations, and social media, with at least 30 dentists, academics, and patient contributors in total. Outcomes scored "critical for inclusion" by >70% of the participants (dentists, academics, and patients) after 2 Delphi rounds were included in the core outcome set following a final consensus meeting. The study protocol was registered with the COMET Initiative and published in BMC Trials.

RESULTS

A total of 33 participants from 15 countries, including 8 low- and middle-income countries, completed both rounds of the Delphi study. Antibiotic use outcomes (eg, appropriateness of prescribing), adverse or poor outcomes (eg, complications from disease progression), and a patient-reported outcome were included in the final, agreed core set. Outcomes relating to quality, time, and cost were not included.

CONCLUSIONS

This core outcome set for dental antibiotic stewardship represents the minimum which future studies of antibiotic stewardship in dentistry should report. By supporting researchers to design and report their studies in a way meaningful to multiple stakeholders and enabling international comparisons, the oral health profession's contribution to global efforts to tackle antibiotic resistance can be further improved.

A Core Outcome Set for nutritional intervention studies in older adults with malnutrition and those at risk: a study protocol

BACKGROUND

Malnutrition (i.e., protein-energy malnutrition) in older adults has severe negative clinical consequences, emphasizing the need for effective treatments. Many, often small, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing the effectiveness of nutritional interventions for the treatment of malnutrition showed mixed results and a need for meta-analyses and data pooling has been expressed. However, evidence synthesis is hampered by the wide variety of outcomes and their method of assessment in previous RCTs. This paper describes the protocol for developing a Core Outcome Set (COS) for nutritional intervention studies in older adults with malnutrition and those at risk.

METHODS

The project consists of five phases. The first phase consists of a scoping review to identify frequently used outcomes in published RCTs and select additional patient-reported outcomes. The second phase includes a modified Delphi Survey involving experienced researchers and health care professionals working in the field of malnutrition in older adults, followed by the third phase consisting of a consensus meeting to discuss and agree what critical outcomes need to be included in the COS. The fourth phase will determine how each COS outcome should be measured based on a systematic literature review and a second consensus meeting. This will be followed by a dissemination and implementation phase. Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) representatives will contribute to study design, oversight, consensus, and dissemination.

CONCLUSIONS

The result of this project is a COS that should be included in any RCT evaluating the effect of nutritional interventions in older adults with malnutrition and those at risk. This COS will facilitate comparison of RCT results, will increase efficient use of research resources and will reduce bias due to measurement of the outcome and publication bias. Ultimately, the COS will support clinical decision making by identifying the most effective approaches for treating and preventing malnutrition in older adults.

Development of a Core Outcome Set for Randomised Controlled Trials of Nursing Education: A Methodological Framework

Background. Nursing educational research is very important for the development of the nursing discipline. There have been many randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of nursing education, and the outcomes are highly heterogeneous and waste resources. The study aims to report the methodological framework to establish a core outcome set (COS) for RCTs of nursing education. Methods. The study will be conducted in the following five steps: (a) establish nursing education COS working groups; (b) develop an initial list of outcomes of nursing education by systematic review and semistructured interview; (c) Delphi survey with different stakeholders to reach a preliminary consensus on the core outcome of nursing education; (d) expert consultation to form the outcome pool; (e) expert consensus meeting to form the nursing education COS. Results. The goal is to develop a COS that includes stakeholders’ interest in nursing education to determine which outcomes should be reported and how they should be measured. Conclusions. By performing the study, the nursing education COS will be established, which will help to reduce reporting bias and resource waste, and provide enough results for nursing education systematic reviews.

Development of core outcome sets of Food for Special Medical Purposes designed for type 2 diabetes mellitus: a study protocol

BACKGROUND

The Chinese government stipulates all food for special medical purposes (FSMP) designed for specific diseases to be tested in clinical trials before approving it for registration. The process of developing core outcome sets (COSs), the minimum sets of outcomes supposed to be measured and reported, provides an economical and practical option for stakeholders to communicate and cooperate in conducting clinical trials as well as in reporting FSMP outcomes. This study uses type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) as an example to develop COS for clinical trials of FSMP.

METHODS

The COS for FSMP-T2DM will be divided into 3 phases and developed following COS-STAP and COS-STAD: (1) Generate a list of relevant outcomes identified from a systematic review, in which information sources will mainly include published studies, regulatory documentation, and qualitative interviews of stakeholders. The identified outcomes will be categorized using a conceptual framework and formatted into the first round of the Delphi survey questionnaire items. (2) At least 2 rounds of Delphi surveys will be performed among stakeholders to create the COS for FSMP-T2DM. Patients, clinical dietitians, physicians, COS researchers, journal editors, FSMP manufacturers, and regulatory representatives will be invited to score each outcome from aspects of importance. (3) Hold a face-to-face or online consensus meeting to refine the content of the COS for FSMP-T2DM. Key stakeholders will be invited to attend the meeting to discuss and agree on the final COS.

DISCUSSION

We have prepared an alternative solution of the Likert scale selection, Delphi survey rounds, scoring group, and consensus definitions in case of an unexpected situation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

COMET (1547). Registered on March 23, 2020.

Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for studies on centralisation of healthcare services

INTRODUCTION

Centralisation defined as the reorganisation of healthcare services into fewer specialised units serving a higher volume of patients is a potential measure for healthcare reforms aiming at reducing costs while improving quality. Research on centralisation of healthcare services is thus essential to inform decision-makers. However, so far studies on centralisation report a variability of outcomes, often neglecting outcomes at the health system level. Therefore, this study aims at developing a core outcome set (COS) for studies on centralisation of hospital procedures, which is intended for use in observational as well as in experimental studies.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We propose a five-stage study design: (1) systematic review, (2) focus group, (3) interview studies, (4) online survey, (5) Delphi survey. The study will be conducted from March 2022 to November 2023. First, an initial list of outcomes will be identified through a systematic review on reported outcomes in studies on minimum volume regulations. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINHAL, EconLIT, PDQ-Evidence for Informed Health Policymaking, Health Systems Evidence, Open Grey and also trial registries. This will be supplemented with relevant outcomes from published studies on centralisation of hospital procedures. Second, we will conduct a focus group with representatives of patient advocacy groups for which minimum volume regulations are currently in effect in Germany or are likely to come into effect to identify outcomes important to patients. Furthermore, two interview studies, one with representatives of the German medical societies and one with representatives of statutory health insurance funds, as well as an online survey with health services researchers will be conducted. In our analyses of the suggested outcomes, we will largely follow the categorisation scheme developed by the Cochrane EPOC group. Finally, a two-round online Delphi survey with all stakeholder groups using predefined score criteria for consensus will be employed to first prioritise outcomes and then agree on the final COS.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Research Ethics Committee at the Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane (MHB). The final COS will be disseminated to all stakeholders involved and through peer-reviewed publications and conferences.

The research status and progress of core outcome set in oral health

The core outcome set (COS) refers to the minimum set of outcomes that should be reported by all clinical trials in a particular health field. The use of COS in clinical studies can reduce the heterogeneity caused by using different outcomes across different clinical studies, facilitate the systematic review of different clinical studies on the same topic, reduce selective reporting bias, and increase the utility of clinical studies. The importance of COS in oral health has recently been recognized. This review summarizes the history, necessity, and key methodological points of COS development, with emphasis on the research status and existing problems in COS development, in the field of oral health.

Developing an Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Core set of Outcome Measures for FOot and ankle disorders in RheumaTic and musculoskeletal diseases (COMFORT): core domain set study protocol

BACKGROUND

Foot and ankle involvement is common in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). High-quality evidence is lacking to determine the effectiveness of treatments for these disorders. Heterogeneity in the outcomes used across clinical trials and observational studies hinders the ability to compare findings, and some outcomes are not always meaningful to patients and end-users. The Core set of Outcome Measures for FOot and ankle disorders in RheumaTic and musculoskeletal diseases (COMFORT) study aims to develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in all trials of interventions for foot and ankle disorders in RMDs. This protocol addresses core outcome domains (what to measure) only. Future work will focus on core outcome measurement instruments (how to measure).

METHODS

COMFORT: Core Domain Set is a mixed-methods study involving the following: (i) identification of important outcome domains through literature reviews, qualitative interviews and focus groups with patients and (ii) prioritisation of domains through an online, modified Delphi consensus study and subsequent consensus meeting with representation from all stakeholder groups. Findings will be disseminated widely to enhance uptake.

CONCLUSIONS

This protocol details the development process and methodology to identify and prioritise domains for a COS in the novel area of foot and ankle disorders in RMDs. Future use of this standardised set of outcome domains, developed with all key stakeholders, will help address issues with outcome variability. This will facilitate comparing and combining study findings, thus improving the evidence base for treatments of these conditions. Future work will identify suitable outcome measurement instruments for each of the core domains.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database, as of June 2022: https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2081.

COS-Speech: protocol to develop a core outcome set for dysarthria after stroke for use in clinical practice and research

BACKGROUND

Dysarthria after stroke is when speech intelligibility is impaired, and this occurs in half of all stroke survivors. Dysarthria often leads to social isolation, poor psychological well-being and can prevent return to work and social lives. Currently, a variety of outcome measures are used in clinical research and practice when monitoring recovery for people who have dysarthria. When research studies use different measures, it is impossible to compare results from trials and delays our understanding of effective clinical treatments. The aim of this study is to develop a core outcome set (COS) to agree what aspects of speech recovery should be measured for dysarthria after stroke (COS-Speech) in research and clinical practice.

METHODS

The COS-Speech study will include five steps: (1) development of a long list of possible outcome domains of speech that should be measured to guide the survey; (2) recruitment to the COS-Speech study of three key stakeholder groups in the UK and Australia: stroke survivors, communication researchers and speech and language therapists/pathologists; (3) two rounds of the Delphi survey process; (4) a consensus meeting to agree the speech outcomes to be measured and a follow-up consensus meeting to match existing instruments/measures (from parallel systematic review) to the agreed COS-Speech; (5) dissemination of COS-Speech.

DISCUSSION

There is currently no COS for dysarthria after stroke for research trials or clinical practice. The findings from this research study will be a minimum COS, for use in all dysarthria research studies and clinical practice looking at post-stroke recovery of speech. These findings will be widely disseminated using professional and patient networks, research and clinical forums as well as using a variety of academic papers, videos, accessible writing such as blogs and links on social media.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

COS-Speech is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database, October 2021 https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1959 . In addition, "A systematic review of the psychometric properties and clinical utility of instruments measuring dysarthria after stroke" will inform the consensus meeting to match measures to COS-Speech. The protocol for the systematic reviews registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022302998 .

A core outcome set for childhood epilepsy treated with ketogenic diet therapy (CORE-KDT study): International parent and health professional consensus

OBJECTIVE

Ketogenic diet therapy (KDT) can result in benefits (seizure-related and non-seizure-related) for children with drug-resistant epilepsy. However, clinical trials report a wide range of outcomes, making synthesis of evidence difficult, and do not adequately reflect parent views on important outcomes for their child. To address this, we established the first international parent, health professional, and researcher consensus to develop a core outcome set, guided by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative (COMET registration #1116).

METHODS

Ethical approval was granted (London-Surrey REC19/LO/1680). A scoping review and interviews with parents identified a comprehensive list of potentially important outcomes, followed by a two-round online Delphi survey of parents and health professionals to prioritize outcomes of importance for inclusion in a core outcome set. This informed a stakeholder consensus meeting and consultation process to finalize the core outcome set.

RESULTS

In total, 97 outcomes were identified; 90 from the scoping review and seven from parent interviews. These were rationalized to 77 by the study advisory group, then rated in the first Delphi round by 49 parents and 96 health professionals, who suggested 12 new outcomes for rating in Round 2. Sixty-six percent of participants (30 parents and 66 professionals) completed Round 2, where 22 outcomes met criteria for inclusion. In the consensus meeting (nine parents and 13 professionals), 27 undecided outcomes were discussed and scored; one further outcome reached consensus for inclusion. After consultation and ratification, 14 outcomes across five domains were included in the core outcome set.

SIGNIFICANCE

A core outcome set for childhood epilepsy treated with KDT has been developed, incorporating the views of international parents and professionals. Implementation in research and clinical settings will standardize outcome selection and reporting, facilitate data synthesis, and ultimately enhance the relevance of outcomes to parents, researchers, and health professionals.

Protocol for the development of an international Core Outcome Set for treatment trials in adults with epilepsy: the EPilepsy outcome Set for Effectiveness Trials Project (EPSET)

Background

A Core Outcome Set (COS) is a standardised list of outcomes that should be reported as a minimum in all clinical trials. In epilepsy, the choice of outcomes varies widely among existing studies, particularly in clinical trials. This diminishes opportunities for informed decision-making, contributes to research waste and is a barrier to integrating findings in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Furthermore, the outcomes currently being measured may not reflect what is important to people with epilepsy.

Therefore, we aim to develop a COS specific to clinical effectiveness research for adults with epilepsy using Delphi consensus methodology.

Methods

The EPSET Study will comprise of three phases and follow the core methodological principles as outlined by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative. Phase 1 will include two focused literature reviews to identify candidate outcomes from the qualitative literature and current outcome measurement practice in phase III and phase IV clinical trials. Phase 2 aims to achieve international consensus to define which outcomes should be measured as a minimum in future trials, using a Delphi process including an online consensus meeting involving key stakeholders. Phase 3 will involve dissemination of the ratified COS to facilitate uptake in future trials and the planning of further research to identify the most appropriate measurement instruments to use to capture the COS in research practice.

Discussion

Harmonising outcome measurement across future clinical trials should ensure that the outcomes measured are relevant to patients and health services, and allow for more meaningful results to be obtained.

Core Outcome Set registration

COMET Initiative as study 118.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

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

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

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

Development of a core outcome set in the clinical trials of traditional Chinese medicine for diabetic foot: A study protocol

Background

Diabetic Foot (DF) is one of the most common complications of diabetes, and it is characterized by high morbidity, disability, lethality and low cure rate. Traditional Chinese medicine treatment has certain characteristics and advantages in diabetic foot. Due to selective reporting bias and heterogeneity of research results, on the one hand, relevant clinical studies are of low quality and poor practicability, and on the other hand, similar studies cannot be included in meta-analysis to form high-quality evidence-based evidence and evaluate the value of studies. Therefore, the development of a core set of outcomes (COS-TCM-DF) for traditional Chinese medicine for the treatment of diabetic foot is an important way to address these issues.

Methods

The COS-TCM-DF project will refer to the developed COS methodology and the steps are divided into four stages: (1) a scoping review and analysis of enrolled research protocols to collect and analyze all existing outcomes that have been used in trials on the prevention or treatment of diabetic foot with Chinese Medicine; (2) qualitative interviews with Diabetic foot patient and attendants to Collect additional outcomes related to them; (3) Gather opinionest and obtain initial consensus from key stakeholders, including patients, clinicians, researchers, and pharmaceutical company staff, through a Delphi survey; (4) a consensus meeting was held to develop the final COS-TCM-DF.

Discussion

Currently, there is no COS on measuring or monitoring diabetic foot with TCM in trials or clinical practice. The COS-TCM-DF will be developed to advance the synthesis of evidence regarding the prevention and treatment of diabetic foot in TCM and to promote the standardized and consistent application of results in future studies in this field.

Trial registration

Registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database, December 2019 https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1553.

Core Outcome Sets in Child Health: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Developing core outcome sets is essential to ensure that results of clinical trials are comparable and useful. A number of core outcome sets in pediatrics have been published, but a comprehensive in-depth understanding of core outcome sets in this field is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically identify core outcome sets in child health, collate the diseases to which core outcome sets have been applied, describe the methods used for development and stakeholder participation, and evaluate the methodological quality of existing core outcome sets.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were searched using relevant search terms, such as clinical trials, core outcome, and children, along with relevant websites, such as Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET). Four researchers worked in teams of 2, performed literature screening and data extraction, and evaluated the methodological quality of core outcome sets using the Core Outcome Set-Standards for Development (COS-STAD).

FINDINGS

A total of 77 pediatric core outcome sets were identified, mainly developed by organizations or researchers in Europe, North America, and Australia and mostly from the UK (22 [29%]) and the US (22 [29%]). A total of 77 conditions were addressed; the most frequent International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision category was diseases of the digestive system (14 [18%]). Most of the outcomes in pediatric core outcome sets were unordered (34 [44%]) or presented in custom classifications (29 [38%]). Core outcome sets used 1 or more of 8 development methods; the most frequent combination of methods was systematic review/literature review/scoping review, together with the Delphi approach and consensus for decision-making (10 [14%]). Among the 6 main types of stakeholders, clinical experts were the most frequently involved (74 [100%]), while industry representatives were rarely involved (4 [5%]). Only 6 core outcome sets (8%) met the 12 criteria of COS-STAD.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Future quality of pediatric core outcome sets should be improved based on the standards proposed by the COMET initiative, while core outcome sets methodology and reporting standards should be extended to pediatric populations to help improve the quality of core outcome sets in child health. In addition, the COMET outcome taxonomy should also add items applicable to children.

Development of a core outcome set for hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage in clinical trials of traditional Chinese medicine: a study protocol

Background

Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is a devastating disease, its mortality and disability rate are high. In China, hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage (HICH) is responsible for 75% of all the cases of primary ICH. A lot of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) for treating HICH have been carried out. However, these RCTs have a lot of problems, such as heterogeneous outcomes, non-uniform point of measurement. These lead to systematic review/meta-analysis only can include a small number of studies. And outcome measures did not take the wishes of patients and other stakeholders into account. The aim of this study is to establish the core outcome set (COS) for future TCM clinical trials of HICH.

Methods and analysis

First, we will develop a long list of general outcomes by making systematic literature review and semi-structured interviews. Then healthcare professionals and patients with HICH will be invited to participate in two rounds of the Delphi survey to determine the importance of the outcome. Finally, a face-to-face consensus meeting will be conducted to determine the final COS of HICH, including what outcomes should be measured and when and how to measure the outcomes.

Results

We aim to develop a COS that includes TCM core syndrome for HICH to determine what outcomes should be reported and when and how to measure them.

Conclusion

By doing this, we can increase the reporting consistency and reduce the reporting bias in the outcome, which leads to the reuse of research data in meta-analysis and the making of informed healthcare decisions.

Ethics and dissemination

The entire project has received approval from the Ethics Committee of Xiyuan Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences. The final COS will be published and reported at the national and international conferences.

Trial registration

This study is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials database as study 1475. Registered on December 2019.

Development of a core outcome set and identification of patient-reportable outcomes for primary brain tumour trials: protocol for the COBra study

INTRODUCTION

Primary brain tumours, specifically gliomas, are a rare disease group. The disease and treatment negatively impacts on patients and those close to them. The high rates of physical and cognitive morbidity differ from other cancers causing reduced health-related quality of life. Glioma trials using outcomes that allow holistic analysis of treatment benefits and risks enable informed care decisions. Currently, outcome assessment in glioma trials is inconsistent, hindering evidence synthesis. A core outcome set (COS) - an agreed minimum set of outcomes to be measured and reported - may address this. International initiatives focus on defining core outcomes assessments across brain tumour types. This protocol describes the development of a COS involving UK stakeholders for use in glioma trials, applicable across glioma types, with provision to identify subsets as required. Due to stakeholder interest in data reported from the patient perspective, outcomes from the COS that can be patient-reported will be identified.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Stage I: (1) trial registry review to identify outcomes collected in glioma trials and (2) systematic review of qualitative literature exploring glioma patient and key stakeholder research priorities. Stage II: semi-structured interviews with glioma patients and caregivers. Outcome lists will be generated from stages I and II. Stage III: study team will remove duplicate items from the outcome lists and ensure accessible terminology for inclusion in the Delphi survey. Stage IV: a two-round Delphi process whereby the outcomes will be rated by key stakeholders. Stage V: a consensus meeting where participants will finalise the COS. The study team will identify the COS outcomes that can be patient-reported. Further research is needed to match patient-reported outcomes to available measures.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was obtained (REF SMREC 21/59, Cardiff University School of Medicine Research Ethics Committee). Study findings will be disseminated widely through conferences and journal publication. The final COS will be adopted and promoted by patient and carer groups and its use by funders encouraged.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021236979.

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.