The Importance of Integration of Stakeholder Views in Core Outcome Set Development: Otitis Media with Effusion in Children with Cleft Palate

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).

The empty pelvis syndrome: a core data set from the PelvEx collaborative

BACKGROUND

Empty pelvis syndrome (EPS) is a significant source of morbidity following pelvic exenteration (PE), but is undefined. EPS outcome reporting and descriptors of radicality of PE are inconsistent; therefore, the best approaches for prevention are unknown. To facilitate future research into EPS, the aim of this study is to define a measurable core outcome set, core descriptor set and written definition for EPS. Consensus on strategies to mitigate EPS was also explored.

METHOD

Three-stage consensus methodology was used: longlisting with systematic review, healthcare professional event, patient engagement, and Delphi-piloting; shortlisting with two rounds of modified Delphi; and a confirmatory stage using a modified nominal group technique. This included a selection of measurement instruments, and iterative generation of a written EPS definition.

RESULTS

One hundred and three and 119 participants took part in the modified Delphi and consensus meetings, respectively. This encompassed international patient and healthcare professional representation with multidisciplinary input. Seventy statements were longlisted, seven core outcomes (bowel obstruction, enteroperineal fistula, chronic perineal sinus, infected pelvic collection, bowel obstruction, morbidity from reconstruction, re-intervention, and quality of life), and four core descriptors (magnitude of surgery, radiotherapy-induced damage, methods of reconstruction, and changes in volume of pelvic dead space) reached consensus-where applicable, measurement of these outcomes and descriptors was defined. A written definition for EPS was agreed.

CONCLUSIONS

EPS is an area of unmet research and clinical need. This study provides an agreed definition and core data set for EPS to facilitate further research.

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).

Improving data quality from routine clinical appointments-Development of a minimum dataset for traumatic dental injuries in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND/AIMS

It is currently difficult to evaluate the success or not of treatment for dental injuries due to poor recording of diagnostic and treatment codes in clinical dentistry. A minimum dataset comprises a standardised minimum set of outcomes along with a specified outcome measurement instrument, to allow aggregated use of data from routine clinical care appointments. This study aimed to determine which outcomes should be included in a minimum dataset for traumatic dental injuries (TDI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a three-stage sequential, mixed-methods study, using evidence-based best practice for dataset development. Normalisation process theory informed the development of the study protocols. In Stage 1, semi-structured interviews with patients and their parent or guardian were undertaken to identify outcomes of importance to patients. In Stage 2, an online Delphi survey was undertaken to identify outcomes of importance to clinicians. In Stage 3, a National Consensus Meeting was undertaken involving patient representatives, clinicians and other stakeholders, to agree which outcomes should be included in the minimum dataset.

RESULTS

Stage 1: Eleven participants were recruited, five children and six parents. Two key themes emerged from the analysis-communication and aesthetics. In Stage 2, 34 dentists were recruited, and 32 completed both rounds of the survey (97% retention). Most outcomes were deemed by participants to be of 'critical importance', with three outcomes deemed 'important' and none to be 'of limited importance'. In Stage 3, 15 participants took part in the consensus meeting. Participants agreed that the dataset should comprise a list of clinician-important outcomes (pulp healing, periodontal healing, discolouration, tooth loss) and a list of patient-important outcomes (communication, aesthetics, pain, quality of life).

CONCLUSION

A Minimum Dataset for TDI has been developed using a robust and transparent methodology.

Development of a Core Outcome Set for users and funders of lower-limb prosthetic interventions (PI-COS): a step to inform the benefits measured in prosthetic health economic evaluations

PURPOSE

Little is known about the outcomes that are most important to prosthesis users and funders. A Prosthetic Interventions Core Outcome Set (PI-COS) will help researchers and practitioners measure outcomes that are the most important to prosthesis users and funders.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prosthesis users and funders rated the importance of 121 International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) second-level categories using a two-round Delphi survey. A Consensus Meeting using the nominal group technique resolved rating differences between groups. The ICF second-level categories were ranked according to importance and a K-Means Cluster Analysis helped establish the PI-COS.

RESULTS

65 users and 8 funders completed the Delphi surveys, followed by a Consensus Meeting. 26 ICF second-level categories were considered important to prosthesis users and funders and a PI-COS of 14 ICF second-level categories drawn predominantly from five ICF chapters was established: Sensory Functions and Pain (b2), Neuromusculoskeletal and Movement-related Functions (b7), General Tasks and Demands (d2), Mobility (d4), and Products and Technology (e1).

CONCLUSIONS

The PI-COS describes the outcomes that are most important to prosthesis users and funders. The PI-COS can help focus on the most important outcome measures in clinical practice and research, including future prosthetic health economic evaluations.

Meaningful outcomes for children and their caregivers attending a paediatric brain centre

AIM

To identify meaningful outcomes of children and their caregivers attending a paediatric brain centre.

METHOD

We compiled a long list of outcomes of health and functioning of children with brain-related disorders such as cerebral palsy, spina bifida, (genetic) neurodevelopmental disorders, and acquired brain injury. We incorporated three perspectives: patients, health care professionals, and published outcome sets. An aggregated list was categorized using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health: Children and Youth version in a patient validation survey for children and parent-caregivers to prioritize outcomes. Outcomes were considered meaningful when ranked 'very important' by 70% or more of the participants.

RESULTS

We identified 104 outcomes from the three perspectives. After categorizing, 59 outcomes were included in the survey. Thirty-three surveys were completed by children (n = 4), caregivers (n = 24), and parent-caregivers together with their child (n = 5). Respondents prioritized 27 meaningful outcomes covering various aspects of health and functioning: emotional well-being, quality of life, mental and sensory functions, pain, physical health, and activities (communication, mobility, self-care, interpersonal relationships). Parent-caregiver concerns and environmental factors were newly identified outcomes.

INTERPRETATION

Children and parent-caregivers identified meaningful outcomes covering various aspects of health and functioning, including caregiver concerns and environmental factors. We propose including those in future outcome sets for children with neurodisability.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

Outcomes that children with brain-related disorders and their parent-caregivers consider to be the most meaningful cover a wide range of aspects of functioning. Involving these children and their parent-caregivers resulted in the identification of important outcomes that were not covered by professionals and the literature. Parent-caregiver-related factors (coping, burden of care) and environmental factors (support, attitudes, and [health care] services) were identified as meaningful.

How to reach agreement: the impact of different analytical approaches to Delphi process results in core outcomes set development

BACKGROUND

Core outcomes sets are increasingly used to define research outcomes that are most important for a condition. Different consensus methods are used in the development of core outcomes sets; the most common is the Delphi process. Delphi methodology is increasingly standardised for core outcomes set development, but uncertainties remain. We aimed to empirically test how the use of different summary statistics and consensus criteria impact Delphi process results.

METHODS

Results from two unrelated child health Delphi processes were analysed. Outcomes were ranked by mean, median, or rate of exceedance, and then pairwise comparisons were undertaken to analyse whether the rankings were similar. The correlation coefficient for each comparison was calculated, and Bland-Altman plots produced. Youden's index was used to assess how well the outcomes ranked highest by each summary statistic matched the final core outcomes sets. Consensus criteria identified in a review of published Delphi processes were applied to the results of the two child-health Delphi processes. The size of the consensus sets produced by different criteria was compared, and Youden's index was used to assess how well the outcomes that met different criteria matched the final core outcomes sets.

RESULTS

Pairwise comparisons of different summary statistics produced similar correlation coefficients. Bland-Altman plots showed that comparisons involving ranked medians had wider variation in the ranking. No difference in Youden's index for the summary statistics was found. Different consensus criteria produced widely different sets of consensus outcomes (range: 5-44 included outcomes). They also showed differing abilities to identify core outcomes (Youden's index range: 0.32-0.92). The choice of consensus criteria had a large impact on Delphi results.

DISCUSSION

The use of different summary statistics is unlikely to affect how outcomes are ranked during a Delphi process: mean, median, and rates of exceedance produce similar results. Different consensus criteria have a large impact on resultant consensus outcomes and potentially on subsequent core outcomes sets: our results confirm the importance of adhering to pre-specified consensus criteria.

Engaging pregnant individuals and healthcare professionals in an international mixed methods study to develop a core outcome set for studies on placenta accreta spectrum disorder (COPAS): a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) disorder is a life-threatening condition that may result in serious maternal complications, including mortality. The placenta which is pathologically adherent to the uterine wall, places individuals at high risk of major haemorrhage during the third stage of labour. Current research reports on PAS disorder outcomes have highly variable levels of information, which is therefore difficult for investigators to aggregate to inform practice. There is an urgent need to harmonise data collection in prospective studies to identify and implement best practices for management. One approach to standardise outcomes across any health area via the use of core outcome sets (COSs), which are consensus-derived standardised sets of outcomes that all studies for a particular condition should measure and report. This protocol outlines the steps for developing a COS for PAS disorder (COPAS).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol outlines steps for the creation of COPAS. The first step, a systematic review, will identify all reported outcomes in the scientific literature. The second step will use qualitative one-on-one interviews to identify additional outcomes identified as important by patients and healthcare professionals that are not reported in the published literature. Outcomes from the first two steps will be combined to form an outcome inventory. This outcome inventory will inform the third step which is a Delphi survey that encourages agreement between patients and healthcare professionals on which outcomes are most important for inclusion in the COS. The fourth step, a consensus group meeting of representative participants, will finalise outcomes for inclusion in the PAS disorder COS.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has obtained Research Ethics Board approval from Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (#2338, #1488). We will aim to publish the study findings in an international peer-reviewed OBGYN journal.

REGISTRATION DETAILS

COMET Core Outcome Set Registration: https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1127.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020173426.

Developmental Strategy and Validation of the Midwifery Interventions Classification (MIC): A Delphi Study Protocol and Results from the Developmental Phase

This study protocol aims to describe the rationale and developmental strategy of the first study in the Italian context which aimed to define a Midwifery Interventions Classification, an evidence-based, standardized taxonomy and classification of midwifery interventions. Midwifery interventions require a specific definition, developed through a consensus-building process by stakeholders to develop the Italian taxonomy of the Midwifery Interventions Classification with the potential for international transferability, implementation, and scaling up. A multi-round Delphi study was designed between June and September 2022, and data collection is planned between February 2023 and February 2024. The developmental phase of the study is based on a literature review to select meaningful midwifery interventions from the international literature, aiming to identify an evidence-based list of midwifery interventions. This phase led to including 16 articles derived from a systematic search performed on PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus; 164 midwifery interventions were selected from the data extraction performed on the 16 included articles. Healthcare professionals, researchers, and service users will be eligible panelists for the Delphi surveys. The protocol designed a dynamic number of consultation rounds based on the ratings and interim analysis. A nine-point Likert scoring system is designed to evaluate midwifery interventions. Attrition and attrition bias will be evaluated. The results from the study designed in this protocol will inform the development of the Italian taxonomy of the Midwifery Interventions Classification. A shared classification of midwifery interventions will support audit and quality improvement, education, and comparable data collections for research, sustaining public recognition of midwifery interventions to promote optimal maternal and newborn health.

Pediatric core outcome sets had deficiencies and lacked child and family input: A methodological review

OBJECTIVES

The Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD), published in 2017, contains 11 standards (12 criteria) describing minimum design criteria for core outcome set (COS) development. We aimed to identify and appraise all pediatric COS published prior to COS-STAD, and assess methods of child and family involvement in their development.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This methodological review included documents that described the development of pediatric COS up to and including 2017. Reviewers independently assessed each COS against COS-STAD criteria, and methods of involvement were synthesized.

RESULTS

A total of 56 pediatric COS were identified, meeting a median of five COS-STAD criteria. Nearly all met criteria on COS scope specification for setting, health condition, and population; 41% met criteria for intervention. Standards were more often met for the involvement of researchers/health professionals (64%) than for patients or their representatives (29%). Few met standards for achieving COS consensus (4-23%). Methods of child and family engagement varied and were limited.

CONCLUSION

A large proportion of pediatric COS developed prior to COS-STAD recommendations show gaps in design methodology. Updated and newly developed pediatric COS would benefit from the inclusion of the child and family voice, implementing a priori criteria for COS consensus, and clear reporting.

Identifying common health indicators from paediatric core outcome sets: a systematic review with narrative synthesis using the WHO International Classification of Functioning, Health and Disability

BACKGROUND

Indicators of child health have the potential to inform societal conversations, decision-making and prioritisation. Paediatric core outcome sets are an increasingly common way of identifying a minimum set of outcomes for trials within clinical groups. Exploring commonality across existing sets may give insight into universally important and inclusive child health indicators.

METHODS

A search of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trial register from 2008 to 2022 was carried out. Eligible articles were those reporting on core outcome sets focused on children and young people aged 0-18 years old. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) was used as a framework to categorise extracted outcomes. Information about the involvement of children, young people and their families in the development of sets was also extracted.

RESULTS

206 articles were identified, of which 36 were included. 441 unique outcomes were extracted, mapping to 22 outcome clusters present across multiple sets. Medical diagnostic outcomes were the biggest cluster, followed by pain, communication and social interaction, mobility, self-care and school. Children and young people's views were under-represented across core outcome sets, with only 36% of reviewed studies including them at any stage of development.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing paediatric core outcome sets show overlap in key outcomes, suggesting the potential for generic child health measurement frameworks. It is unclear whether existing sets best reflect health dimensions important to children and young people, and there is a need for better child and young person involvement in health indicator development to address this.

The CORE-KDT study: a mixed methods protocol to establish core outcomes for refractory childhood epilepsy treated with ketogenic diet therapy

BACKGROUND

A core outcome set defines the minimum outcomes that should be included in clinical trials, audit or practice. The aim being to increase the quality and relevance of research by ensuring consistency in the measurement and reporting of outcomes. Core outcome sets have been developed for a variety of disease states and treatments. However, there is no established set of core outcomes for refractory childhood epilepsy treated with ketogenic diet therapy. This should be developed using a patient-centred approach to ensure the outcomes measured are relevant to patients and clinical practice.

METHODS

This is a mixed methods study of four phases to develop a core outcome set for refractory childhood epilepsy treated with ketogenic diet therapy. In phase 1, a systematic scoping review of the literature will establish which outcomes are measured in trials of refractory epilepsy treated with ketogenic diet therapy. In phase 2, qualitative interviews with parents and carers will aim to identify the outcomes of importance to these stakeholders. Phase 3 will see a comprehensive list of outcomes collated from the first two phases, grouped into domains according to an outcome taxonomy. Phase 4 will invite parents, health care professionals and researchers to participate in a two-round Delphi study to rate the importance of the presented outcomes. Following which, the core outcome set will be ratified at a face to face consensus meeting.

DISCUSSION

This study will guide outcome measurement in future studies of childhood epilepsy treated with ketogenic diet therapy and clinical practice through audit and service evaluation.

Outcomes of Importance to Patients in Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening: A Qualitative Study to Inform a Core Outcome Set

There is significant heterogeneity in the outcomes assessed across studies of reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS). Only a small number of studies have measured patient-reported outcomes or included patients in the selection of outcomes that are meaningful to them. This study was a cross-sectional, qualitative study of 15 patient participants conducted to inform a core outcome set. A core outcome set is an approach to facilitate standardisation in outcome reporting, allowing direct comparison of outcomes across studies to enhance understanding of impacts and potential harms. The aim of this study was to incorporate the patient perspective in the development of a core outcome set by eliciting a detailed understanding of outcomes of importance to patients. Data were collected via online, semi-structured interviews using a novel method informed by co-design and the nominal group technique. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Outcomes elicited from patient stakeholder interviews highlighted several under-explored areas for future research. This includes the role of grief and loss in increased risk couples, the role of empowerment in conceptualising the utility of RGCS, the impact of societal context and barriers that contribute to negative experiences, and the role of genetic counselling in ensuring that information needs are met and informed choice facilitated as RGCS becomes increasingly routine. Future research should focus on incorporating outcomes that accurately reflect patient needs and experience.

Development of a core outcome set for informed consent for therapy: An international key stakeholder consensus study

Background

300 million operations and procedures are performed annually across the world, all of which require a patient’s informed consent. No standardised measure of the consent process exists in current clinical practice. We aimed to define a core outcome set for informed consent for therapy.

Methods

The core outcome set was developed in accordance with a predefined research protocol and the Core OutcoMes in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) methodology comprising systematic review, qualitative semi structured interviews, a modified Delphi process and consensus webinars to ratify outcomes for inclusion in the final core outcome set. (Registration—https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1024). Participants from all key stakeholder groups took part in the process, including patients and the public, healthcare practitioners and consent researchers.

Results

36 outcome domains were synthesised through systematic review and organised into a consent taxonomy. 41 semi-structured interviews were performed with all consent stakeholders groups. 164 participants from all stakeholder groups across 8 countries completed Delphi Round 1 and 125 completed Round 2. 11 outcomes met the ‘consensus in’ criteria. 6 met ‘consensus in’ all stakeholder groups and were included directly in the final core outcome set. 5 remaining outcomes meeting ‘consensus in’ were ratified over two consensus webinars. 9 core outcomes were included in the final core outcome set: Satisfaction with the quality and amount of information, Patient feeling that there was a choice, Patient feeling that the decision to consent was their own, Confidence in the decision made, Satisfaction with communication, Trust in the clinician, Patient satisfaction with the consent process, Patient rated adequacy of time and opportunity to ask questions.

Conclusion

This international mixed-methods qualitative study is the first of its kind to define a core outcome set for informed consent for intervention. It defines what outcomes are of importance to key stakeholders in the consent process and is a forward step towards standardising future consent research.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-022-00820-w.

Development of a core outcome set for school-based intervention studies on preventing childhood overweight and obesity: study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Prevention of childhood overweight is an important health priority. Evidence synthesis from studies evaluating school-based overweight preventive interventions is hampered by the wealth of different outcomes across studies. Therefore, consensus on a core set of outcomes for school-based overweight prevention studies is needed. This paper presents the protocol for the development of a core outcome set (COS) for school-based intervention studies aimed at childhood overweight prevention.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

First, a scoping review will be performed to identify outcomes included in studies evaluating school-based overweight prevention interventions in 6-12 year-old children. Additionally, child focus groups will be organised in three countries to list the outcomes children consider important in school-based interventions. Next, an expert panel will identify all unique outcomes (eg, body composition) from the results of the scoping review and focus groups, ruling out how outcomes were defined and measured (eg, body mass index, body fat). In the next phase, a group of international stakeholders will participate in a Delphi study in which they will rate all unique outcomes on a 9-point Likert scale over three rounds to reach consensus on a COS. Participants will include healthcare professionals, policymakers, teachers, school leaders and parents of 6-12 year-olds. All rated outcomes will be presented to stakeholders in two online consensus meetings.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Medical Ethics Committee of the VU Medical Center approved the child focus group study in the Netherlands (nr. 2020.071) and the Delphi study-including the consensus meeting (nr. 2022.0295). Other sites will obtain ethics approval for focus groups in their country. The University of Strathclyde School of Psychological Sciences ethics committee approved the Delphi study-including consensus meeting (nr. 72.27.04.2022 .A). The final COS will be disseminated through the diverse networks of all authors and participants.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

This COS initiative is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness initiative (registration nr. 971).

Establishment of a core outcome set for burn care research: development and international consensus

Objective

To develop a core outcome set for international burn research.

Design

Development and international consensus, from April 2017 to November 2019.

Methods

Candidate outcomes were identified from systematic reviews and stakeholder interviews. Through a Delphi survey, international clinicians, researchers, and UK patients prioritised outcomes. Anonymised feedback aimed to achieve consensus. Pre-defined criteria for retaining outcomes were agreed. A consensus meeting with voting was held to finalise the core outcome set.

Results

Data source examination identified 1021 unique outcomes grouped into 88 candidate outcomes. Stakeholders in round 1 of the survey, included 668 health professionals from 77 countries (18% from low or low middle income countries) and 126 UK patients or carers. After round 1, one outcome was discarded, and 13 new outcomes added. After round 2, 69 items were discarded, leaving 31 outcomes for the consensus meeting. Outcome merging and voting, in two rounds, with prespecified thresholds agreed seven core outcomes: death, specified complications, ability to do daily tasks, wound healing, neuropathic pain and itch, psychological wellbeing, and return to school or work.

Conclusions

This core outcome set caters for global burn research, and future trials are recommended to include measures of these outcomes.

Expert Consensus Regarding Core Outcomes for Enhanced Recovery after Cesarean Delivery Studies: A Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Heterogeneity among reported outcomes from enhanced recovery after cesarean delivery impact studies is high. This study aimed to develop a standardized enhanced recovery core outcome set for use in future enhanced recovery after cesarean delivery studies.

METHODS

An international consensus study involving physicians, patients and a director of Midwifery and Nursing Services, was conducted using a three-round modified Delphi approach (2 rounds of electronic questionnaires and a 3rd round e-discussion), to produce the core outcome set. An initial list of outcomes was based on a previously published systematic review. Consensus was obtained for the final core outcome set, including definitions for key terms, and preferred units of measurement. Strong consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and weak consensus as 50-69% agreement. Of the 64 stakeholders who were approached, 32 agreed to participate. All 32, 31 and 26 stakeholders completed Rounds 1, 2 and 3, respectively.

RESULTS

The number of outcomes in the final core outcome set was reduced from 98 to 15. Strong consensus (≥70% stakeholder agreement) was achieved for 15 outcomes. The core outcome set included: length of hospital stay; compliance with enhanced recovery protocol; maternal morbidity (hospital re-admissions or unplanned consultations); provision of optimal analgesia (maternal satisfaction, compliance with analgesia, opioid consumption / requirement and incidence of nausea or vomiting); fasting times; breastfeeding success; and times to mobilization and urinary catheter removal. The Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 item composite measure was also included in the final core outcome set. Areas identified as requiring further research included readiness for discharge and analysis of cost savings.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from an international consensus to develop a core outcome set for enhanced recovery after cesarean delivery are presented. These are outcomes that could be considered when designing future enhanced recovery studies.

Protocol for development of a core outcome set for clinical trials in melasma

INTRODUCTION

Melasma is a pigmentation disorder of the skin. Characterised by brown to gray-brown patches on the face and neck, the condition predominantly affects women and has been associated with pregnancy, hormonal variation and sun exposure. Melasma can be disfiguring and anxiety-provoking, and quality of life is often adversely impacted. Management includes sun protection, laser and energy device therapy, topical and oral skin-bleaching agents and chemical peels. While clinical trials of melasma exist, there is a lack of consistency in reported outcomes, which has been a barrier to the aggregation of data in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This protocol describes a planned process for development of a minimum set of outcomes (ie, 'core outcome set') that should be measured in all clinical trials of melasma.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

An exhaustive list of potential outcomes will be extracted from four sources: (1) systematic literature review of outcomes in clinical trials; (2) semistructured patient interviews; (3) brochures, pamphlets, clinical trial registries, and other published and unpublished sources and documentation; and (4) interviews with non-patient, non-physician stakeholders, including federal regulators, industry scientists and non-physician providers. An international two-round Delphi process will then be performed to identify the outcomes deemed most important to patients and physicians. Subsequently, a consensus meeting will be convened to review and process the results, and to vote on a final set of core outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was provided by the Northwestern University Institutional Review Board (protocol ID: STU00201637). This study is registered with both the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials and Cochrane Skin-Core Outcome Set Initiative initiatives, and this protocol is in accordance with the guidelines for protocol development of both groups. All findings from the study described in this protocol will be disseminated to all stakeholders involved in the development process and will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020214189.

Synthesizing Core Outcome Sets for outcomes research in cohort studies: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Life course studies are designed to "collect once, use multiple times" for observational and, increasingly, interventional research. Core Outcome Sets (COS) are minimum sets developed for clinical trials by multi-stakeholder consensus methodologies. We aimed to synthesize published COS that might guide outcomes selection for early life cohorts with an interventional focus.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Medline, COMET, and CROWN for COS published before January 2021 relevant to four life stages (pregnancy, newborns, children <8 years, and parents (adults aged 18-50 years)). We synthesized core outcomes into overarching constructs.

RESULTS

From 46 COS we synthesized 414 core outcomes into 118 constructs. "Quality of life", "adverse events", "medication use", "hospitalization", and "mortality" were consistent across all stages. For pregnancy, common constructs included "preterm birth", "delivery mode", "pre-eclampsia", "gestational weight gain", "gestational diabetes", and "hemorrhage"; for newborns, "birthweight", "small for gestational age", "neurological damage", and "morbidity" and "infection/sepsis"; for pediatrics, "pain", "gastrointestinal morbidity", "growth/weight", "breastfeeding", "feeding problems", "hearing", "neurodevelopmental morbidity", and "social development"; and for adults, "disease burden", "mental health", "neurological function/stroke", and "cardiovascular health/morbidity".

CONCLUSION

This COS synthesis generated outcome constructs that are of high value to stakeholders (participants, health providers, services), relevant to life course research, and could position cohorts for trial capabilities.

IMPACT

We synthesized existing Core Outcome Sets as a transparent methodology that could prioritize outcomes for lifecourse cohorts with an interventional focus. "Quality of life", "adverse events", "medication use", "hospitalization", and "mortality" are important outcomes across pregnancy, newborns, childhood, and early-to-mid-adulthood (the age range relevant to parents). Other common outcomes (such as "birthweight", "cognitive function/ability", "psychological health") are also highly relevant to lifecourse research. This synthesis could assist new early life cohorts to pre-select outcomes that are of high value to stakeholders (participants, health providers, services), are relevant to lifecourse research, and could position them for future trials and interventional capability.

Secondary analysis of data from a core outcome set for burns demonstrated the need for involvement of lower income countries

Objective

To compare the views of participants from different income-status countries on outcome selection for a burn care Core Outcome Set (COS).

Methods

A retrospective analysis of data collected during a two round Delphi survey to prioritise the most important outcomes in burn care research.

Results

There was considerable agreement between participants from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries (HICs) across outcomes. The groups agreed on 91% of 88 outcomes in round 1 and 92% of 100 in round 2. In cases of discordance, the consensus of participants from LMICs was to include the outcome and for participants from HICs to exclude. There was also considerable agreement between the groups for the top-ten ranking outcomes. Discordance in outcome prioritisation gives an insight into the different values clinicians from LMICs place on outcomes compared to those from HICs. Limitations of the study were that outcome rankings from international patients were not available. Healthcare professionals from LMICs were not involved in the final consensus meeting.

Conclusion

COS developers should consider the need for a COS to be global at protocol stage. Global COS should include equal representation from both LMICs and HICs at all stages of development.

Establishing a core outcome set for mucopolysaccharidoses (MPS) in children: study protocol for a rapid literature review, candidate outcomes survey, and Delphi surveys

Background

Mucopolysaccharidoses (MPS) are a group of inherited metabolic diseases characterized by chronic, progressive multi-system manifestations with varying degrees of severity. Disease-modifying therapies exist to treat some types of MPS; however, they are not curative, underscoring the need to identify and evaluate co-interventions that optimize functioning, participation in preferred activities, and quality of life. A Canadian pediatric MPS registry is under development and may serve as a platform to launch randomized controlled trials to evaluate such interventions. To promote the standardized collection of patient/family-reported and clinical outcomes considered important to patients/families, health care providers (HCPs), and policymakers, the choice of outcomes to include in the registry will be informed by a core outcome set (COS). We aim to establish a patient-oriented COS for pediatric MPS using a multi-stakeholder approach.

Methods

In step 1 of the six-step process to develop the COS, we will identify relevant outcomes through a rapid literature review and candidate outcomes survey. A two-phase screening approach will be implemented to identify eligible publications, followed by extraction of outcomes and other pre-specified data elements. Simultaneously, we will conduct a candidate outcomes survey with children with MPS and their families to identify outcomes most important to them. In step 2, HCPs experienced in treating patients with MPS will be invited to review the list of outcomes generated in step 1 and identify additional clinically relevant outcomes. We will then ask patients/families, HCPs, and policymakers to rate the outcomes in a set of Delphi Surveys (step 3), and to participate in a subsequent consensus meeting to finalize the COS (step 4). Step 5 involves establishing a set of outcome measurement instruments for the COS. Finally, we will disseminate the COS to knowledge users (step 6).

Discussion

The proposed COS will inform the choice of outcomes to include in the MPS registry and, more broadly, promote the standardized collection of patient-oriented outcomes for pediatric MPS research. By involving patients/families from the earliest stage of the research, we will ensure that the COS will be relevant to those who will ultimately benefit from the research.

Trial registration

PROSPERO CRD42021267531, COMET

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05791-8.

Developing consensus on core outcome domains for assessing effectiveness in perioperative pain management: results of the PROMPT/IMI-PainCare Delphi Meeting

ABSTRACT

Postoperative pain management is still insufficient, leading to major deficits, including patient suffering, impaired surgical recovery, long-term opioid intake, and postsurgical chronic pain. Yet, identifying the best treatment options refers to a heterogeneous outcome assessment in clinical trials, not always reflecting relevant pain-related aspects after surgery and therefore hamper evidence synthesis. Establishing a core outcome set for perioperative pain management of acute pain after surgery may overcome such limitations. An international, stepwise consensus process on outcome domains ("what to measure") for pain management after surgery, eg, after total knee arthroplasty, sternotomy, breast surgery, and surgery related to endometriosis, was performed. The process, guided by a steering committee, involved 9 international stakeholder groups and patient representatives. The face-to-face meeting was prepared by systematic literature searches identifying common outcome domains for each of the 4 surgical procedures and included breakout group sessions, world-café formats, plenary panel discussions, and final voting. The panel finally suggested an overall core outcome set for perioperative pain management with 5 core outcome domains: physical function (for a condition-specific measurement), pain intensity at rest, pain intensity during activity, adverse events, and self-efficacy. Innovative aspects of this work were inclusion of the psychological domain self-efficacy, as well as the specific assessment of pain intensity during activity and physical function recommended to be assessed in a condition-specific manner. The IMI-PROMPT core outcome set seeks to improve assessing efficacy and effectiveness of perioperative pain management in any clinical and observational studies as well as in clinical practice.

A protocol for developing, disseminating, and implementing a core outcome set for adenomyosis research

Background

Adenomyosis is a common benign gynaecological condition that has been associated with heavy and/or painful periods, subfertility and poor obstetric outcomes including miscarriage and preterm delivery. Studies evaluating treatments for adenomyosis have reported a wide range of outcomes and outcome measures. This variation in outcomes and outcome measures prevents effective data synthesis, thereby hampering the ability of meta-analyses to draw useful conclusions and inform clinical practice.

Objectives

Our aim is to develop a minimum set of outcomes to be reported in all future studies that investigate any uterus-sparing intervention for treating uterine adenomyosis. Wide adoption of 'core outcomes' into research on adenomyosis would reduce the heterogeneity of studies and make data synthesis easier. This will ultimately lead to comparable, prioritised, and patient-centred conclusions from meta-analyses and guidelines.

Materials and Methods

Outcomes identified from a systematic review of the literature will form a long list, agreed by an international steering group representing key stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, researchers, and public research partners. Through a modified Delphi process, key stakeholders will score outcomes from the agreed long list on a nine-point Likert scale that ranges from 1 (not important) to 9 (critical). Following the Delphi process, the refined outcome set will be finalised by the steering group. Finally, the steering group will develop recommendations for high-quality measures for each outcome. The study was prospectively registered with Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative; number 1649.

Conclusion

The implementation of the core outcome set for adenomyosis in future trials will enhance the availability of comparable data to facilitate more patient-centred evidence-based care.

What is new?

The core outcome set will facilitate the generation of clinically important and patient centred outcomes for studies evaluating treatments for adenomyosis.

A Global eDelphi Exercise to Identify Core Domains and Domain Items for the Development of a Global Registry of Alopecia Areata Disease Severity and Treatment Safety (GRASS)

Importance

A recent expert consensus exercise emphasized the importance of developing a global network of patient registries for alopecia areata to redress the paucity of comparable, real-world data regarding the effectiveness and safety of existing and emerging therapies for alopecia areata.

Objective

To generate core domains and domain items for a global network of alopecia areata patient registries.

Evidence Review

Sixty-six participants, representing physicians, patient organizations, scientists, the pharmaceutical industry, and pharmacoeconomic experts, participated in a 3-round eDelphi process, culminating in a face-to-face meeting at the World Congress of Dermatology, Milan, Italy, June 14, 2019.

Findings

Ninety-two core data items, across 25 domains, achieved consensus agreement. Twenty further noncore items were retained to facilitate data harmonization in centers that wish to record them. Broad representation across multiple stakeholder groups was sought; however, the opinion of physicians was overrepresented.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study identifies the domains and domain items required to develop a global network of alopecia areata registries. These domains will facilitate a standardized approach that will enable the recording of a comprehensive, comparable data set required to oversee the introduction of new therapies and harness real-world evidence from existing therapies at a time when the alopecia areata treatment paradigm is being radically and positively disrupted. Reuse of similar, existing frameworks in atopic dermatitis, produced by the Treatment of Atopic Eczema (TREAT) Registry Taskforce, increases the potential to reuse existing resources, creates opportunities for comparison of data across dermatology subspecialty disease areas, and supports the concept of data harmonization.

Development of the CORE-Kids core set of outcome domains for studies of childhood limb fractures

Aims

The aim of this study is to develop a core set of outcome domains that should be considered and reported in all future trials of childhood limb fractures.

Methods

A four-phase study was conducted to agree a set of core outcome domains. Identification of candidate outcome domains were identified through systematic review of trials, and outcome domains relevant to families were identified through semi-structured interviews with 20 families (parent-child pairing or group). Outcome domains were prioritized using an international three-round Delphi survey with 205 panellists and then condensed into a core outcome set through a consensus workshop with 30 stakeholders.

Results

The systematic review and interviews identified 85 outcome domains as relevant to professionals or families. The Delphi survey prioritized 30 upper and 29 lower limb outcome domains at first round, an additional 17 upper and 18 lower limb outcomes at second round, and four additional outcomes for upper and lower limb at the third round as important domains. At the consensus workshop, the core outcome domains were agreed as: 1) pain and discomfort; 2) return to physical and recreational activities; 3) emotional and psychosocial wellbeing; 4) complications from the injury and treatment; 5) rturn to baseline activities daily living; 6) participation in learning; 7) appearance and deformity; and 8) time to union. In addition, 9a) recovery of mobility and 9b) recovery of manual dexterity was recommended as a core outcome for lower and upper limb fractures, respectively.

Conclusion

This set of core outcome domains is recommended as a minimum set of outcomes to be reported in all trials. It is not an exhaustive set and further work is required to identify what outcome tools should be used to measure each of these outcomes. Adoption of this outcome set will improve the consistency of research for these children that can be combined for more meaningful meta-analyses and policy development.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(12):1821–1830.

Developing a core outcome set for periodontal trials

BACKGROUND

There is no agreement which outcomes should be measured when investigating interventions for periodontal diseases. It is difficult to compare or combine studies with different outcomes; resulting in research wastage and uncertainty for patients and healthcare professionals.

OBJECTIVE

Develop a core outcome set (COS) relevant to key stakeholders for use in effectiveness trials investigating prevention and management of periodontal diseases.

METHODS

Mixed method study involving literature review; online Delphi Study; and face-to-face consensus meeting.

PARTICIPANTS

Key stakeholders: patients, dentists, hygienist/therapists, periodontists, researchers.

RESULTS

The literature review identified 37 unique outcomes. Delphi round 1: 20 patients and 51 dental professional and researchers prioritised 25 and suggested an additional 11 outcomes. Delphi round 2: from the resulting 36 outcomes, 13 patients and 39 dental professionals and researchers prioritised 22 outcomes. A face-to-face consensus meeting was hosted in Dundee, Scotland by an independent chair. Eight patients and six dental professional and researchers participated. The final COS contains: Probing depths, Quality of life, Quantified levels of gingivitis, Quantified levels of plaque, Tooth loss.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of this COS will ensure the results of future effectiveness trials for periodontal diseases are more relevant to patients and dental professionals, reducing research wastage. This could reduce uncertainty for patients and dental professionals by ensuring the evidence used to inform their choices is meaningful to them. It could also strengthen the quality and certainty of the evidence about the relative effectiveness of interventions.

REGISTRATION

COMET Database: http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/265?result=true.

Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation: protocol for development of a core outcome set for clinical trials

Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) is a disorder of pigmentation that is a common presenting complaint, especially in individuals with skin of color. It is associated with a significant psychological burden and decrement of quality of life. Management options include photoprotection, topical lightening agents, and lasers and energy devices. Clinical trials of melasma report a diversity of outcomes, which often impedes synthesis of results across trials, or comparison of results associated with different treatment modalities. This protocol describes the design of a consensus process that would culminate in the development of a core set of outcomes to be assessed in all clinical trials for PIH. A long list of candidate outcomes will be developed through a systematic review, combined with semi-structured interviews with various stakeholders, including patients, scientists, regulators, and health care professionals. This long list of outcomes will be reviewed and refined by a steering committee. Then two rounds of Delphi surveys of patient and physician groups, respectively, will be used to cull the list, with provisional inclusion of those items deemed "important" by 70% of the respondents. A consensus meeting will be held virtually or in person to vote on these items, and also to consider any changes necessary before acceptance of a final core outcome set. Development of a core outcome set for PIH is expected to improve and standardize outcomes reporting in current and future clinical trials. This, in turn, may facilitate aggregation of research results and permit comparison of outcomes across multiple studies.

Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 6th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research

Background

An annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets (COS) for research ensures that the COMET database is up-to-date. The aims of this study were to: (i) identify COS that were published or indexed in 2019 and to describe the methodological approaches used in these studies; (ii) investigate whether children have been included as participants in published COS development studies, and which methods have been used to facilitate their participation; iii) update a previous exercise to identify COS relevant to the most burdensome global diseases and injuries.

Methods

MEDLINE and SCOPUS were searched to identify studies published or indexed between (and inclusive of) January 2019 and December 2019. Automated screening methods were used to rank the citations in order of relevance; the top 25% in ranked priority order were screened for eligibility. COS were assessed against each of the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD). A search of the COMET database was undertaken to identify COS relevant to the 25 leading causes of disease burden.

Results

Thirty-three studies, describing the development of 37 COS, were included in this update. These studies have been added to the COMET database, which now contains 370 published (1981–2019) COS studies for clinical research. Six (18%) of the 33 studies in this update were deemed to have met all of the minimum standards for COS development (range = 4 to 12 criteria, median = 9 criteria). Of the 370 COS studies published to date, 82 COS have been developed for paediatric health conditions and children would have been eligible to participate in 68/82 of these studies. Eleven of these 68 (16%) COS studies have included children as participants within the development process, most commonly through participation in Delphi surveys. Relevant COS were identified for 22/25 leading causes of global disease burden.

Conclusion

There has been a demonstrated increase in COS developed for both research and routine practice, and consistently high inclusion of patient participants. COS developed for paediatric conditions need to further incorporate the perspectives of children, alongside parents and other adults, and adopt research methods fit for this purpose. COS developers should consider the gaps identified in this update as priorities for COS development.

Inconsistency and low transparency were found between core outcome set protocol and full text publication: a comparative study

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to assess inconsistencies between individual protocols and associated full-text publications in the development of core outcome sets (COSs).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Protocols and subsequent full-text publications were retrieved by searching the following electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials database from inception to October 1, 2019. We summarized changes in the general and methodological characteristics by comparing the protocols with the full-text publications and reported change as information frequency and proportion.

RESULTS

A total of 24 protocols and 32 corresponding full-text publications that encompassed 14 study topics were identified from databases. In the identified initial list of outcomes, five COSs (20.8%) changed the included study type, none of which explained the reasons for these changes. In addition, eight COSs showed inconsistencies between the protocols and full-text publications in the searched databases, of which, only two studies explained the reasons for these changes. Compared with the protocols, three COSs changed the number of Delphi rounds, eight COSs changed the participants (stakeholder groups), and three COSs changed the consensus definition of the Delphi survey. Only two COSs explained the reason for changing the number of Delphi rounds, and none of the studies explained why the participants changed. For the face-to-face consensus meeting, we found that nine COSs changed the participants and none explained the reasons for these changes.

CONCLUSION

Our study found many inconsistencies between protocols and the full-text publications concerning COS development. These inconsistencies related to the included study types, databases searched, Delphi surveys, and face-to-face consensus meetings. As it is necessary to publish protocols before developing COSs, transparency regarding any changes to the methods is needed.

Professional consensus on orthodontic risks: What orthodontists should tell their patients

INTRODUCTION

Effective communication of risk is a requisite for valid consent, shared decision-making, and the provision of person-centered care. No agreed standard for the content of discussions with patients about the risks of orthodontic treatment exists. This study aimed to produce a professional consensus recommendation about the risks that should be discussed with patients as part of consent for orthodontic treatment.

METHODS

A serial cross-sectional survey design using a modified electronic Delphi technique was used. Two survey rounds were conducted nationally in the United Kingdom using a custom-made online system. The risks used as the prespecified items scored in the Delphi exercise were identified through a structured literature review. Orthodontists scored treatment risks on a 1-9 scale (1 = not important, 9 = critical to discuss with patients). The consensus that a risk should be discussed as part of consent was predefined as ≥70% orthodontists scoring risk as 7-9 and <15% scoring 1-3.

RESULTS

The electronic Delphi was completed by 237 orthodontists who reached a professional consensus that 10 risks should be discussed as part of consent for orthodontic treatment; demineralization, relapse, resorption, pain, gingivitis, ulceration, appliances breaking, failed tooth movements, treatment duration, and consequences of no treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

A professional orthodontic consensus has been reached that 10 key risks should be discussed with patients as part of consent for orthodontic treatment. The information in this evidence base should be tailored to patients' individual needs and delivered as part of a continuing risk communication process.

Development of a core outcome set for use in routine orthodontic clinical trials

INTRODUCTION

A diverse range of outcomes is used in orthodontic research with a focus on measuring outcomes important to clinicians and little consistency in outcome selection and measurement. We aimed to develop a core outcome set for use in clinical trials of orthodontic treatment not involving cleft or orthognathic patient groups.

METHODS

A list of outcomes measured in previous orthodontic research was identified through a scoping literature review. Additional outcomes of importance to patients were obtained using qualitative interviews and focus groups with adolescents aged 10-16 years. Rating of outcomes was carried out in a 2-round electronic Delphi process involving health care professionals and patients using a 9-point scale. A face-to-face meeting was subsequently held with stakeholders to discuss the results before refining the core outcome set.

RESULTS

After triangulation, a final list of 34 outcomes grouped under 10 domains was obtained for rating in the e-Delphi surveys. Fifteen outcomes were voted "in" after the second Delphi round involving 274 participants with a further outcome being included after the consensus meeting. These were subsequently refined into a final set of 7 core outcomes, including the impact of self-perceived esthetics, alignment and/or occlusion, skeletal relationship, stability, patient-related adherence, breakages, and adverse effects on teeth or teeth-supporting structures.

CONCLUSIONS

A bespoke orthodontic core outcome set encompassing both clinician- and patient-focused outcomes was developed. Incorporating this is the first step into providing a more holistic assessment of the impact of treatment while allowing for meaningful comparisons and synthesis of results from individual trials.

Outcome Measures Reported in Published Clinical Research Studies in Craniosynostosis: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

The fair comparison of treatment interventions for craniosynostosis across different studies is expected to be impaired by incomplete reporting and the use of inconsistent outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

This review assessed the outcomes currently reported in studies of craniosynostosis, and whether these outcomes are formally defined and prespecified in the study methods.

DATA SOURCES, SEARCH TERMS, AND STUDY SELECTION

Studies were sourced via an electronic, multi-database literature search for "craniosynostosis." All primary, interventional research studies published from 2011 to 2015 were reviewed.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two independent researchers assessed each study for inclusion and performed the data extraction. For each study, data were extracted on the individual outcomes reported, and whether these outcomes were defined and prespecified in the methods.

DATA SYNTHESIS AND RESULTS

Of 1027 studies screened, 240 were included and proceeded to data extraction. These studies included 18,365 patients.2192 separate outcomes were reported. Of these, 851 outcomes (38.8%) were clearly defined, 1394 (63.6%) were prespecified in the study methods."Clinical and functional" was the most commonly reported outcome theme (900 outcomes, 41.1%), and "patient-reported" outcomes the least (7 outcomes, 0.3%)."Duration of surgery" was the most commonly reported single outcome (reported 80 times). "Cranial index" was the most variably defined outcome (18 different definitions used).

CONCLUSION

The outcomes reported following treatment interventions for craniosynostosis are incompletely and variably defined. Improving definitions for these outcomes may aid comparison of different management strategies and improve craniosynostosis care. Suboptimal prespecification of these outcomes in the study methods implied that outcome reporting bias cannot be excluded.

A Core Outcome Set for Neonatal Opioid Withdrawal Syndrome

BACKGROUND

As rates of neonatal opioid withdrawal are increasing, the need for research to evaluate new treatments is growing. Large heterogeneity exists in health outcomes reported in current literature. Our objective is to develop an evidence-informed and consensus-based core outcome set in neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NOWS-COS) for use in studies and clinical practice.

METHODS

An international multidisciplinary steering committee was established. A systematic review and a 3-round Delphi was performed with open-ended and score-based assessments of the importance of each outcome to inform clinical management of neonatal opioid withdrawal. Interviews were conducted with parents and/or caregivers on outcome importance. Finally, a consensus meeting with diverse stakeholders was held to review all data from all sources and establish a core set of outcomes with definitions.

RESULTS

The NOWS-COS was informed by 47 published studies, 41 Delphi participants, and 6 parent interviews. There were 63 outcomes evaluated. Final core outcomes include (1) pharmacologic treatment, (2) total dose of opioid treatment, (3) duration of treatment, (4) adjuvant therapy, (5) feeding difficulties, (6) consolability, (7) time to adequate symptom control, (8) parent-infant bonding, (9) duration of time the neonate spent in the hospital, (10) breastfeeding, (11) weight gain at hospital discharge, (12) readmission to hospital for withdrawal, and (13) neurodevelopment.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed an evidence-informed and consensus-based core outcome set. Implementation of this core outcome set will reduce heterogeneity between studies and facilitate evidence-based decision-making. Future research will disseminate all the findings and pilot test the validity of the NOWS-COS in additional countries and populations to increase generalizability and impact.

Generic outcome set for the international registry on Laser trEAtments in Dermatology (LEAD): a protocol for a Delphi study to achieve consensus on what to measure

INTRODUCTION

While laser technology has expanded the armamentarium of treatment for various skin diseases during the past years, heterogeneity in study outcomes hampers comparability and appropriate evidence synthesis. Part of these issues can be addressed by developing a generic outcome set. Using the Delphi method, this study aims to seek consensus between key stakeholders on relevant generic outcomes (what to measure) for implementation in the international registry on Laser trEAtments in Dermatology (LEAD). The registry is focused on collecting research data on various laser treatments for skin disorders.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

By reviewing the literature and involvement of key stakeholder groups and adult patients in need or after laser surgery and health professionals, a preliminary list of outcomes will be generated and categorised into domains. Using these outcomes, an international three-round Delphi study will be performed to rate the importance of outcomes in the selection of a generic outcome set. Participants are allowed to provide new outcomes to the preliminary list for revisions during the first Delphi round. Finally, results will be discussed during a consensus meeting to agree on generic outcomes to be used in the LEAD registry.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

An ethics approval was not applicable (W19_290 # 18.336). The study is registered with the Cochrane Skin Core OUtcome Set INitiative) and the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials initiative. Procedures will be conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

Ensuring young voices are heard in core outcome set development: international workshops with 70 children and young people

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

Researchers test treatments to ensure these work and are safe. They do this by studying the effects that treatments have on patients by measuring outcomes, such as pain and quality of life. Often research teams measure different outcomes even though each team is studying the same condition. This makes it hard to compare the findings from different studies and it can reduce the accuracy of the treatment advice available to patients. Increasingly, researchers are tackling this problem by developing 'core outcome sets'. These are lists of outcomes that all researchers working on a given condition should measure in their studies. It is important that patients have a voice in the development of core outcome sets and children and young people are no exception. But their voices have rarely been heard when core outcome sets are developed. Researchers are trying to address this problem and make sure that core outcome sets are developed in ways that are suitable for children and young people. As a first step, we held two international workshops with children and young people to listen to their views. They emphasised the importance of motivating young people to participate in developing core outcome sets, making them feel valued, and making the development process more interactive, enjoyable and convenient. We hope this commentary will encourage researchers to include children and young people when developing core outcome sets and to adapt their methods so these are suitable for young participants. Future research is important to examine whether these adaptations are effective.

ABSTRACT

Background Different research teams looking at treatments for the same condition often select and measure inconsistent treatment outcomes. This makes it difficult to synthesise the results of different studies, leads to selective outcome reporting and impairs the quality of evidence about treatments. 'Core outcome sets' (COS) can help to address these problems. A COS is an agreed, minimum list of outcomes that researchers are encouraged to consistently measure and report in their studies. Including children and young people (CYP) as participants in the development of COS for paediatric conditions ensures that clinically meaningful outcomes are measured and reported. However, few published COS have included CYP as participants. COS developers have described difficulties in recruiting and retaining CYP and there is a lack of guidance on optimising COS methods for them. We aimed to explore CYP's views on the methods used to develop COS and identify ways to optimise these methods.Main body This commentary summarises discussions during two workshops with approximately 70 CYP (aged 10-18 years old) at the International Children's Advisory Network Research and Advocacy Summit, 2018. Delegates described what might motivate them to participate in a COS study, including feeling valued, understanding the need for COS and the importance of input from CYP in their development, and financial and other incentives (e.g. certificates of participation). For Delphi surveys, delegates suggested that lists of outcomes should be as brief as possible, and that scoring and feedback methods should be simplified. For consensus meetings, delegates advised preparing CYP in advance, supporting them during meetings (e.g. via mentors) and favoured arrangements whereby CYP could meet separately from parents and other stakeholders. Overall, they wanted COS methods that were convenient, enjoyable and engaging.Conclusion This commentary points to the limitations of the methods currently used to develop COS with CYP. It also points to ways to motivate CYP to participate in COS studies and to enhancements of methods to make participation more engaging for CYP. Pending much needed research on COS methods for CYP, the perspectives offered in the workshops should help teams developing COS in paediatrics and child health.

Delphi study to determine the key qualities consultant histopathologists look for in their trainees

AIMS

A Delphi study to triangulate and determine the relative importance of the key qualities of trainees identified from qualitative interviews that sought to understand how consultant histopathologists determine diagnostic competences in trainees.

METHODS

Twelve participants were purposively chosen for the Delphi to form an expert panel of relevant stakeholders. Participants were asked to score and rank the items presented to them.

RESULTS

A total of 22 out of 27 of the key qualities of trainees (items) reached 'consensus in' after round 2 suggesting participants were able to agree that the majority of the items identified in the qualitative interviews were important to diagnostic competence. Five items reached 'no consensus'. Participants did not suggest any additional items. Participants particularly valued qualities of reflection and professionalism and trainees who understood the process of reaching a diagnosis and how their pathological report could impact on patient care.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has triangulated findings from our qualitative interviews and show that consultants value a wide variety of qualities when determining diagnostic competence in their trainees. The judgement is complex and is therefore best assessed longitudinally and on a number of cases, so consultants can look for consistency of both approach to diagnosis and of trainee behaviour.

Core Rehabilitation Outcome Set for Single Sided Deafness (CROSSSD) study: protocol for an international consensus on outcome measures for single sided deafness interventions using a modified Delphi survey

BACKGROUND

Single-sided deafness (SSD) describes the presence of a unilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss. SSD disrupts spatial hearing and understanding speech in background noise. It has functional, psychological and social consequences. Potential options for rehabilitation include hearing aids and auditory implants. Benefits and harms of these interventions are documented inconsistently in the literature, using a variety of outcomes ranging from tests of speech perception to quality of life questionnaires. It is therefore difficult to compare interventions when rehabilitating SSD. The Core Rehabilitation Outcome Set for Single Sided Deafness (CROSSSD) study is an international initiative that aims to develop a minimum set of core outcomes for use in future trials of SSD interventions.

METHODS/DESIGN

The CROSSSD study adopts an international two-round online modified Delphi survey followed by a stakeholder consensus meeting to identify a patient-centred core outcome domain set for SSD based on what is considered critical and important for assessing whether an intervention for SSD has worked.

DISCUSSION

The resulting core outcome domain set will act as a minimum standard for reporting in future clinical trials and could have further applications in guiding the use of outcome measures in clinical practice. Standardisation will facilitate comparison of research findings.

CORE-Kids: a protocol for the development of a core outcome set for childhood fractures

INTRODUCTION

Limb fractures in children are common yet there are few trials that compare treatments for these injuries. There is significant heterogeneity in the outcomes reported in the paediatric orthopaedic literature, which limits the ability to compare study results and draw firm conclusions. The aim of the CORE-Kids Study is to develop a core outcome set for use in research studies of childhood limb fractures. A core outcome set will provide a minimum set of outcomes to be measured in all trials to minimise the heterogeneity of outcomes reported and minimise reporting bias. A core outcome set ensures that outcomes are reported that are relevant to families as well as clinicians. The core outcome set will include additional upper and lower limb modules.

METHODS

The development of the core outcome set will require four phases to evaluate:What are the outcomes that are relevant to professionals?What are the outcomes that are relevant to families?What are the most important of these outcomes?Which outcomes should be included in the core outcome set?This will be completed through a systematic review of trials to identify the outcomes domains that are relevant to trialists. A series of semi-structured interviews will be completed with families to identify the outcome domains that are relevant to families. These outcome domains will be used in a three-round Delphi Study to analyse the importance of these outcome domains to a range of stakeholders including parents, clinicians and researchers. Following this, the core outcome set will be decided at a consensus meeting.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been awarded HRA/REC IRAS number 262503. Date of approval 06/08/2019. Dissemination will be through scientific literature and international societies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative, registration number: 1274. Date of registration 13/12/2018.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018106605.

A core outcome set for trials of infant-feeding interventions to prevent childhood obesity

BACKGROUND

Standardisation of outcomes measured and reported in trials of infant-feeding interventions to prevent childhood obesity is essential to evaluate and synthesise intervention effects. The aim of this study is to develop an infant-feeding core outcome set for use in randomised trials of infant-feeding interventions, with children ≤1 year old, to prevent childhood obesity.

METHODS

Core outcome set development followed four stages: (1) systematic review of outcomes reported in the extant literature; (2) meeting with national and international stakeholders to discuss and clarify identified outcomes; (3) e-Delphi study with national and international stakeholders to prioritise outcomes; (4) meeting with national and international stakeholders to reach consensus on outcomes. Stakeholders in stages 2-4 were paediatricians, general practitioners, nurses, midwives, non-clinician researchers, parents, dieticians, nutritionists, and childcare providers.

RESULTS

Twenty-six outcomes were identified for inclusion in the core outcome set. These were grouped in nine outcome domains: 'breastfeeding and formula feeding', 'introduction of solids', 'parent feeding practices and styles', 'parent knowledge and beliefs', 'practical feeding', 'food environment', 'dietary intake', 'perceptions of infant behaviour and preferences', and 'child weight'.

CONCLUSIONS

The core outcome set identified in this study is the minimum that should be measured and reported in trials of infant-feeding interventions to prevent childhood obesity. This standardisation of outcomes will enable more comprehensive examination and synthesis of the effects of infant-feeding interventions to prevent childhood obesity.

Outcomes of physical activity for people living with dementia: qualitative study to inform a Core Outcome Set

BACKGROUND

The need for a Core Outcome Set to evaluate physical activity interventions for people living with dementia, across stages of disease and intervention settings has been established. This qualitative study precedes the consensus phase of developing this Core Outcome Set and aims to: (i) compare the outcomes identified by patients, carers and professionals to those previously reported in the literature; (ii) and understand why certain outcomes are considered important.

DESIGN AND METHODS

In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with people living with dementia, family carers and professionals (n=29). The outcomes identified in the interviews were mapped to a list of outcomes reported in a recent literature review. An in-depth thematic analysis was conducted to understand the importance of physical activity in dementia care.

RESULTS

A comprehensive, inductively derived list of 77 outcomes, common across stages of dementia and intervention setting, was put together for the consensus phase of this Core Outcome Set: ten of these were new outcomes generated by this qualitative study. Five themes explained why stakeholders perceived physical activity outcomes as important for people living with dementia: "being well and staying well", "having a role towards others", "maintaining identity", "being connected to the present" and "delivering good quality care".

CONCLUSION

Ten new outcomes of physical activity, not previously reported in recent literature, were identified. Physical activity is considered important to people living with dementia due to its positive impact on multiple health outcomes for both patients and carers.

Outcomes for Pressure Ulcer Trials (OUTPUTs): protocol for the development of a core domain set for trials evaluating the clinical efficacy or effectiveness of pressure ulcer prevention interventions

Background

Core outcome sets (COS) are being developed in many clinical areas to increase the quality and comparability of clinical trial results as well as to ensure their relevance for patients. A COS represents an agreed standardized set of outcomes that describes the minimum that should be consistently reported in all clinical trials of a defined area. It comprises a core domain set (defining what core outcomes should be measured) and a core measurement set (defining measurement/assessment instruments for each core domain). For pressure ulcer prevention trials a COS is lacking. The great heterogeneity of reported outcomes in this field indicates the need for a COS.

Methods/design

The first part of this project aims to develop a core domain set by following established methods, which incorporates four steps: (1) definition of the scope, (2) conducting a scoping review, (3) organizing facilitated workshops with service users, (4) performing Delphi surveys and establishing consensus in a face-to-face meeting with different stakeholders.

Discussion

After achieving consensus on the core domain set, further work will be undertaken to determine a corresponding core measurement set. This will lead to better pressure ulcer prevention research in the future. There are a number of methodological challenges in the field of COS development. To meet these challenges and to ensure a high-quality COS, the OUTPUTS project affiliates to current standards and works in close collaboration with international experts and with existing international service user groups.

Trial registration

The OUTPUTs project is registered in the COMET database: (http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/283). Registered on 2015.

Development of a core outcome set for traumatic brachial plexus injuries (COMBINE): study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Traumatic brachial plexus injury (TBPI) involves major trauma to the large nerves of the arm which control the movement and sensation. Fifty per cent of injuries result in complete paralysis of the arm with many other individuals having little movement, sensation loss and unremitting pain. The injury often causes severe and permanent disability affecting work and social life, with an estimated cost to the National Health Service and the economy of £35 million per annum. Advances in microsurgery have resulted in an increase in interventions aimed at reconstructing these injuries. However, data to guide evidence-based decisions is lacking. Different outcomes are used across studies to assess the effectiveness of treatments. This has impeded our ability to synthesise results to determine which treatments work best. Studies frequently report short-term clinical outcomes but rarely report longer term outcomes and those focused on quality of life. This project aims to produce a core outcome set (COS) for surgical and conservative management of TBPI. The TBPI COS will contain a minimum set of outcomes to be reported and measured in effectiveness studies and collected through routine clinical care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This mixed-methods project will be conducted in two phases. In phase 1 a long list of patient-reported and clinical outcomes will be identified through a systematic review. Interviews will then explore outcomes important to patients. In phase 2, the outcomes identified across the systematic review, and the interviews will be included in a three-round online Delphi exercise aiming to reach consensus on the COS. The Delphi process will include patient and healthcare participants. A consensus meeting will be held to achieve the final COS.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The use of a COS in TBPI will increase the relevance of research and clinical care to all stakeholders, facilitate evidence synthesis and evidence-based decision making. The study has ethical approval.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

CRD42018109843.

Parents Suggest Which Indicators of Progress and Outcomes Should be Measured in Young Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Evaluation of interventions for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is hampered by the multitude of outcomes measured and tools used. Measurement in research with young children tends to focus on core impairments in ASD. We conducted a systematic review of qualitative studies of what matters to parents. Parent advisory groups completed structured activities to explore their perceptions of the relative importance of a wide range of outcome constructs. Their highest ranked outcomes impacted directly on everyday life and functioning (anxiety, distress, hypersensitivity, sleep problems, happiness, relationships with brothers and sisters, and parent stress). Collaboration between professionals, researchers and parents/carers is required to determine an agreed core set of outcomes to use across evaluation research.

Improving outcome reporting in clinical trial reports and protocols: study protocol for the Instrument for reporting Planned Endpoints in Clinical Trials (InsPECT)

Background

Inadequate and poor quality outcome reporting in clinical trials is a well-documented problem that impedes the ability of researchers to evaluate, replicate, synthesize, and build upon study findings and impacts evidence-based decision-making by patients, clinicians, and policy-makers. To facilitate harmonized and transparent reporting of outcomes in trial protocols and published reports, the Instrument for reporting Planned Endpoints in Clinical Trials (InsPECT) is being developed. The final product will provide unique InsPECT extensions to the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) reporting guidelines.

Methods

The InsPECT SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions will be developed in accordance with the methodological framework created by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research Quality) Network for reporting guideline development. Development will consist of (1) the creation of an initial list of candidate outcome reporting items synthesized from expert consultations and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting outcomes in trial protocols and reports; (2) a three-round international Delphi study to identify additional candidate items and assess candidate item importance on a 9-point Likert scale, completed by stakeholders such as trial report and protocol authors, systematic review authors, biostatisticians and epidemiologists, reporting guideline developers, clinicians, journal editors, and research ethics board representatives; and (3) an in-person expert consensus meeting to finalize the set of essential outcome reporting items for trial protocols and reports, respectively. The consensus meeting discussions will be independently facilitated and informed by the empirical evidence identified in the primary literature and through the opinions (aggregate rankings and comments) collected via the Delphi study. An integrated knowledge translation approach will be used throughout InsPECT development to facilitate implementation and dissemination, in addition to standard post-development activities.

Discussion

InsPECT will provide evidence-informed and consensus-based standards focused on outcome reporting in clinical trials that can be applied across diverse disease areas, study populations, and outcomes. InsPECT will support the standardization of trial outcome reporting, which will maximize trial usability, reduce bias, foster trial replication, improve trial design and execution, and ultimately reduce research waste and help improve patient outcomes.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3248-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Otologic, audiometric and speech findings in patients undergoing surgery for cleft palate

BACKGROUND

Although considerable progress has been made in the last 30 years in the treatment of cleft palate (CP), a multidisciplinary approach combining examinations by a paediatrician, maxillofacial surgeon, otolaryngologist and speech and language pathologist followed by surgical operation is still required. In this work, we performed an observational cross-sectional study to determine whether the CP grade or number of ventilation tubes received was associated with tympanic membrane abnormalities, hearing loss or speech outcomes.

METHODS

Otologic, audiometric, tympanometric and speech evaluations were performed in a cohort of 121 patients (children > 6 years) who underwent an operation for CP at the Vall d'Hebron Hospital, Barcelona from 2000 to 2014.

RESULTS

The most and least frequent CP types evaluated according to the Veau grade were type III (55.37%) and I (8.26%), respectively. A normal appearance of the membrane was observed in 58% individuals, of whom 55% never underwent ventilation ear tube insertion. No statistically significant associations were identified between the CP type and number of surgeries for insertion of tubes (p = 0.820). The degree of hearing loss (p = 0.616), maximum impedance (p = 0.800) and tympanic membrane abnormalities indicative of chronic otitis media (COM) (p = 0.505) among examined patients revealed no statistically significant association with the grade of CP. However, an association was identified between hypernasality and the grade of CP (p = 0.053), COM (p = 0.000), hearing loss (p = 0.000) and number of inserted ventilation tubes.

CONCLUSION

Although the placement of tympanic ventilation tubes has been accompanied by an increased rate of COM, it is still important to assess whether this is a result of the number of ventilation tubes inserted or it is intrinsic to the natural history of middle ear inflammatory disease of such patients. Our results do not support improvements in speech, hearing, or tympanic membrane abnormalities with more aggressive management of COM with tympanostomy tubes.