How are trial outcomes prioritised by stakeholders from different regions? Analysis of an international Delphi survey to develop a core outcome set in gastric cancer surgery

COHESION: a core outcome set for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy

BACKGROUND

Heterogeneity in outcomes reported in trials of interventions for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy (NE) makes evaluating the effectiveness of treatments difficult. Developing a core outcome set for NE treatment would enable researchers to measure and report the same outcomes in future trials. This would minimise waste, ensure relevant outcomes are measured and enable evidence synthesis. Therefore, we aimed to develop a core outcome set for treating NE.

METHODS

Outcomes identified from a systematic review of the literature and interviews with parents were prioritised by stakeholders (n = 99 parents/caregivers, n = 101 healthcare providers, and n = 22 researchers/ academics) in online Delphi surveys. Agreement on the outcomes was achieved at online consensus meetings attended by n = 10 parents, n = 18 healthcare providers, and n = 13 researchers/ academics.

RESULTS

Seven outcomes were included in the final core outcome set: survival; brain injury on imaging; neurological status at discharge; cerebral palsy; general cognitive ability; quality of life of the child, and adverse events related to treatment.

CONCLUSION

We developed a core outcome set for the treatment of NE. This will allow future trials to measure and report the same outcomes and ensure results can be compared. Future work should identify how best to measure the COS.

IMPACT

We have identified seven outcomes that should be measured and reported in all studies for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy. Previously, a core outcome set for neonatal encephalopathy treatments did not exist. This will help to reduce heterogeneity in outcomes reported in clinical trials and other studies, and help researchers identify the best treatments for neonatal encephalopathy.

An international Delphi survey and consensus meeting to define the core outcome set for trigeminal neuralgia clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Trigeminal neuralgia (TN) is an excruciating unilateral facial pain, which negatively affects patient's quality of life. Historically, it has been difficult to compare treatment efficacy due to the lack of standardized outcomes. In addition, patients' perspective has seldomly been acknowledged. The aim of this study was to reach consensus on what outcomes of treatment are important to different TN stakeholders (patients, clinicians and researchers), to identify the TN Core Outcome Set (TRINCOS).

METHODS

A list of outcomes identified through a systematic review and focus group work was used to develop the survey questionnaire. A three-round Delphi was conducted. Participants were asked to score the outcomes on scale from 1 to 9 (1-3 not important;4-6 important but not critical;7-9 critical). Outcomes scored as critical by ≥70% and not important by <15% were retained, and those for which no consensus was reached were discussed at a consensus meeting.

RESULTS

Of the 70 participants who completed the Delphi, 26 were patients, 38 were clinicians and six were researchers. Of the 40 outcomes presented, 17 were scored as critical and no consensus was met for 23 outcomes. Agreement was reached during a consensus meeting on 10 outcomes across six domains (pain, side effects, social impact, quality of life, global improvement, and satisfaction with treatment).

CONCLUSION

Implementation of TRINCOS in future clinical trials will improve homogeneity of studies' results, reduce the redundancy in the outcome assessment and effectively allow comparison of different treatments to better inform researchers, clinicians and most importantly patients, about the efficacy of the different treatments.

SIGNIFICANCE

Implementation of a 10-item core outcome set in trigeminal neuralgia will improve comparability between studies allowing patients to have faster access to better treatments.

The Core Rehabilitation Outcome Set for Single-Sided Deafness (CROSSSD) study: International consensus on outcome measures for trials of interventions for adults with single-sided deafness

Background

Single-sided deafness (SSD) has functional, psychological, and social consequences. Interventions for adults with SSD include hearing aids and auditory implants. Benefits and harms (outcome domains) of these interventions are until now reported inconsistently in clinical trials. Inconsistency in reporting outcome measures prevents meaningful comparisons or syntheses of trial results. The Core Rehabilitation Outcome Set for Single-Sided Deafness (CROSSSD) international initiative used structured communication techniques to achieve consensus among healthcare users and professionals working in the field of SSD. The novel contribution is a set of core outcome domains that experts agree are critically important to assess in all clinical trials of SSD interventions.

Methods

A long list of candidate outcome domains compiled from a systematic review and published qualitative data, informed the content of a two-round online Delphi survey. Overall, 308 participants from 29 countries were enrolled. Of those, 233 participants completed both rounds of the survey and scored each outcome domain on a 9-point scale. The set of core outcome domains was finalised via a web-based consensus meeting with 12 participants. Votes involved all stakeholder groups, with an approximate 2:1 ratio of professionals to healthcare users participating in the Delphi survey, and a 1:1 ratio participating in the consensus meeting.

Results

The first round of the survey listed 44 potential outcome domains, organised thematically. A further five outcome domains were included in Round 2 based on participant feedback. The structured voting at round 2 identified 17 candidate outcome domains which were voted on at the consensus meeting. Consensus was reached for a core outcome domain set including three outcome domains: spatial orientation, group conversations in noisy social situations, and impact on social situations. Seventy-seven percent of the remaining Delphi participants agreed with this core outcome domain set.

Conclusions

Adoption of the internationally agreed core outcome domain set would promote consistent assessment and reporting of outcomes that are meaningful and important to all relevant stakeholders. This consistency will in turn enable comparison of outcomes reported across clinical trials comparing SSD interventions in adults and reduce research waste. Further research will determine how those outcome domains should best be measured.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06702-1.