Minimally Important Differences in Patient or Proxy-Reported Outcome Studies Relevant to Children: A Systematic Review

Efficacy of the subtenon block in children undergoing strabismus surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To investigate the efficacy of the subtenon block in preventing postoperative complications in children undergoing strabismus surgery.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and clinicaltrials.gov. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of the subtenon block in children undergoing strabismus surgery were included. Outcomes included severity of pain after surgery, number of children requiring postoperative opioid and non-opioid analgesia, and the incidences of postoperative nausea and vomiting, oculocardiac events, and block-related complications. We pooled continuous outcomes using a random-effects model to calculate the mean difference (MD) and/or standardized mean difference and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Dichotomous outcomes were pooled using a random-effect model to calculate the relative risk (RR) and corresponding 95% CI. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias instrument and quality of evidence was assessed using a Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs (607 participants) were included. We found evidence for an effect of the subtenon block in reducing pain at 20-40 min after surgery (MD -1.9, 95% CI -2.2 to -1.5; high-quality evidence) and on admission to PACU (MD -1.8, 95% CI -2.2 to -1.4; moderate-quality evidence); however, there was no difference in pain scores at 6 h after surgery. In addition, evidence was found that the subtenon block decreased the number of children requiring postoperative opioid (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.92; high-quality evidence) and non-opioid (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.98; moderate-quality evidence) analgesia, and the incidences of postoperative vomiting (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.7; high-quality evidence) and intraoperative oculocardiac events (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.60; high-quality evidence). Other secondary outcomes had low or moderate-quality evidence. Risk of bias was low in six trials and high in three. There were no reports of block-related complications.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that the subtenon block reduces the severity of early postoperative pain and the incidences of postoperative vomiting and intraoperative oculocardiac events compared with controls in children undergoing strabismus surgery.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42015025443).

Health-related quality scores in childhood interstitial lung disease: Good agreement between patient and caregiver reports

INTRODUCTION

Childhood interstitial lung disease (chILD) is a heterogeneous group of mostly chronic respiratory disorders. Assessment of health-related quality of life (HrQoL) in chILD has become increasingly important in clinical care and research. The aim of this study was to assess differences between patient-reported (self) and caregiver-reported (proxy) HrQoL scores.

METHODS

This study used data obtained from the chILD-EU Register. After inclusion (baseline), the patient's health status was followed up at predefined study visits. At each study visit, caregivers and patients were handed validated, age-specific HrQoL questionnaires. HrQoL data entered at baseline were used to compare self- and proxy-reported HrQoL scores. For the longitudinal analysis, we compared HrQoL scores between the baseline and the next follow-up visit.

RESULTS

No differences between patient- and caregiver-reported HrQoL scores were found for school functioning, chILD-specific questionnaire score, and physical health summary score. Self-reported HrQoL scores were higher for the subscales emotional functioning (77.4 vs. 70.7; p < .001), social functioning (81.9 vs. 76.2; p < .001), as well as psycho-social summary score (76.5 vs. 71.8; p < .001) and total score (74.7 vs. 70.8; <.001). The longitudinal analysis showed that a significant change in a patient-reported HrQoL score resulted in a significant change in a caregiver-reported HrQoL score after a mean time of 11.0 months (SD 9.4).

CONCLUSIONS

We found a good agreement between children- and caregiver-related HrQoL scores. In chILD, caregivers are able to sense changes in children's HrQoL scores over time and may be used as a proxy for children unable to complete HrQoL questionnaires.

Microbiota signatures and mucosal healing in the use of enteral nutrition therapy v. corticosteroids for the treatment of children with Crohn's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Corticosteroids (CS) and exclusive and partial enteral nutrition (EEN and PEN) are effective therapies in paediatric Crohn's disease (CD). This systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies analyses the impact of EEN/PEN v. CS on intestinal microbiota, mucosal healing as well as other clinically important outcomes, including clinical remission, relapse, adherence, adverse events and health-related quality of life (HRQL) in paediatric CD. Three RCT (n 76) and sixteen cohort studies (n 1104) compared EEN v. CS. With limited available data (one RCT), the effect on intestinal microbiome indicated a trend towards EEN regarding Shannon diversity. Based on two RCT, EEN achieved higher mucosal healing than CS (risk ratio (RR) 2·36, 95 % CI (1·22, 4·57), low certainty). Compared with CS, patients on EEN were less likely to experience adverse events based on two RCT (RR 0·32, 95 % CI (0·13, 0·80), low certainty). For HRQL, there was a trend in favour of CS based on data from two published abstracts of cohort studies. Based on thirteen cohort studies, EEN achieved higher clinical remission than CS (RR 1·18, 95 % CI (1·02, 1·38), very low certainty). Studies also reported no important differences in relapse and adherence. Compared with CS, EEN may improve mucosal healing with fewer adverse events based on RCT data. While limited data indicate the need for further trials, this is the first systematic review to comprehensively summarise the data on intestinal microbiome, mucosal healing and HRQOL when comparing enteral nutrition and CS in paediatric CD.

Minimal important difference in childhood interstitial lung diseases

Background

Monitoring disease progression in childhood interstitial lung diseases (chILD) is essential. No information for the minimal important difference (MID), which is defined as the smallest change in a parameter that is perceived as important prompting a clinician to change the treatment, is available. We calculated MIDs for vital signs (respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation in room air, Fan severity score) and health-related quality of life (HrQoL) scores.

Methods

This study used data from the Kids Lung Register, which is a web-based management platform that collects data of rare paediatric lung disorders with a focus on chILD. Data of vital signs and HrQoL scores (Health Status Questionnaire, chILD-specific questionnaire and PedsQL V.4.0) were collected. MIDs were calculated according to distribution-based (one-third SD) and anchor-based methods (using forced expiratory volume in 1 s and forced vital capacity) as anchors.

Results

Baseline data of 774 children were used to calculate the following MIDs: respiratory rate 1.3 (z-score), O2saturation in room air 3.0%, Fan severity score 0.2–0.4, Health Status Questionnaire 0.4–0.8, chILD-specific questionnaire 4.4%–8.2%, physical health summary score 7.8%–8.9%, psychosocial health summary score 3.4%–6.9% and total score 5.1%–7.4%. Results of the responsiveness analysis generally agreed with the MIDs calculated.

Conclusions

For the first time, we provide estimates of MIDs for vital signs and HrQoL scores in a large cohort of chILD using different methods.

Updating the Canadian clinical practice guideline for managing pediatric obesity: a protocol

BACKGROUND

Since the first national guideline for managing obesity in adults and children in Canada was published in 2007, new evidence has emerged and guideline standards have evolved. Our purpose is to describe the protocol used to update the Canadian clinical practice guideline for managing pediatric obesity.

METHODS

This guideline will update the pediatric components of the 2007 Canadian clinical practice guideline for the management of obesity. In partnership with Obesity Canada, we began preliminary work in 2019; activities are scheduled for completion in 2022. The guideline will follow standards developed by the National Academy of Medicine and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group. Guideline development will be informed by 5 complementary literature reviews: a scoping review that focuses on clinical assessment in pediatric obesity management and 4 systematic reviews to synthesize evidence regarding families' values and preferences as well as the safety and effectiveness of interventions (psychological and behavioural; pharmacotherapeutic; and surgical). We will use standard systematic review methodology, including summarizing and assessing the certainty of evidence and determining the strength of recommendations. Competing interests will be managed proactively according to recommendations from the Guidelines International Network. Diverse stakeholders, including families and clinicians, will be engaged throughout guideline development.

INTERPRETATION

The guideline will support Canadian families and clinicians to make informed, value-sensitive and evidence-based clinical decisions related to managing pediatric obesity. The guideline and accompanying resources for end-users will be published in English and French, and we will partner with Obesity Canada to optimize dissemination using integrated and end-of-project knowledge translation.

Triangulation of multiple meaningful change thresholds for patient-reported outcome scores

PURPOSE

The notion of what constitutes meaningful differences or changes in patient-reported outcome scores is represented by meaningful change thresholds (MCTs). Applying multiple methods to estimate MCTs inevitably results in a range of estimates; however, a single estimate or small range is sought in practice to enable consistent interpretation of scores. While current recommendations for triangulation are appropriate in principle, the vital step of moving from all estimates to a value or small range lacks clarity and is subjective in nature. This article aims to review current triangulation approaches and provide more robust recommendations than what is currently available.

METHODS

Current approaches to perform triangulation are described and discussed. Anchor-based estimates are focussed upon due to their recognition as the most valid and developed approach. Recommendations for triangulation are provided.

RESULTS

A correlation-weighted average of MCT estimates is recommended to triangulate multiple MCT estimates derived from a single study into a single value, where increased weighting is given to stronger anchor measures. The choice of method to triangulate estimates from several published studies is highly dependent on the availability of information within the publications. MCTs designed for between-group differences, within-group changes, and within-individual changes should be considered separately.

CONCLUSION

The recommendations within this article provide a reliable and transparent approach to triangulation when a single value is sought, based on meta-analytic approaches. This approach is preferable to a simple mean of estimates where all are weighted equally, or through 'eyeballing' plotted estimates which is unreliable. We encourage researchers to adopt these methods, but to remain aware of the limitations within each method and further nuances in study design that result in heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses with a range of plausible values are encouraged; however, the recommendations provide a suitable starting value for inferences. Unresolved issues in triangulation, requiring further exploration, are highlighted.

Evaluating the credibility of anchor based estimates of minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes: instrument development and reliability study

OBJECTIVE

To develop an instrument to evaluate the credibility of anchor based minimal important differences (MIDs) for outcome measures reported by patients, and to assess the reliability of the instrument.

DESIGN

Instrument development and reliability study.

DATA SOURCES

Initial criteria were developed for evaluating the credibility of anchor based MIDs based on a literature review (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycInfo databases) and the experience of the authors in the methodology for estimation of MIDs. Iterative discussions by the team and pilot testing with experts and potential users facilitated the development of the final instrument.

PARTICIPANTS

With the newly developed instrument, pairs of masters, doctoral, or postdoctoral students with a background in health research methodology independently evaluated the credibility of a sample of MID estimates.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Core credibility criteria applicable to all anchor types, additional criteria for transition rating anchors, and inter-rater reliability coefficients were determined.

RESULTS

The credibility instrument has five core criteria: the anchor is rated by the patient; the anchor is interpretable and relevant to the patient; the MID estimate is precise; the correlation between the anchor and the outcome measure reported by the patient is satisfactory; and the authors select a threshold on the anchor that reflects a small but important difference. The additional criteria for transition rating anchors are: the time elapsed between baseline and follow-up measurement for estimation of the MID is optimal; and the correlations of the transition rating with the baseline, follow-up, and change score in the patient reported outcome measures are satisfactory. Inter-rater reliability coefficients (ĸ) for the core criteria and for one item from the additional criteria ranged from 0.70 to 0.94. Reporting issues prevented the evaluation of the reliability of the three other additional criteria for the transition rating anchors.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers, clinicians, and healthcare policy decision makers can consider using this instrument to evaluate the design, conduct, and analysis of studies estimating anchor based minimal important differences.

From Research to Practice: The Importance of Appropriate Outcome Selection, Measurement, and Reporting in Pediatric Mental Health Research

Results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and, ideally, the synthesis of RCT results into meta-analyses, drive both clinical and policy decision making about health care interventions and inform new avenues for research. Selection of the right health outcomes to measure, analyze, and report on when designing a trial therefore is key in ensuring that the research will be useful and will have maximum impact.^1-3 As in many areas of medicine, wide variability exists in pediatric mental health research as to which outcomes are selected, how they are measured, and how they are reported. Variability in outcome selection and measurement may stem from various factors, including a tendency to select what is feasible or historical to measure rather than a focus on what is important to measure and how best to measure it. The resulting variability limits comparing and combining the results from different trials addressing a similar question in meta-analyses, hindering the translation of research to practice.^1,2 The objective of this article is to highlight the importance of outcome selection, measurement, and reporting in the translation of research to clinical practice.

Examining the Usage, User Experience, and Perceived Impact of an Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Program for Adolescents With Anxiety: Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT) increases treatment access for adolescents with anxiety; however, completion rates of iCBT programs are typically low. Understanding adolescents' experiences with iCBT, what program features and changes in anxiety (minimal clinically important difference [MCID]) are important to them, may help explain and improve iCBT program use and impact.

OBJECTIVE

Within a randomized controlled trial comparing a six-session iCBT program for adolescent anxiety, Being Real, Easing Anxiety: Tools Helping Electronically (Breathe), with anxiety-based resource webpages, we aimed to (1) describe intervention use among adolescents allocated to Breathe or webpages and those who completed postintervention assessments (Breathe or webpage respondents); (2) describe and compare user experiences between groups; and (3) calculate an MCID for anxiety and explore relationships between iCBT use, experiences, and treatment response among Breathe respondents.

METHODS

Enrolled adolescents with self-reported anxiety, aged 13 to 19 years, were randomly allocated to Breathe or webpages. Self-reported demographics and anxiety symptoms (Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children-2nd edition [MASC-2]) were collected preintervention. Automatically-captured Breathe or webpage use and self-reported symptoms and experiences (User Experience Questionnaire for Internet-based Interventions) were collected postintervention. Breathe respondents also reported their perceived change in anxiety (Global Rating of Change Scale [GRCS]) following program use. Descriptive statistics summarized usage and experience outcomes, and independent samples t tests and correlations examined relationships between them. The MCID was calculated using the mean MASC-2 change score among Breathe respondents reporting somewhat better anxiety on the GRCS.

RESULTS

Adolescents were mostly female (382/536, 71.3%), aged 16.6 years (SD 1.7), with very elevated anxiety (mean 92.2, SD 18.1). Intervention use was low for adolescents allocated to Breathe (mean 2.2 sessions, SD 2.3; n=258) or webpages (mean 2.1 visits, SD 2.7; n=278), but was higher for Breathe (median 6.0, range 1-6; 81/258) and webpage respondents (median 2.0, range 1-9; 148/278). Total user experience was significantly more positive for Breathe than webpage respondents (P<.001). Breathe respondents reported program design and delivery factors that may have challenged (eg, time constraints and program support) or facilitated (eg, demonstration videos, self-management activities) program use. The MCID was a mean MASC-2 change score of 13.8 (SD 18.1). Using the MCID, a positive treatment response was generated for 43% (35/81) of Breathe respondents. Treatment response was not correlated with respondents' experiences or use of Breathe (P=.32 to P=.88).

CONCLUSIONS

Respondents reported positive experiences and changes in their anxiety with Breathe; however, their reports were not correlated with program use. Breathe respondents identified program design and delivery factors that help explain their experiences and use of iCBT and inform program improvements. Future studies can apply our measures to compare user experiences between internet-based interventions, interpret treatment outcomes and improve treatment decision making for adolescents with anxiety.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02970734 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02970734.

Mapping the nomenclature, methodology, and reporting of studies that review methods: a pilot methodological review

BACKGROUND

A relatively novel method of appraisal, methodological reviews (MRs) are used to synthesize information on the methods used in health research. There are currently no guidelines available to inform the reporting of MRs.

OBJECTIVES

This pilot review aimed to determine the feasibility of a full review and the need for reporting guidance for methodological reviews.

METHODS

Search strategy: We conducted a search of PubMed, restricted to 2017 to include the most recently published studies, using different search terms often used to describe methodological reviews: "literature survey" OR "meta-epidemiologic* review" OR "meta-epidemiologic* survey" OR "methodologic* review" OR "methodologic* survey" OR "systematic survey."Data extraction: Study characteristics including country, nomenclature, number of included studies, search strategy, a priori protocol use, and sampling methods were extracted in duplicate and summarized.Outcomes: Primary feasibility outcomes were the sensitivity and specificity of the search terms (criteria for success of feasibility set at sensitivity and specificity of ≥ 70%).Analysis: The estimates are reported as a point estimate (95% confidence interval).

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-six articles were retrieved and 31 were included in the final analysis. The most accurate search term was "meta-epidemiological" (sensitivity [Sn] 48.39; 95% CI 31.97-65.16; specificity [Sp] 97.56; 94.42-98.95). The majority of studies were published by authors from Canada (n = 12, 38.7%), and Japan and USA (n = 4, 12.9% each). The median (interquartile range [IQR]) number of included studies in the MRs was 77 (13-1127). Reporting of a search strategy was done in most studies (n = 23, 74.2%). The use of a pre-published protocol (n = 7, 22.6%) or a justifiable sampling method (n = 5, 16.1%) occurred rarely.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the MR nomenclature identified, it is feasible to build a comprehensive search strategy and conduct a full review. Given the variation in reporting practices and nomenclature attributed to MRs, there is a need for guidance on standardized and transparent reporting of MRs. Future guideline development would likely include stakeholders from Canada, USA, and Japan.

Evaluation of an Internet-Based Behavioral Intervention to Improve Psychosocial Health Outcomes in Children With Insomnia (Better Nights, Better Days): Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Up to 25% of 1- to 10-year-old children experience insomnia (ie, resisting bedtime, trouble falling asleep, night awakenings, and waking too early in the morning). Insomnia can be associated with excessive daytime sleepiness and negative effects on daytime functioning across multiple domains (eg, behavior, mood, attention, and learning). Despite robust evidence supporting the effectiveness of behavioral treatments for insomnia in children, very few children with insomnia receive these treatments, primarily due to a shortage of available treatment resources.

Objective

The Better Nights, Better Days (BNBD) internet-based program provides a readily accessible electronic health (eHealth) intervention to support parents in providing evidence-based care for insomnia in typically developing children. The purpose of the randomized controlled trial (RCT) is to evaluate the effectiveness of BNBD in treating insomnia in children aged between 1 and 10 years.

Methods

BNBD is a fully automated program, developed based on evidence-based interventions previously tested by the investigators, as well as on the extant literature on this topic. We describe the 2-arm RCT in which participants (500 primary caregivers of children with insomnia residing in Canada) are assigned to intervention or usual care.

Results

The effects of this behavioral sleep eHealth intervention will be assessed at 4 and 8 months postrandomization. Assessment includes both sleep (actigraphy, sleep diary) and daytime functioning of the children and daytime functioning of their parents. Results will be reported using the standards set out in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement.

Conclusions

If the intervention is supported by the results of the RCT, we plan to commercialize this program so that it is sustainable and available at a low cost to all families with internet access.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02243501; https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02243501 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6x8Z5pBui)