Improving the relevance and consistency of outcomes in comparative effectiveness research

A core outcome set for trials evaluating self-management interventions in people with severe mental illness and coexisting type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

People with severe mental illness (SMI), such as schizophrenia, have higher rates of type 2 diabetes and worse outcomes, compared to those without SMI and it is not known whether diabetes self-management interventions are effective for people who have both conditions. Research in this area has been impeded by a lack of consensus on which outcomes to prioritise in people with co-existing SMI and diabetes.

AIMS

To develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in effectiveness trials of diabetes self-management interventions in adults with both type 2 diabetes and SMI.

METHODS

The COS was developed in three stages: (i) identification of outcomes from systematic literature review of intervention studies, followed by multi-stakeholder and service user workshops; (ii) rating of outcomes in a two-round online Delphi survey; (iii) agreement of final 'core' outcomes through a stakeholder consensus workshop.

RESULTS

Seven outcomes were selected: glucose control, blood pressure, body composition (body weight, BMI, body fat), health-related quality of life, diabetes self-management, diabetes-related distress and medication adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

This COS is recommended for future trials of effectiveness of diabetes self-management interventions for people with SMI and type 2 diabetes. Its use will ensure trials capture important outcomes and reduce heterogeneity so findings can be readily synthesised to inform practice and policy.

Development and content validity testing of a colonoscopy-specific patient-reported experience measure: the Patient Experience Colonoscopy Scale (PECS)

BACKGROUND

In endoscopic care, favourable patient experiences before, during and after a colonoscopy are essential for the patient's willingness to repeat the procedure. To ensure that significant experiences are measured, patients should be involved in creating the measurement instruments. Thus, the aim of the present study was to develop a colonoscopy-specific PREM by (1) operationalising patient experiences before, during and after a colonoscopy procedure and (2) evaluating its content validity.

METHODS

The colonoscopy-specific PREM was developed in two stages: (1) operationalisation with item generation and (2) content validity testing. A previously developed conceptual model, based on a systematic literature review that illustrates patients' (n = 245) experiences of undergoing a colonoscopy, formed the theoretical basis. To assess the degree to which the PREM reflected patients' experiences before, during and after a colonoscopy procedure, content validity was tested-through face validity with healthcare professionals (n = 4) and cognitive interviews with patients (n = 14) having experienced a colonoscopy. Content validity index (CVI) was calculated to investigate the relevance of the items.

RESULTS

The Patient Experience Colonoscopy Scale (PECS) is a colonoscopy-specific PREM consisting of five different constructs: health motivation, discomfort, information, a caring relationship and understanding. Each construct was defined and generated into a pool of items (n = 77). After face-validity assessment with healthcare professionals, a draft 52-item version of the PECS was ready for content validity testing by the patients. During cognitive interviews the patients contributed valuable insights that led to rewording and removal of items. Results from the CVI suggest that the PECS and its content are relevant (I-CVI range 0.5-1, S-CVI/Ave = 0.86). The final PECS consists of 30 items representing a colonoscopy-specific PREM.

CONCLUSION

The PECS is a new 30-item PREM instrument designed for adult elective colonoscopy patients after they have undergone the procedure. Each item in the PECS derives from a conceptual model based on a systematic literature review. Patients and healthcare professionals were involved in developing the PECS, which measures colonoscopy-specific patient experiences before, during and after the procedure. The content validity testing positively contributed to the development of the PECS. Psychometric properties need to be evaluated further.

Brain health measurement: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Preservation of brain health is an urgent priority for the world's ageing population. The evidence base for brain health optimisation strategies is rapidly expanding, but clear recommendations have been limited by heterogeneity in measurement of brain health outcomes. We performed a scoping review to systematically evaluate brain health measurement in the scientific literature to date, informing development of a core outcome set.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, APA PsycArticles and Embase were searched through until 25 January 2023.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Studies were included if they described brain health evaluation methods in sufficient detail in human adults and were in English language.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts for inclusion and extracted data using Covidence software.

RESULTS

From 6987 articles identified by the search, 727 studies met inclusion criteria. Study publication increased by 22 times in the last decade. Cohort study was the most common study design (n=609, 84%). 479 unique methods of measuring brain health were identified, comprising imaging, cognitive, mental health, biological and clinical categories. Seven of the top 10 most frequently used brain health measurement methods were imaging based, including structural imaging of grey matter and hippocampal volumes and white matter hyperintensities. Cognitive tests such as the trail making test accounted for 286 (59.7%) of all brain health measurement methods.

CONCLUSIONS

The scientific literature surrounding brain health has increased exponentially, yet measurement methods are highly heterogeneous across studies which may explain the lack of clinical translation. Future studies should aim to develop a selected group of measures that should be included in all brain health studies to aid interstudy comparison (core outcome set), and broaden from the current focus on neuroimaging outcomes to include a range of outcomes.

Population health interventions for cardiometabolic diseases in primary care: a scoping review and RE-AIM evaluation of current practices

Introduction

Cardiometabolic diseases (CMD) are the leading cause of death in high-income countries and are largely attributable to modifiable risk factors. Population health management (PHM) can effectively identify patient subgroups at high risk of CMD and address missed opportunities for preventive disease management. Guided by the Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework, this scoping review of PHM interventions targeting patients in primary care at increased risk of CMD aims to describe the reported aspects for successful implementation.

Methods

A comprehensive search was conducted across 14 databases to identify papers published between 2000 and 2023, using Arksey and O'Malley's framework for conducting scoping reviews. The RE-AIM framework was used to assess the implementation, documentation, and the population health impact score of the PHM interventions.

Results

A total of 26 out of 1,100 studies were included, representing 21 unique PHM interventions. This review found insufficient reporting of most RE-AIM components. The RE-AIM evaluation showed that the included interventions could potentially reach a large audience and achieve their intended goals, but information on adoption and maintenance was often lacking. A population health impact score was calculated for six interventions ranging from 28 to 62%.

Discussion

This review showed the promise of PHM interventions that could reaching a substantial number of participants and reducing CMD risk factors. However, to better assess the generalizability and scalability of these interventions there is a need for an improved assessment of adoption, implementation processes, and sustainability.

Assessing the uptake of the type 1 diabetes core outcome set in randomized controlled trials: A Cross-Sectional study

AIMS

This study analyzed uptake of the core outcome set (COS) for type 1 diabetes (T1D) and trends in its use before and after its development in December 2017.

METHODS

On June 26, 2023, ClinicalTrials.gov was systematically searched for T1D randomized controlled trials. The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database provided a COS of eight key outcomes for analysis. Included trials were analyzed for COS uptake before and after its release in December 2017 in a masked, duplicate fashion by independent reviewers. We also calculated the proportion of trials that measured the complete COS and assessed the most frequently reported COS outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 3,792 originally screened articles, 144 RCTs were included in the final sample. Following COS publication, its use steadily decreased. Within the COS, HbA1c and severe hypoglycemia were most frequently implemented as endpoints; other recommended outcomes were rarely used in the published trials.

CONCLUSION

Despite the 2017 T1D COS publication, use has decreased over time. This inconsistency negatively influences evidence-based practices and care. Educating researchers on COS and promoting uptake is crucial. Wider COS adoption in T1D trials could enhance clinical research overall. Further study of barriers and facilitators influencing uptake is essential to support consistent use and reporting.

European Glaucoma Society - A guide on surgical innovation for glaucoma

PROLOGUE: Glaucoma surgery has been, for many decades now, dominated by the universal gold standard which is trabeculectomy augmented with antimetabolites. Tubes also came into the scene to complement what we use to call conventional or traditional glaucoma surgery. More recently we experienced a changing glaucoma surgery environment with the "advent" of what we have become used to calling Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery (MIGS). What is the unmet need, what is the gap that these newcomers aim to fill? Hippocrates taught us "bring benefit, not harm" and new glaucoma techniques and devices aim to provide safer surgery compared to conventional surgery. For the patient, but also for the clinician, safety is important. Is more safety achieved with new glaucoma surgery and, if so, is it associated with better, equivalent, or worse efficacy? Is new glaucoma surgery intended to replace conventional surgery or to complement it as an 'add-on' to what clinicians already have in their hands to manage glaucoma? Which surgery should be chosen for which patient? What are the options? Are they equivalent? These are too many questions for the clinician! What are the answers to the questions? What is the evidence to support answers? Do we need more evidence and how can we produce high-quality evidence? This EGS Guide explores the changing and challenging glaucoma surgery environment aiming to provide answers to these questions. The EGS uses four words to highlight a continuum: Innovation, Education, Communication, and Implementation. Translating innovation to successful implementation is crucially important and requires high-quality evidence to ensure steps forward to a positive impact on health care when it comes to implementation. The vision of EGS is to provide the best possible well-being and minimal glaucomainduced visual disability in individuals with glaucoma within an affordable healthcare system. In this regard, assessing the changes in glaucoma surgery is a pivotal contribution to better care. As mentioned, this Guide aims to provide answers to the crucial questions above. However, every clinician is aware that answers may differ for every person: an individualised approach is needed. Therefore, there will be no uniform answer for all situations and all patients. Clinicians would need, through the clinical method and possibly some algorithm, to reach answers and decisions at the individual level. In this regard, evidence is needed to support clinicians to make decisions. Of key importance in this Guide is to provide an overview of existing evidence on glaucoma surgery and specifically on recent innovations and novel devices, but also to set standards in surgical design and reporting for future studies on glaucoma surgical innovation. Designing studies in surgery is particularly challenging because of many subtle variations inherent to surgery and hence multiple factors involved in the outcome, but even more because one needs to define carefully outcomes relevant to the research question but also to the future translation into clinical practice. In addition this Guide aims to provide clinical recommendations on novel procedures already in use when insufficient evidence exists. EGS has a long tradition to provide guidance to the ophthalmic community in Europe and worldwide through the EGS Guidelines (now in their 5th Edition). The EGS leadership recognized that the changing environment in glaucoma surgery currently represents a major challenge for the clinician, needing specific guidance. Therefore, the decision was made to issue this Guide on Glaucoma Surgery in order to help clinicians to make appropriate decisions for their patients and also to provide the framework and guidance for researchers to improve the quality of evidence in future studies. Ultimately this Guide will support better Glaucoma Care in accordance with EGS's Vision and Mission. Fotis Topouzis EGS President

The potential usefulness of standardized assessments to measure participant outcomes of adaptive/therapeutic horseback riding: a survey study

Adaptive or therapeutic riding (A/TR) is a recreational activity which provides mounted and ground-based horsemanship opportunities adapted to the abilities of the participants. A/TR provides physical and psychological benefits to participants with diverse disabilities, including physical, developmental, cognitive, and age-related disabilities, promoting higher quality of life. A/TR professionals may be limited in their capacity to implement outcome assessments and report the benefits of their community-based A/TR services to a broad audience. The purpose of this study was to identify whether and how A/TR professionals currently measure participant outcomes; benefits and barriers to implementing standardized assessments in A/TR; and characteristics which would make assessments useful in the community-based A/TR environment. To address this purpose, we conducted a survey among A/TR professionals. We found that while A/TR professionals measure outcomes among their participants, they typically do not use standardized assessments. Survey respondents believed benefits of implementing standardized assessments included bolstering the A/TR profession, acquiring funding, and communicating about A/TR services to a broad audience. Respondents also identified several barriers to implementing standardized assessments including time, systemic, and expertise constraints. Respondents reported that useful standardized assessments would be relevant to all age groups and populations who receive A/TR services. Finally, respondents shared that for standardized assessments to be useful, they would need to be low-cost, require less than 10-20 min, and available in either paper or computer format. This study revealed that standardized assessments may be a strong support to the A/TR profession; however, assessments must meet the unique needs of A/TR professionals.

Development of CORE-CM core outcome domain sets for trials of Chinese medicine for lumbar spinal stenosis

OBJECTIVES

Most Asian countries have employed Chinese medicine (CM) and Western medicine to treat lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Evidence synthesis and comparison of effectiveness are difficult since outcomes examined and presented through trials possess heterogeneity. This study aimed to solve the outcome problems for CM clinical trials in LSS by building a core outcome set (COS).

METHODS

To achieve an agreement on a set of core outcome domains, a four-phase study was carried out. First, we identified candidate outcome domains by systematically reviewing trials. In addition, we identified outcome domains associated with patients by conducting semistructured interviews with patients. Next, outcome domains were processed through a national two-round Delphi survey, in which 18 patients and 21 experts were recruited. Finally, the above domains were converted as a core outcome domain set based on a consensus meeting, in which 24 stakeholders were recruited.

RESULTS

Seventeen outcome subdomains were identified by the systematic review and interviews. The Delphi survey assigned a priority to four outcome domains in the first round and four outcomes additionally in the second round. The core outcome domains were determined through discussion and redefinition of outcomes in the consensus meeting: pain and discomfort, health-related quality of life, lumbar function, activities of daily living, measures of walking, patient global assessment, adverse events and CM-specific outcomes.

CONCLUSION

COS-CM-LSS is likely to enhance the consistency of outcomes reported in clinical trials. In-depth research should be conducted for the exploration of the best methods to examine the above outcomes.

A Core Outcome Set for Interventions to Prevent and/or Treat Delirium in Palliative Care

CONTEXT

Delirium is a serious neurocognitive syndrome which is highly prevalent in people approaching the end of life. Existing trials of interventions to prevent or treat delirium in adults receiving palliative care report heterogeneous outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To undertake an international consensus process to develop a core outcome set for trials of interventions, designed to prevent and/or treat delirium, for adults receiving palliative care.

METHODS

The core outcome set development process included a systematic review, qualitative interviews, modified Delphi method and virtual consensus meetings using nominal group technique (Registration http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/796). Participants included family members, clinicians, and researchers with experience of delirium in palliative care.

RESULTS

Forty outcomes were generated from the systematic review and interviews informing the Delphi Round one survey. The international Delphi panel comprised 92 participants including clinicians (n = 71, 77%), researchers (n = 13, 14%), and family members (n = 8, 9%). Delphi Round two was completed by 77 (84%) participants from Round one. Following the consensus meetings, four outcomes were selected for the core outcome set: 1) delirium occurrence (incidence and prevalence); 2) duration of delirium until resolution defined as either no further delirium in this episode of care or death; 3) overall delirium symptom profile (agitation, delusions or hallucinations, delirium symptoms and delirium severity); 4) distress due to delirium (person with delirium, and/or family and/or carers [including healthcare professionals]).

CONCLUSION

Using a rigorous consensus process, we developed a core outcome set comprising four delirium-specific outcomes for inclusion in future trials of interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium in palliative care.

A scoping review of the outcome reporting following surgery for chronic osteomyelitis of the lower limb

Chronic osteomyelitis (COM) of the lower limb in adults can be surgically managed by either limb reconstruction or amputation. This scoping review aims to map the outcomes used in studies surgically managing COM in order to aid future development of a core outcome set. A total of 11 databases were searched. A subset of studies published between 1 October 2020 and 1 January 2011 from a larger review mapping research on limb reconstruction and limb amputation for the management of lower limb COM were eligible. All outcomes were extracted and recorded verbatim. Outcomes were grouped and categorized as per the revised Williamson and Clarke taxonomy. A total of 3,303 records were screened, of which 99 studies were included. Most studies were case series (77/99; 78%) and assessed one method of reconstruction (68/99; 69%). A total of 511 outcomes were reported, which were grouped into 58 distinct outcomes. Overall, 143/511 of all outcomes (28%) were provided with a clear, in-text definition, and 231 outcomes (45%) had details reported of how and when they were measured. The most commonly reported outcome was 'recurrence of osteomyelitis' (62; 12%). The single-most patient-reported outcome measure was 'pain'. This study has highlighted significant inconsistencies in the defining, reporting, and measuring of outcomes across studies investigating surgical management for chronic osteomyelitis of the lower limb in adults. Future studies should clearly report complete details of how outcomes are defined and measured, including timing. The development of a standardized core outcome set would be of significant benefit in order to allow evidence synthesis and comparison across studies.

A non-invasive artificial intelligence approach for the prediction of human blastocyst ploidy: a retrospective model development and validation study

BACKGROUND

One challenge in the field of in-vitro fertilisation is the selection of the most viable embryos for transfer. Morphological quality assessment and morphokinetic analysis both have the disadvantage of intra-observer and inter-observer variability. A third method, preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A), has limitations too, including its invasiveness and cost. We hypothesised that differences in aneuploid and euploid embryos that allow for model-based classification are reflected in morphology, morphokinetics, and associated clinical information.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we used machine-learning and deep-learning approaches to develop STORK-A, a non-invasive and automated method of embryo evaluation that uses artificial intelligence to predict embryo ploidy status. Our method used a dataset of 10 378 embryos that consisted of static images captured at 110 h after intracytoplasmic sperm injection, morphokinetic parameters, blastocyst morphological assessments, maternal age, and ploidy status. Independent and external datasets, Weill Cornell Medicine EmbryoScope+ (WCM-ES+; Weill Cornell Medicine Center of Reproductive Medicine, NY, USA) and IVI Valencia (IVI Valencia, Health Research Institute la Fe, Valencia, Spain) were used to test the generalisability of STORK-A and were compared measuring accuracy and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).

FINDINGS

Analysis and model development included the use of 10 378 embryos, all with PGT-A results, from 1385 patients (maternal age range 21-48 years; mean age 36·98 years [SD 4·62]). STORK-A predicted aneuploid versus euploid embryos with an accuracy of 69·3% (95% CI 66·9-71·5; AUC 0·761; positive predictive value [PPV] 76·1%; negative predictive value [NPV] 62·1%) when using images, maternal age, morphokinetics, and blastocyst score. A second classification task trained to predict complex aneuploidy versus euploidy and single aneuploidy produced an accuracy of 74·0% (95% CI 71·7-76·1; AUC 0·760; PPV 54·9%; NPV 87·6%) using an image, maternal age, morphokinetic parameters, and blastocyst grade. A third classification task trained to predict complex aneuploidy versus euploidy had an accuracy of 77·6% (95% CI 75·0-80·0; AUC 0·847; PPV 76·7%; NPV 78·0%). STORK-A reported accuracies of 63·4% (AUC 0·702) on the WCM-ES+ dataset and 65·7% (AUC 0·715) on the IVI Valencia dataset, when using an image, maternal age, and morphokinetic parameters, similar to the STORK-A test dataset accuracy of 67·8% (AUC 0·737), showing generalisability.

INTERPRETATION

As a proof of concept, STORK-A shows an ability to predict embryo ploidy in a non-invasive manner and shows future potential as a standardised supplementation to traditional methods of embryo selection and prioritisation for implantation or recommendation for PGT-A.

FUNDING

US National Institutes of Health.

Outcome measures reported following feminizing genital gender affirmation surgery for transgender women and gender diverse individuals: A systematic review

Background

Feminizing genital gender affirmation surgery (fgGAS) may be an essential adjunct in the care of some transgender women and gender diverse individuals with gender incongruence. However, the comparison of different techniques of fgGAS may be confounded by variable outcome reporting and the use of inconsistent outcomes in the literature. This systematic review provides the most in-depth examination of fgGAS studies to date, and summarizes all reported outcomes, definitions, and the times when outcomes were assessed following these surgical interventions. Aims/Methods: This work intends to quantify the levels of outcome variability and definition heterogeneity in this expanding field and provides guidance on outcome reporting for future study authors. Candidate studies for this systematic review were sourced via an electronic, multi-database literature search. All primary, clinical research studies of fgGAS were included with no date limits. Paired collaborators screened each study for inclusion and performed data extraction to document the outcomes, definitions, and times of outcome assessment following fgGAS.

Results

After screening 1225 studies, 93 studies proceeded to data extraction, representing 7681 patients. 2621 separate individual outcomes were reported, 857 (32.7%) were defined, and the time of outcome assessment was given for 1856 outcomes (70.8%) but relied on nonspecific ranges of follow-up dates. "Attainment of orgasm", "Neovaginal stenosis", and "Neovaginal depth/length" were among the most commonly reported outcomes. Profound heterogeneity existed in the definitions used for these and for all outcomes reported in general.

Discussion

The results demonstrate a need for clear outcomes, agreed definitions, and times of outcome assessment following fgGAS in transgender women and gender diverse individuals. The adoption of a consistent set of outcomes and definitions reported by all future studies of fgGAS (a Core Outcome Set) will aid in improving treatment comparisons in this patient group. This review is the first step in that process.

Ginkgo biloba for tinnitus

BACKGROUND

Tinnitus is a symptom defined as the perception of sound in the absence of an external source. In England alone there are an estimated ¾ million general practice consultations every year where the primary complaint is tinnitus, equating to a major burden on healthcare services. Clinical management strategies include education and advice, relaxation therapy, tinnitus retraining therapy (TRT), cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), sound enrichment using ear-level sound generators or hearing aids, and drug therapies to manage co-morbid symptoms such as insomnia, anxiety or depression.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of Ginkgo biloba for tinnitus in adults and children.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; CENTRAL (2022, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 7 June 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting adults and children with acute or chronic subjective tinnitus. We included studies where the intervention involved Ginkgo biloba and this was compared to placebo, no intervention, or education and information. Concurrent use of other medication or other treatment was acceptable if used equally in each group. Where an additional intervention was used equally in both groups, we analysed this as a separate comparison. The review included all courses of Ginkgo biloba, regardless of dose regimens or formulations, and for any duration of treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were tinnitus symptom severity measured as a global score on a multi-item tinnitus questionnaire and serious adverse effects (bleeding, seizures). Our secondary outcomes were tinnitus loudness (change in subjective perception), tinnitus intrusiveness, generalised depression, generalised anxiety, health-related quality of life and other adverse effects (gastrointestinal upset, headache, allergic reaction). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included 12 studies (with a total of  1915 participants). Eleven studies compared the effects of Ginkgo biloba with placebo and one study compared the effects of Ginkgo biloba with hearing aids to hearing aids alone. All included studies were parallel-group RCTs. In general, risk of bias was high or unclear due to selection bias and poor reporting of allocation concealment and blinding of participants, personnel and outcome assessments. Due to heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and measurement methods used, only limited data pooling was possible.  Ginkgo biloba versus placebo When we pooled data from two studies for the primary outcome tinnitus symptom severity, we found that Ginkgo biloba may have little to no effect (Tinnitus Handicap Inventory scores) at three to six months compared to placebo, but the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference (MD) -1.35 (scale 0 to 100), 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.26 to 5.55; 2 studies; 85 participants) (very low-certainty). Ginkgo biloba may result in little to no difference in the risk of bleeding or seizures, with no serious adverse effects reported in either group (4 studies; 1154 participants; low-certainty). For the secondary outcomes, one study found that there may be little to no difference between the effects of Ginkgo biloba and placebo on tinnitus loudness measured with audiometric loudness matching at 12 weeks, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -4.00 (scale -10 to 140 dB), 95% CI -13.33 to 5.33; 1 study; 73 participants) (very low-certainty). One study found that there may be little to no difference between the effects of Ginkgo biloba and placebo on health-related quality of life measured with the Glasgow Health Status Inventory at three months (MD -0.58 (scale 0 to 100), 95% CI -4.67 to 3.51; 1 study; 60 participants) (low-certainty). Ginkgo biloba may not increase the frequency of other adverse effects (gastrointestinal upset, headache, allergic reaction) at three months compared to placebo (risk ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.60; 4 studies; 1175 participants) (low-certainty). None of the studies reported the other secondary outcomes of tinnitus intrusiveness or changes in depressive symptoms or depression, anxiety symptoms or generalised anxiety. Gingko biloba with concurrent intervention versus concurrent intervention only One study compared Ginkgo biloba with hearing aids to hearing aids only. It assessed the mean difference in the change in Tinnitus Handicap Inventory scores and tinnitus loudness using a 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) at three months. The study did not report adverse effects, tinnitus intrusiveness, changes in depressive symptoms or depression, anxiety symptoms or generalised anxiety, or health-related quality of life. This was a single, very small study (22 participants) and for all outcomes the certainty of the evidence was very low. We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is uncertainty about the benefits and harms of Ginkgo biloba for the treatment of tinnitus when compared to placebo. We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions regarding the benefits and harms of Ginkgo biloba when used with concurrent intervention (hearing aids). The certainty of the evidence for the reported outcomes, assessed using GRADE, ranged from low to very low. Future research into the effectiveness of Ginkgo biloba in patients with tinnitus should use rigorous methodology. Randomisation and blinding should be of the highest quality, given the subjective nature of tinnitus and the strong likelihood of a placebo response. The CONSORT statement should be used in the design and reporting of future studies. We also recommend the use of validated, patient-centred outcome measures for research in the field of tinnitus.

Comparison of published core outcome sets with outcomes recommended in regulatory guidance from the US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency: cross sectional analysis

Objective

To compare the outcomes in published core outcome sets with the outcomes recommended in corresponding guidance documents from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), matched by health condition.

Design

Cross sectional analysis.

Setting

US and Europe.

Population

Sample of core outcome sets related to drugs, devices, and gene therapy that involved patients in the consensus process, published between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2019; and corresponding EMA and FDA guidance documents.

Main outcome measures

The extent of matches between outcomes included within core outcome sets and those recommended in corresponding EMA and FDA guidance documents were assessed. Matches were considered to be general (ie, non-specific) or specific (ie, exact). General matches were assessed to determine whether the core outcome set or guidance document outcome was narrower.

Results

Relevant guidance documents were found for for 38 (39%) of 98 eligible published core outcome sets. Among outcomes in core outcome sets, medians of 70% (interquartile range 48-86%) and 52% (33-77%) were matches with outcomes recommended in EMA and FDA documents, respectively. Medians of 46% (27-68%) and 26% (18-46%) were specific matches with outcomes in EMA and FDA documents, respectively. When outcomes were generally matched, the outcomes from core outcome sets were more frequently narrower than the regulatory outcomes (83% and 75% for EMA and FDA, respectively).

Conclusion

Greater adoption of, and reference to, core outcome sets in regulatory guidance documents can encourage clinical trialists, especially those in industry, to measure and report consistent and agreed outcomes and improve the quality of guidance. Given the overlap between outcomes in core outcome sets and regulatory guidance, and given that most core outcome sets now involve patients in the consensus process, these sets could serve as a useful resource for regulators when recommending outcomes for studies evaluating regulated products. Developers are encouraged to appraise recommended outcomes in salient regulatory documents when planning a core outcome set.

Patients value their own pain over braking safety when deciding when to return to driving: a discrete choice experiment on lower extremity injuries

Objective

To quantify patient preferences towards time to return to driving relative to compromised reaction time and potential complication risks.

Design

Cross-sectional discrete choice experiment.

Setting

Academic trauma center.

Patients

Ninety-six adult patients with an operative lower extremity fracture from December 2019 through December 2020.

Intervention

None.

Main Outcome Measurement

Patient completed a discrete choice experiment survey consisting of 12 hypothetical return to driving scenarios with varied attributes: time to return to driving (range: 1 to 6 months), risk of implant failure (range: 1% to 12%), pain upon driving return (range: none to severe), and driving safety measured by braking distance (range: 0 to 40 feet at 60 mph). The relative importance of each attribute is reported on a scale of 0% to 100%.

Results

Patients most valued a reduced pain level when resuming driving (62%), followed by the risk of implant failure (17%), time to return to driving (13%), and braking safety (8%). Patients were indifferent to returning to driving at 1 month (median utility: 28, interquartile range [IQR] -31 to 80) or 2 months (median utility: 59, IQR: 41 to 91) postinjury.

Conclusion

Patients with lower extremity injuries demonstrated a willingness to forego earlier return to driving if it might mean a decrease in their pain level. Patients are least concerned about their driving safety, instead placing higher value on their own pain level and chance of implant failure. The findings of this study are the first to rigorously quantify patient preferences toward a return to driving and heterogeneity in patient preferences.

Level of Evidence

V.

Review finds core outcome set uptake in new studies and systematic reviews needs improvement

OBJECTIVE

To review evidence about the uptake of core outcome sets (COS). A COS is an agreed standardized set of outcomes that should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all clinical trials in a specific area of health or health care.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This article provides an analysis of what is known about the uptake of COS in research. Similarities between COS and outcomes recommended by stakeholders in the evidence ecosystem is reviewed, and actions taken by them to facilitate COS uptake described.

RESULTS

COS uptake is low in most research areas. Common facilitators relate to trialist awareness and understanding. Common barriers were not including in the development process all specialties who might use the COS, and the lack of recommendations for how to measure the outcomes. Increasingly, COS developers are considering strategies for promoting uptake earlier in the process, including actions beyond traditional dissemination approaches. Overlap between COS and outcomes in regulatory documents and health technology assessments is good. An increasing number and variety of organisations are recommending COS be considered.

CONCLUSION

We suggest actions for various stakeholders for improving COS uptake. Research is needed to assess the impact of these actions to identify effective evidence-based strategies.

Identification of outcomes to inform the development of a core outcome set for surgical innovation: a targeted review of case studies of novel surgical devices

OBJECTIVE

Outcome selection and reporting in studies of novel surgical procedures and devices lacks standardisation, hindering safe and effective evaluation. A core outcome set (COS) to measure and report in all studies of surgical innovation is needed. We explored outcomes in a specific sample of innovative surgical device case studies to identify outcome domains specifically relevant to innovation to inform the development of a COS.

DESIGN

A targeted review of 11 purposive selected case studies of innovative surgical devices.

METHODS

Electronic database searches in PubMed (July 2018) identified publications reporting the introduction and evaluation of each device. Outcomes were extracted and categorised into domains until no new domains were conceptualised. Outcomes specifically relevant to evaluating innovation were further scrutinised.

RESULTS

112 relevant publications were identified, and 5926 outcomes extracted. Heterogeneity in study type, outcome selection and reporting was observed across surgical devices. Categorisation of outcomes was performed for 2689 (45.4%) outcomes into five broad outcome domains. Outcomes considered key to the evaluation of innovation (n=66; 2.5%) were further categorised as surgeon/operator experience (n=40; 1.5%), unanticipated events (n=15, 0.6%) and modifications (n=11; 0.4%).

CONCLUSION

Outcome domains unique to evaluating innovative surgical devices have been identified. Findings have been combined with multiple other data sources relevant to the evaluation of surgical innovation to inform the development of a COS to measure and report in all studies evaluating novel surgical procedures/devices.

Outcome selection for tissue-agnostic drug trials for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: a systematic review of core outcome sets and regulatory guidance

Background

Tissue-agnostic drug development provides a paradigm shift in precision medicine and requires innovative trial designs. However, outcome selection for such trials can prove challenging. The objectives of this review were to: (i)

Identify and map core outcome sets (COS), across 11 immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) in order to facilitate the selection of relevant outcomes across the conditions for innovative trials of tissue-agnostic drug therapies.

(ii)

Compare outcomes or endpoints recommended by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) to identify and highlight similarities and differences.

Methods

The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET), International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM), FDA and EMA databases were searched from inception to 28th December 2019. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts of retrieved entries and conducted the subsequent full text screening. Hand searching of the reference lists and citation searching of the selected publications was conducted. The methodological quality of the included peer-reviewed articles was independently assessed by the reviewers based on the items of the COS–Standards for Development recommendations (COS–STAD) checklist. Core outcomes from the included publications were extracted and mapped across studies and conditions. Regulatory guidance from FDA and EMA, where available for clinical trials for the IMIDs, were obtained from their databases and recommendations on outcomes to measure directly compared.

Results

Forty-four COS publications were included in the final analysis. Outcomes such as disease activity, pain, fatigue, quality of life, physical function, work limitation/productivity, steroid use and biomarkers were recommended across majority of the conditions. There were significant similarities and differences in FDA and EMA recommendations. The only instance where either regulatory body directly referenced a COS was for jSLE—both referenced the Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organization (PRINTO) COS.

Conclusions

The findings from this systematic review provide valuable information to inform outcome selection in tissue-agnostic trials for IMIDs. There is a need for increased collaboration between regulators and COS developers and inclusion of regulators as key stakeholders in COS development to enhance the quality of COS.

Trial registration

Not registered.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06000-w.

Outcomes and measures of delirium interventional studies in palliative care to inform a core outcome set: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Trials of interventions for delirium in various patient populations report disparate outcomes and measures but little is known about those used in palliative care trials. A core outcome set promotes consistency of outcome selection and measurement.

AIM

To inform core outcome set development by examining outcomes, their definitions, measures and time-points in published palliative care studies of delirium prevention or treatment delirium interventions.

DESIGN

Prospectively registered systematic review adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

DATA SOURCES

We searched six electronic databases (1980-November 2020) for original studies, three for relevant reviews and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for unpublished studies and ongoing trials. We included randomised, quasi-randomised and non-randomised intervention studies of pharmacological and non-pharmacological delirium prevention and/or treatment interventions.

RESULTS

From 13/3244 studies (2863 adult participants), we identified 9 delirium-specific and 13 non-delirium specific outcome domains within eight Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) taxonomy categories. There were multiple and varied outcomes and time points in each domain. The commonest delirium specific outcome was delirium severity (n = 7), commonly using the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (6/8 studies, 75%). Four studies reported delirium incidence. Non-delirium specific outcomes included mortality, agitation, adverse events, other symptoms and quality of life.

CONCLUSION

The review identified few delirium interventions with heterogeneity in outcomes, their definition and measurement, highlighting the need for a uniform approach. Findings will inform the next stage to develop consensus for a core outcome set to inform delirium interventional palliative care research.

Core outcome set for preventive intervention trials in chronic and episodic migraine (COSMIG): an international, consensus-derived and multistakeholder initiative

OBJECTIVE

Typically, migraine prevention trials focus on reducing migraine days. This narrow focus may not capture all that is important to people with migraine. Inconsistency in outcome selection across trials limits the potential for data pooling and evidence synthesis. In response, we describe the development of core outcome set for migraine (COSMIG).

DESIGN

A two-stage approach sought to achieve international, multistakeholder consensus on both the core domain set and core measurement set. Following construction of a comprehensive list of outcomes, expert panellists (patients, healthcare professionals and researchers) completed a three-round electronic-Delphi study to support a reduction and prioritisation of core domains and outcomes. Participants in a consensus meeting finalised the core domains and methods of assessment. All stages were overseen by an international core team, including patient research partners.

RESULTS

There was a good representation of patients (episodic migraine (n=34) and chronic migraine (n=42)) and healthcare professionals (n=33) with high response and retention rates. The initial list of domains and outcomes was reduced from >50 to 7 core domains for consideration in the consensus meeting, during which a 2-domain core outcome set was agreed.

CONCLUSION

International and multistakeholder consensus emerged to describe a two-domain core outcome set for reporting research on preventive interventions for chronic and episodic migraine: migraine-specific pain and migraine-specific quality of life. Intensity of migraine pain assessed with an 11-point Numerical Rating Scale and the frequency as the number of headache/migraine days over a specified time period. Migraine-specific quality of life assessed using the Migraine Functional Impact Questionnaire.

The standards of obstetrics and gynecology core outcome sets: A scoping review

Background

Core outcome sets (COSs) are the minimum outcomes which should be measured and reported by researchers investigating a specific condition. The definition of standards of COSs vary across different health-related areas. This investigated the characteristics of COSs regarding obstetrics and gynecology (OG) and examined the reports and designs of standards of OG COSs.

Methods

A comprehensive search was conduced on the COMET database on December 20, 2019 to identify systematic reviews on COSs. Two reviewers independently evaluated whether the reported OG COS met the reporting requirements as stipulated in the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting (COS-STAR) statement checklist and the minimum design recommendations as outlined in the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) checklist.

Results

Forty-four OG COSs related to 26 topics were identified. None of them met all the 25 standards of COS-STAR statement which representing 18 items considered essential for transparent and complete reporting list for all COS studies (range: 6.0-24.0, median: 14.0). The compliance rates to 16 standards of methods and result sections ranged from 27.3%–68.2%. Total COS-STAR compliance items for OG COSs with the prior protocol was significantly higher than without prior protocol (MD = 3.846, 95% CI: 0.835–6.858, P = 0.012). None of the OG COSs met all the 12 criteria in the COS-STAD minimum standards (range: 3.0-11.0, median: 5.0). The compliance rates for all three standards of stakeholders involved and all four standards of the consensus process were lower than 60%.

Conclusions

Methodological and reporting standards of OG COSs should be improved.

Current State of the Medical Student Performance Evaluation: A Tool for Reflection for Residency Programs

BACKGROUND

The Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE) provides important information to residency programs. Despite recent recommendations for standardization, it is not clear how much variation exists in MSPE content among schools.

OBJECTIVES

We describe the current section content of the MSPE in US allopathic medical schools, with a particular focus on variations in the presentation of student performance.

METHODS

A representative MSPE was obtained from 95.3% (143 of 150) of allopathic US medical schools through residency applications to the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in select programs for the 2019-2020 academic year. A manual data abstraction tool was piloted in 2018-2019. After training, it was used to code all portions of the MSPE in this study. The results were analyzed, and descriptive statistics were reported.

RESULTS

In preclinical years, 30.8% of MSPEs reported data regarding performance of students beyond achieving "passes" in a pass/fail curriculum. Only half referenced performance in the fourth year including electives, acting internships, or both. About two-thirds of schools included an overall descriptor of comparative performance in the final paragraph. Among these schools, a majority provided adjectives such as "outstanding/excellent/very good/good," while one-quarter reported numerical data categories. Regarding clerkship grades, there were numerous nomenclature systems used.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis demonstrates the existence of extreme variability in the content of MSPEs submitted by US allopathic medical schools in the 2019-2020 cycle, including the components and nomenclature of grades and descriptors of comparative performance, display of data, and inclusion of data across all years of the medical education program.

Study protocol to develop a core outcome set for thyroid dysfunction to bridge the unmet needs of patient-centred care

INTRODUCTION

Thyroid dysfunctions (TD) are common medical conditions affecting all global populations. Improved healthcare leading to increasing survival rates and delayed diagnosis rendered significant burden of the disease in the increasing number of patients with TD with comorbid illnesses. Therefore, reducing the burden of TD and improving the quality of care are crucial. Existing poor-quality data that guide evidence-based decisions only provide a fragmented picture of clinical care. The different outcomes across studies assessing the effectiveness of treatments impede our ability to synthesise results for determining the most efficient treatments. This project aims to produce a core outcome set (COS), which embeds the multiple complex dimensions of routine clinical care for the effectiveness studies and clinical care of adult patients with TD.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This mixed-method project has two phases. In phase 1, we will identify a list of patient-reported and clinical outcomes through qualitative research and systematic reviews. In phase 2, we will categorise the identified outcomes using the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials taxonomy of core domains and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. We will develop questionnaires from the list of outcomes identified from each domain for the two-round online Delphi exercise, aiming to reach a consensus on the COS. The Delphi process will include patients, carers, researchers and healthcare participants. We will hold an online consensus meeting involving representatives of all key stakeholders to establish the final COS.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects, Universiti Putra Malaysia and the Research Ethics Committee, National University of Malaysia. This proposed COS in TD will improve the value of data, facilitate high-quality evidence synthesis and evidence-based decision-making. Furthermore, we will present the results to participants, in peer-reviewed academic journals and conferences.

REGISTRATION DETAILS

Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative database registration: http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1371.

The popularity of outcome measures used in shoulder arthroplasty literature

INTRODUCTION

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are frequently utilized within orthopaedics to determine the extent of patient disease and the efficacy of surgical treatments. Shoulder arthroplasty is a common treatment option for a range of pathologies; however, substantial variety exists regarding the instruments used within the published literature, limiting their quality and generalizability. The purpose of the present systematic review is to evaluate the overall number and frequency of outcome measures used in all clinical studies evaluating outcomes following shoulder arthroplasty.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Relevant studies that assessed patient reported outcomes following total shoulder arthroplasty, reverse shoulder arthroplasty, and shoulder hemiarthroplasty were obtained from PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases. For each manuscript, the journal, authors, region of origin, level of evidence, and subject/pathology were recorded. The frequency of each reported outcome measure and category. Associations between study characteristics and measure categories were tested using Poisson regression with robust error variance.

RESULTS

A total of 682 articles were included in the analysis, reporting 42 different PROs. The most popular tools were the Constant-Murley score (49.7%), the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Evaluation Form (37.7%), and the Visual Analog Scale (34.3%). A generic outcome tool was used in 287 studies (42.1%), while 645 (94.6%) utilized a shoulder-specific measure and 49 (7.2%) used a disease-specific measure. The use of generic (p<0.001) and disease specific (p<0.001) measures were associated with higher level of evidence.

CONCLUSION

Studies assessing patient outcomes following shoulder arthroplasty employ a large range of PRO measuring tools, many of which are non-validated. Furthermore, only a small percentage of studies utilize a combination of tools from different categories despite current recommendations. Consensus on validated and clinically-meaningful tools from multiple categories is necessary to increase the generalizability and applicability of published studies in shoulder arthroplasty literature.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1.

A Systematic Review of Outcome Reporting, Definition and Measurement Heterogeneity in Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer Effectiveness Trials of Adjuvant, Prophylactic Treatment After Transurethral Resection

BACKGROUND

Heterogenous outcome reporting in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) effectiveness trials of adjuvant treatment after transurethral resection (TURBT) has been noted in systematic reviews (SRs). This hinders comparing results across trials, combining them in meta-analyses, and evidence-based decision-making for patients and clinicians.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to systematically review the extent of reporting and definition heterogeneity.

METHODS

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from SRs comparing adjuvant treatments after TURBT or TURBT alone in patients with NMIBC (with or without carcinoma in situ) published between 2000-2020. Abstracts and full texts were screened independently by two reviewers. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by another.

RESULTS

We screened 807 abstracts; from 15 SRs, 57 RCTs were included. Verbatim outcome names were coded to standard outcome names and organised using the Williamson and Clarke taxonomy. Recurrence (98%), progression (74%), treatment response (in CIS studies) (40%), and adverse events (77%) were frequently reported across studies. However, overall (33%) and cancer-specific (33%) survival, treatment completion (17%) and treatment change (37%) were less often reported. Quality of Life (3%) and economic outcomes (2%) were rarely reported. Heterogeneity was evident throughout, particularly in the definitions of progression and recurrence, and how CIS patients were handled in the analysis of studies with predominantly papillary patients, highlighting further issues with the definition of recurrence and progression vs treatment response for CIS patients. Data reporting was also inconsistent, with some trials reporting event rates at various time-points and others reporting time-to-event with or without Hazard Ratios. Adverse events were inconsistently reported. QoL data was absent in most trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Heterogenous outcome reporting is evident in NMIBC effectiveness trials. This has profound implications for meta-analyses, SRs and evidence-based treatment decisions. A core outcome set is required to reduce heterogeneity.

PATIENT SUMMARY

This systematic review found inconsistencies in outcome definitions and reporting, pointing out the urgent need for a core outcome set to help improve evidence-based treatment decisions.

Automated Identification of Common Disease-Specific Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research Using ClinicalTrials.gov: Algorithm Development and Validation Study

Background

Common disease-specific outcomes are vital for ensuring comparability of clinical trial data and enabling meta analyses and interstudy comparisons. Traditionally, the process of deciding which outcomes should be recommended as common for a particular disease relied on assembling and surveying panels of subject-matter experts. This is usually a time-consuming and laborious process.

Objective

The objectives of this work were to develop and evaluate a generalized pipeline that can automatically identify common outcomes specific to any given disease by finding, downloading, and analyzing data of previous clinical trials relevant to that disease.

Methods

An automated pipeline to interface with ClinicalTrials.gov’s application programming interface and download the relevant trials for the input condition was designed. The primary and secondary outcomes of those trials were parsed and grouped based on text similarity and ranked based on frequency. The quality and usefulness of the pipeline’s output were assessed by comparing the top outcomes identified by it for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to a list of 80 outcomes manually abstracted from the most frequently cited and comprehensive reviews delineating clinical outcomes for COPD.

Results

The common disease-specific outcome pipeline successfully downloaded and processed 3876 studies related to COPD. Manual verification indicated that the pipeline was downloading and processing the same number of trials as were obtained from the self-service ClinicalTrials.gov portal. Evaluating the automatically identified outcomes against the manually abstracted ones showed that the pipeline achieved a recall of 92% and precision of 79%. The precision number indicated that the pipeline was identifying many outcomes that were not covered in the literature reviews. Assessment of those outcomes indicated that they are relevant to COPD and could be considered in future research.

Conclusions

An automated evidence-based pipeline can identify common clinical trial outcomes of comparable breadth and quality as the outcomes identified in comprehensive literature reviews. Moreover, such an approach can highlight relevant outcomes for further consideration.

Improving Adherence to Wearing Compression Stockings for Chronic Venous Insufficiency and Venous Leg Ulcers: A Scoping Review

PURPOSE

Patient adherence to wearing compression stockings in the management of chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) and venous leg ulcers (VLUs) is low. Poor adherence with compression stockings contributes to recurrence and impaired healing of VLUs. As such, the purpose of this review was to report on the scientific evidence related to adherence and explore modifiable factors which impact adherence with compression stockings.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted from inception to 31 October 2019. Following the PRISMA-ScR Checklist, PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, OT Seeker and Web of Science were explored using search terms: compression/compression stocking/compression garment/compression sock/stockings/garments and adherence/compliance/concordance.

RESULTS

We identified 2613 papers of which 125 full text papers were assessed for eligibility and 69 met inclusion criteria. Papers were grouped and charted by concepts relevant to the research questions and narratively synthesized. Several dominant themes emerged, and a conceptual framework was developed incorporating modifiable variables, adherence itself, and outcomes related to adherence. Specifically considering interventions to improve adherence, only five of 14 randomized controlled trials were able to demonstrate improvements in adherence through unidimensional approaches. All nine of the case studies/series demonstrated a positive impact on adherence, eight of which described a personalized multidimensional approach. A lack of consensus around defining, measuring, and quantifying adherence with compression stockings was identified, resulting in wide variation in reported adherence rates.

CONCLUSION

Inconsistency in the definition and measurement of adherence limits meaningful interpretation of the literature. No individual intervention has consistently demonstrated improved adherence. Multidimensional interventions show promise but require further investigation with high-quality trials. Improving adherence appears to improve health outcomes in VLU /CVI populations but there is a lack of information directly linking improved adherence with cost outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework: ACTRN12620000544976p.

Reasons and factors associated with inconclusiveness of systematic reviews about interventions for neuropathic pain

Aim: Systematic reviews (SRs) are frequently inconclusive. The aim of this study was to analyze factors associated with conclusiveness of SRs about efficacy and safety of interventions for neuropathic pain (NeuP). Materials & methods: The study protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (No. CRD42015025831). Five electronic databases (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Psychological Information Database) were searched until July 2018 for SRs about NeuP management. Conclusion statements for efficacy and safety, and characteristics of SRs were analyzed. Conclusiveness was defined as explicit statement by the SR authors that one intervention is better/similar to the other in terms of efficacy and safety. Methodological quality of SRs was assessed with the AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) tool. Results: Of 160 SRs, 37 (23%) were conclusive for efficacy and/or safety. In the SRs, conclusions about safety were missing in half of the analyzed abstracts, and a third of the full texts. Conclusive SRs included significantly more trials and participants, searched more databases, had more authors, conducted meta-analysis, analyzed quality of evidence, and had lower methodological quality than inconclusive SRs. The most common reasons for the lack of conclusiveness indicated by the SR authors were the small number of participants and trials, and the high heterogeneity of included studies. Conclusion: Most SRs about NeuP treatment were inconclusive. Sources of inconclusiveness of NeuP reviews need to be further studied, and SR authors need to provide conclusions about both safety and efficacy of interventions.

When Evidence Goes "Missing in Action": Implications for Patient Management in Cardiac Surgery

Best-practice clinical decision-making for patient blood management (PBM) and transfusion in cardiac surgery requires high-quality, timely information. However, evidence will be misleading if published information lags too far behind evolving practice, or if trial results are biased, incomplete, or unreported. The result is that providers are deprived of accurate data, and patients will not receive best possible care. Publicly accessible trial registries provide information for structured audits of reporting compliance, and appraisal of evidence attrition and distortion. Trials related to blood management and transfusion in cardiac surgery and those registered in ClinicalTrials.gov were evaluated for relevance, reliability, transparency, timeliness, and prevalence of unreported trial results. Evidence was considered to have "disappeared" if no results were posted to the registry and no related PUBMED publications were available by July 2019. Data were summarized by descriptive statistics. A total of 181 registered trials were surveyed; 52% were prospectively registered. Most commonly reported primary outcomes were laboratory surrogate measures (34%). Patient- and practice-relevant outcomes-mortality/major morbidity (7%), transfusion (27%), and major bleeding (28%)-were less common. Only seven studies posted results to the registry within the mandated 12 months from study completion; median time to posting was 17 (interquartile range [IQR] 13, 37) months. Trial results for 58% were unreported 3-9 years after trial completion. A staggering amount of clinical trial evidence for PBM in cardiac surgery is missing from publicly accessible records and the literature. Investigators must be incentivized to promptly and completely report all results. Penalties for noncompliance are already in place and should be enforced. Simplified information linkage, centralized and routine audit cycles, and prioritization of robust "living" reviews may be more positive motivators. Implementation will require a sea change in the prevailing culture of research reporting, plus coordinated efforts of clinicians, applied statisticians, information technology specialists, and research librarians.

A roadmap to advance delirium research: Recommendations from the NIDUS Scientific Think Tank

Delirium is an acute disorder of attention and cognition. It occurs across the life span, yet it is particularly common among older adults, and is closely linked with underlying neurocognitive disorders. Evidence is mounting that intervening on delirium may represent an important opportunity for delaying the onset or progression of dementia. To accelerate the current understanding of delirium, the Network for Investigation of Delirium: Unifying Scientists (NIDUS) held a conference “Advancing Delirium Research: A Scientific Think Tank” in June 2019. This White Paper encompasses the major knowledge and research gaps identified at the conference: advancing delirium definition and measurement, understanding delirium pathophysiology, and prevention and treatment of delirium. A roadmap of research priorities is proposed to advance the field in a systematic, interdisciplinary, and coordinated fashion. A call is made for an international consortium and biobank targeted to delirium, as well as a public health campaign to advance the field.

Consistency and objectivity of automated embryo assessments using deep neural networks

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the consistency and objectivity of deep neural networks in embryo scoring and making disposition decisions for biopsy and cryopreservation in comparison to grading by highly trained embryologists.

DESIGN

Prospective double-blind study using retrospective data.

SETTING

U.S.-based large academic fertility center.

PATIENTS

Not applicable.

INTERVENTION(S)

Embryo images (748 recorded at 70 hours postinsemination [hpi]) and 742 at 113 hpi) were used to evaluate embryologists and neural networks in embryo grading. The performance of 10 embryologists and a neural network were also evaluated in disposition decision making using 56 embryos.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Coefficients of variation (%CV) and measures of consistencies were compared.

RESULTS

Embryologists exhibited a high degree of variability (%CV averages: 82.84% for 70 hpi and 44.98% for 113 hpi) in grading embryo. When selecting blastocysts for biopsy or cryopreservation, embryologists had an average consistency of 52.14% and 57.68%, respectively. The neural network outperformed the embryologists in selecting blastocysts for biopsy and cryopreservation with a consistency of 83.92%. Cronbach's α analysis revealed an α coefficient of 0.60 for the embryologists and 1.00 for the network.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our study show a high degree of interembryologist and intraembryologist variability in scoring embryos, likely due to the subjective nature of traditional morphology grading. This may ultimately lead to less precise disposition decisions and discarding of viable embryos. The application of a deep neural network, as shown in our study, can introduce improved reliability and high consistency during the process of embryo selection and disposition, potentially improving outcomes in an embryology laboratory.

Treatment Outcomes in Trigeminal Neuralgia-A Systematic Review of Domains, Dimensions and Measures

BACKGROUND

Trigeminal neuralgia (TN) is a painful disorder characterized by sudden electric shock-like pain. It is a rare condition for which multiple treatments are available, including medical and surgical. The best treatment option is yet to be defined, and this is related to the lack of definition in the treatment outcomes and outcome measures. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize all the outcomes and outcomes measures that have been published to date and highlight variability in their use.

METHODS

We have conducted a literature search using a wide range of databases (1946-2019 for medical and 2008-2019 for surgical treatment), for all intervention studies in TN. Four hundred and sixty-seven studies were selected for data extraction on TN classification, data collection method, intervention, and treatment outcomes mapped to the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT guidelines).

RESULTS

Most studies collected data on pain (n = 459) and side effects (n = 386) domains; however, very few collected data on the impact of treatment on physical (n = 46) and emotional functioning (n = 17) and on patient satisfaction (n = 35). There was high variability on outcome measures used for pain relief (n = 10), pain intensity (n = 9), and frequency of pain episodes (n = 3).

CONCLUSIONS

A clear definition of what are the important outcomes for patients with TN is essential. The choice of standardized outcome measures allowing for consistent reporting in TN treatment will allow for comparison of studies and facilitate treatment choice for patients and clinicians thus, improving health outcomes and reducing health care cost.

Reporting of Outcomes and Outcome Measures in Studies of Interventions to Prevent and/or Treat Delirium in the Critically Ill: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

To inform development of a core outcome set, we evaluated the scope and variability of outcomes, definitions, measures, and measurement time-points in published clinical trials of pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic interventions, including quality improvement projects, to prevent and/or treat delirium in the critically ill.

DATA SOURCES

We searched electronic databases, systematic review repositories, and trial registries (1980 to March 2019).

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

We included randomized, quasi-randomized, and nonrandomized intervention studies of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions. We extracted data on study characteristics, verbatim descriptions of study outcomes, and measurement characteristics. We assessed quality of outcome reporting using the Management of Otitis Media with Effusion in Children with Cleft Palate study scoring system; risk of bias and study quality using the Cochrane tool and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklists. We categorized reported outcomes using Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials taxonomy.

DATA SYNTHESIS

From 195 studies (1/195 pediatric) recruiting 74,632 participants and reporting a mean (SD) of 10 (6.2) outcome domains, we identified 12 delirium-specific outcome domains. Delirium incidence (147, 75% of studies), duration (67, 34%), and antipsychotic use (42, 22%) were most commonly reported. We identified a further 94 non-delirium-specific outcome domains within 19 Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials taxonomy categories. For both delirium-specific and nonspecific outcome domains, we found multiple outcomes in domains due to differing descriptions and time-points. The Confusion Assessment Method-ICU with Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale to assess sedation was the most common measure used to ascertain delirium (51, 35%). Measurement generally began at randomization or ICU admission, and lasted from 1 to 30 days, ICU/hospital discharge. Frequency of measurement was highly variable with daily measurement and greater than daily measurement reported for 36% and 37% of studies, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified substantial heterogeneity and multiplicity of outcome selection and measurement in published studies. These data will inform the consensus building stage of a core outcome set to inform delirium research in the critically ill.

Cardiovascular Outcomes Reported in Hemodialysis Trials

Patients on long-term hemodialysis are at very high risk for cardiovascular disease but are usually excluded from clinical trials conducted in the general population or in at-risk populations. There are no universally agreed cardiovascular outcomes for trials conducted specifically in the hemodialysis population. In this review, we highlight that trials reporting cardiovascular outcomes in hemodialysis patients are usually of short duration (median 3 to 6 months) and are small (59% of trials have <100 participants). Overall, the cardiovascular outcomes are very heterogeneous and may not reflect outcomes that are meaningful to patients and clinicians in supporting decision making, as they are often surrogates of uncertain clinical importance. Composite outcomes used in different trials rarely share the same components. In a field in which a single trial is often insufficiently powered to fully assess the clinical and economic impact of interventions, differences in outcome reporting across trials make the task of meta-analysis and interpretation of all the available evidence challenging. Core outcome sets are now being established across many specialties in health care to prevent these problems. Through the global Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis initiative, cardiovascular disease was identified as a critically important core domain to be reported in all trials in hemodialysis. Informed by the current state of reporting of cardiovascular outcomes, a core outcome measure for cardiovascular disease is currently being established with involvement of patients, caregivers, and health professionals. Consistent reporting of cardiovascular outcomes that are critically important to hemodialysis patients and clinicians will strengthen the evidence base to inform care in this very high-risk population.

Awareness and acceptability of Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials core outcome set for chronic pain among surveyed neuropathic pain authors

Aim: We assessed the knowledge and adoption of Initiative on Methods, Measurement and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT)-recommended core outcome set (COS) and core outcome measures (COM) among authors of systematic reviews (SR) and randomized controlled trials (RCT) about interventions for neuropathic pain (NeuP). Methods: NeuP SR and RCT authors identified via a systematic literature search were surveyed. Results: The response rate was low. Although majority of respondents were familiar with the IMMPACT COS, only 61% of SR authors and 40% of RCT authors used the COS. The main perceived obstacle that prevented the adoption of the COS was the lack of awareness of the full IMMPACT COS. Conclusion: The adoption of IMMPACT-recommended COS and COM among NeuP authors was inadequate and their appropriateness needs to be further evaluated.

Outcome measurement instruments for erythema associated with incontinence-associated dermatitis: Systematic review

AIM

To: (a) examine which outcome measurement instruments for erythema associated with incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD) with supporting evidence about measurement properties are available; (b) evaluate the methodological quality of the studies and the quality of the measurement properties; and (c) identify eligible instruments to measure erythema in incontinence-associated dermatitis research.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL were systematically searched until July 2018 (update December 2018). Additional input was gathered from 151 incontinence-associated dermatitis experts. Cited and citing references of included studies were screened.

REVIEW METHODS

The COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist was applied to evaluate the methodological quality of the studies. Reported measurement properties were rated against criteria for good measurement properties.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies, describing 10 measurement instruments, were included. In five instruments, erythema was captured as a separate concept, two studies provided empirical evidence about the measurement properties. The most studied measurement properties were reliability (9 studies), measurement error (4 studies) and criterion validity (4 studies). In one study, internal consistency was examined.

CONCLUSION

No instrument measuring exclusively erythema associated with incontinence-associated dermatitis exists. There is no single composite incontinence-associated dermatitis measurement instrument that outperforms others. Development or adaption of an instrument to measure erythema associated with incontinence-associated dermatitis is one option to solve this challenge.

IMPACT

The evidence about measurement properties of instruments measuring erythema associated with incontinence-associated dermatitis has not been summarized to date. The lack of an instrument should trigger activities to measure this domain accurately in future clinical trials.

Hemophilia trials in the twenty-first century: Defining patient important outcomes

Treatment for hemophilia has advanced dramatically over the past 5 decades. Success of prophylactic therapy in preventing bleeding and decreasing associated complications has established a new standard of care. However, with the advent of gene therapy and treatments that effectively mimic sustained coagulation factor replacement, outcome measures that worked well for assessing factor replacement therapies in past clinical trials need to be reassessed. In addition, while therapies have advanced, so has the science of outcome assessment, including recognition of the importance of patient important and patient reported outcomes. This manuscript reviews strengths and limitations of outcome measures used in hemophilia from both a provider and patient perspective.

Interventions Aimed at Increasing Dairy and/or Calcium Consumption of Preschool-Aged Children: A Systematic Literature Review

Dairy product consumption is important during childhood, as dairy products provide nutrients to support growth and development. However, a high proportion of children globally are not meeting recommended daily intakes, which may have long-term health implications. Accumulating evidence suggests that interventions aimed at instilling healthy lifestyle habits are most effective when initiated during the preschool years. Therefore, the purpose of the review was to identify the characteristics of effective dairy and/or calcium interventions targeting preschool-aged children. A systematic literature review identified 14 intervention studies published between 1998⁻2018 addressing dairy/calcium intakes in the preschool population (1.5 to 5 years). Intervention reporting was assessed using intervention intensity, behavior change techniques and Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research (WIDER), with the quality of studies evaluated using risk of bias and Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Five of the 14 studies included in the review reported significant improvements in children's dairy (4/5) or calcium (1/5) intake. Characteristics that may enable intervention effectiveness include the delivery of interventions in one setting (preschool facility), using specific behavior change techniques (environmental restructuring and teach to use prompts/cues), and targeting both parent and child. Overall, the interventions assessed demonstrated variable success and highlighted the need for developing effective interventions designed to increase dairy and/or calcium intakes in preschool-aged children.

Navigating the landscape of core outcome set development in dermatology

The development of core outcome sets (COSs; ie, a minimum set of core outcomes that should be measured and reported in all trials or in clinical practice for a specific condition) in dermatology is increasing in pace. A total of 44 dermatology-related COS projects have been registered in the online Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials database (http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/search) and include studies on 26 different skin diseases. With the increasing number of COSs in dermatology, care is needed to ensure the delivery of high-quality COSs that meet quality standards when using state-of-the-art methods. In 2015, the Cochrane Skin-Core Outcome Set Initiative (CS-COUSIN) was established. CS-COUSIN is an international, multidisciplinary working group aiming to improve the development and implementation of COSs in dermatology. CS-COUSIN has developed guidance on how to develop high-quality COSs for skin diseases and supports dermatology-specific COS initiatives. Currently, 17 COS development groups are affiliated with CS-COUSIN and following standardized COS development processes. To ensure successful uptake of COSs in dermatology, researchers, clinicians, systematic reviewers, guideline developers, and other stakeholders should use existing COSs in their work.

Incorporating patients' perspectives into the initial stages of core outcome set development: a rapid review of qualitative studies of type 2 diabetes

Conducting systematic reviews of qualitative studies to incorporate patient perspectives within the early stages of core outcome set (COS) development can be resource intensive. We aimed to identify an expedited approach to be used as part of the wider COS development process. Specifically, we undertook a rapid review of qualitative studies of patients' views and experiences of type 2 diabetes. We searched MEDLINE from inception to June 2017 to identify studies reporting qualitative empirical findings of perspectives of people with type 2 diabetes. Qualitative methodological filters were used to minimize irrelevant references. Drawing on content analysis, data synthesis involved identifying text in eligible studies relevant to outcomes of type 2 diabetes and interpreting and categorizing this according to the 38 core domains of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials taxonomy. Of 146 studies screened, 26 were included. Four hundred and fifty-eight outcomes were derived from the included studies. In comparison to the outcomes extracted from clinical trials, more life impact outcomes were derived from the qualitative studies, but fewer physiological/clinical outcomes. Outcomes relating to 'mortality/survival' and 'role functioning' were more prevalent in studies conducted in low/middle-income countries. This rapid review and synthesis of qualitative studies identified outcomes that had not previously been identified by a systematic review of clinical trials. It also identified differences in the types of outcomes given prominence to in the clinical trials and qualitative literatures. Incorporating qualitative evidence on patient perspectives from the outset of the COS development process can help to ensure outcomes that matter to patients are not overlooked. Our method provides a pragmatic and resource-efficient way to do this. For those developing international COS, our method has potential for incorporating the perspectives of patients from diverse countries in the early stages of COS development.

Betahistine for tinnitus

BACKGROUND

Tinnitus is a symptom defined as the perception of sound in the absence of an external source. In England alone there are an estimated ¾ million general practice consultations every year where the primary complaint is tinnitus, equating to a major burden on healthcare services. Clinical management strategies include education and advice, relaxation therapy, tinnitus retraining therapy, cognitive behavioural therapy, sound enrichment using ear-level sound generators or hearing aids, and drug therapies to manage co-morbid symptoms such as sleep difficulties, anxiety or depression. As yet, no drug has been approved for tinnitus by a regulatory body. Nonetheless, over 100,000 prescriptions for betahistine are being filled every month in England, and nearly 10% of general practitioners prescribe betahistine for tinnitus.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of betahistine in patients with subjective idiopathic tinnitus.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, via the Cochrane Register of Studies); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 23 July 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting patients of any age with acute or chronic subjective idiopathic tinnitus were included. We included studies where the intervention involved betahistine and this was compared to placebo, no intervention or education and information. We included all courses of betahistine, regardless of dose regimens or formulations and for any duration of treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes included tinnitus loudness and significant adverse effects (upper gastrointestinal discomfort). Our secondary outcomes included tinnitus symptom severity as measured by the global score on a multi-item tinnitus questionnaire, depressive symptoms, symptoms of generalised anxiety, health-related quality of life, other adverse effects (e.g. headache, drowsiness, allergic skin reactions (pruritis, rashes) and exacerbation of tinnitus) and tinnitus intrusiveness. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included five studies (with a total of 303 to 305 participants) comparing the effects of betahistine with placebo in adults with subjective idiopathic tinnitus. Four studies were parallel-group RCTs and one had a cross-over design. The risk of bias was unclear in all of the included studies.Due to heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and measurement methods used, very limited data pooling was possible. When we pooled the data from two studies for the primary outcome tinnitus loudness, the mean difference on a 0- to 10-point visual analogue scale at one-month follow-up was not significant between betahistine and placebo (-0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.01 to 0.70; 81 participants) (very low-quality evidence). There were no reports of upper gastrointestinal discomfort (significant adverse effect) in any study.As a secondary outcome, one study found no difference in the change in the Tinnitus Severity Index between betahistine and placebo (mean difference at 12 weeks 0.02, 95% CI -1.05 to 1.09; 50 participants) (moderate-quality evidence). None of the studies reported the other secondary outcomes of changes in depressive symptoms or depression, anxiety symptoms or generalised anxiety, or health-related quality of life as measured by a validated instrument, nor tinnitus intrusiveness.Other adverse effects that were reported were not treatment-related.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is an absence of evidence to suggest that betahistine has an effect on subjective idiopathic tinnitus when compared to placebo. The evidence suggests that betahistine is generally well tolerated with a similar risk of adverse effects to placebo treatments. The quality of evidence for the reported outcomes, using GRADE, ranged from moderate to very low.If future research into the effectiveness of betahistine in patients with tinnitus is felt to be warranted, it should use rigorous methodology. Randomisation and blinding should be of the highest quality, given the subjective nature of tinnitus and the strong likelihood of a placebo response. The CONSORT statement should be used in the design and reporting of future studies. We also recommend the development of validated, patient-centred outcome measures for research in the field of tinnitus.

Sound therapy (using amplification devices and/or sound generators) for tinnitus

BACKGROUND

Tinnitus affects 10% to 15% of the adult population, with about 20% of these experiencing symptoms that negatively affect quality of life. In England alone there are an estimated ¾ million general practice consultations every year where the primary complaint is tinnitus, equating to a major burden on healthcare services. Clinical management strategies include education and advice, relaxation therapy, tinnitus retraining therapy (TRT), cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), sound enrichment using ear-level sound generators or hearing aids, and drug therapies to manage co-morbid symptoms such as insomnia, anxiety or depression. Hearing aids, sound generators and combination devices (amplification and sound generation within one device) are a component of many tinnitus management programmes and together with information and advice are a first line of management in audiology departments for someone who has tinnitus.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of sound therapy (using amplification devices and/or sound generators) for tinnitus in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, via the Cochrane Register of Studies); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 23 July 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting adults with acute or chronic subjective idiopathic tinnitus. We included studies where the intervention involved hearing aids, sound generators or combination hearing aids and compared them to waiting list control, placebo or education/information only with no device. We also included studies comparing hearing aids to sound generators, combination hearing aids to hearing aids, and combination hearing aids to sound generators.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were tinnitus symptom severity as measured as a global score on multi-item tinnitus questionnaire and significant adverse effects as indicated by an increase in self-reported tinnitus loudness. Our secondary outcomes were depressive symptoms, symptoms of generalised anxiety, health-related quality of life and adverse effects associated with wearing the device such as pain, discomfort, tenderness or skin irritation, or ear infections. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included eight studies (with a total of 590 participants). Seven studies investigated the effects of hearing aids, four combination hearing aids and three sound generators. Seven studies were parallel-group RCTs and one had a cross-over design. In general, risk of bias was unclear due to lack of detail about sequence generation and allocation concealment. There was also little or no use of blinding.No data for our outcomes were available for any of our three main comparisons (comparing hearing aids, sound generators and combination devices with a waiting list control group, placebo or education/information only). Data for our additional comparisons (comparing these devices with each other) were also few, with limited potential for data pooling.Hearing aid only versus sound generator device onlyOne study compared patients fitted with sound generators versus those fitted with hearing aids and found no difference between them in their effects on our primary outcome, tinnitus symptom severity measured with the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) at 3, 6 or 12 months (low-quality evidence). The use of both types of device was associated with a clinically significant reduction in tinnitus symptom severity.Combination hearing aid versus hearing aid onlyThree studies compared combination hearing aids with hearing aids and measured tinnitus symptom severity using the THI or Tinnitus Functional Index. When we pooled the data we found no difference between them (standardised mean difference -0.15, 95% confidence interval -0.52 to 0.22; three studies; 114 participants) (low-quality evidence). The use of both types of device was again associated with a clinically significant reduction in tinnitus symptom severity.Adverse effects were not assessed in any of the included studies.None of the studies measured the secondary outcomes of depressive symptoms or depression, anxiety symptoms or generalised anxiety, or health-related quality of life as measured by a validated instrument, nor the newly developed core outcomes tinnitus intrusiveness, ability to ignore, concentration, quality of sleep and sense of control.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence to support the superiority of sound therapy for tinnitus over waiting list control, placebo or education/information with no device. There is insufficient evidence to support the superiority or inferiority of any of the sound therapy options (hearing aid, sound generator or combination hearing aid) over each other. The quality of evidence for the reported outcomes, assessed using GRADE, was low. Using a combination device, hearing aid or sound generator might result in little or no difference in tinnitus symptom severity.Future research into the effectiveness of sound therapy in patients with tinnitus should use rigorous methodology. Randomisation and blinding should be of the highest quality, given the subjective nature of tinnitus and the strong likelihood of a placebo response. The CONSORT statement should be used in the design and reporting of future studies. We also recommend the use of validated, patient-centred outcome measures for research in the field of tinnitus.

Selecting Core Outcomes for Randomised Effectiveness trials In Type 2 Diabetes (SCORE-IT): study protocol for the development of a core outcome set

Background

Type 2 diabetes is characterised by abnormal glucose metabolism, and treatment is aimed at normalising glycaemia. Outcomes measured in clinical trials should be meaningful to patients, health care professionals and researchers, yet there is heterogeneity in the outcomes used across trials of glucose-lowering interventions. This inconsistency affects the ability to compare findings and may mean that the results have little importance to health care professionals and the patients for whom they care. The SCORE-IT study aims to develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in all trials of glucose-lowering interventions for people with type 2 diabetes.

Methods/design

This study will involve three key stages in the development of a COS: (1) A list of outcomes will be identified from multiple sources, specifically registered clinical trials, online patient resources, the qualitative literature and landmark studies identified by a Study Steering Committee. (2) The list of outcomes will be scored by multiple stakeholder groups in a two-round online international Delphi survey. (3) The results of the online Delphi will be summarised and discussed at a face-to-face consensus meeting with representation from all stakeholder groups.

Discussion

The SCORE-IT study aims to develop an internationally relevant set of core outcomes for use in future trials of glucose-lowering interventions for type 2 diabetes. The use of a COS will improve the consistency of outcomes, allowing results of studies to be compared and combined and for new effective treatments to made available more quickly.

Trial registration

The COS study, of which this is a part, is registered in the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database, http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/956. Registered January 2017.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2805-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Avoidable waste of research related to outcome planning and reporting in clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Inadequate planning, selective reporting, and incomplete reporting of outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) contribute to the problem of waste of research. We aimed to describe such a waste and to examine to what extent this waste could be avoided.

METHODS

This research-on-research study was based on RCTs included in Cochrane reviews with a summary of findings (SoF) table. We considered the outcomes reported in the SoF tables as surrogates for important outcomes for patients and other decision makers. We used a three-step approach. (1) First, in each review, we identified, for each important outcome, RCTs that were excluded from the corresponding meta-analysis. (2) Then, for these RCTs, we systematically searched for registrations and protocols to distinguish between inadequate planning (an important outcome was not reported in registries or protocols), selective reporting (an important outcome was reported in registries or protocols but not in publications), and incomplete reporting (an important outcome was incompletely reported in publications). (3) Finally, we assessed, with the consensus of five experts, the feasibility and cost of measuring the important outcomes that were not planned. We considered inadequately planned or selectively or incompletely reported important outcomes as avoidable waste if the outcome could have been easily measured at no additional cost based on expert evaluation.

RESULTS

Of the 2711 RCTs included in the main comparison of 290 reviews, 2115 (78%) were excluded from at least one meta-analysis of important outcomes. Every trial contributed to 55%, on average, of the meta-analyses of important outcomes. Of the 310 RCTs published in 2010 or later, 156 were registered. Inadequate planning affected 79% of these RCTs, whereas incomplete and selective reporting affected 41% and 15%, respectively. For 63% of RCTs, we found at least one missing important outcome for which the waste was avoidable and for 30%, the waste was avoidable for all important outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the RCTs included in our sample did not contribute to all the important outcomes in meta-analyses, mostly because of inadequate planning or incomplete reporting. A large part of this waste of research seemed to be avoidable.