scholarly journals Developing a core outcome set for future infertility research: an international consensus development study†‡

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (12) ◽  
pp. 2725-2734 ◽  
Author(s):  
J M N Duffy ◽  
H AlAhwany ◽  
S Bhattacharya ◽  
B Collura ◽  
C Curtis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Research ◽  
Live Birth ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Human Reproduction ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Consensus Development ◽  
The Core ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Fertility Problems

Abstract STUDY QUESTION Can a core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, collection and reporting across future infertility research be developed? SUMMARY ANSWER A minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions and the selective reporting of outcomes on the basis of statistical analysis, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus science methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The core outcome set consists of: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin and higher multiple pregnancy); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION We used consensus development methods which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition and an arbitrary consensus threshold. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Fertility and Sterility and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study, the collection, management, analysis or interpretation of data, or manuscript preparation. B.W.J.M. is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). S.B. was supported by University of Auckland Foundation Seelye Travelling Fellowship. S.B. reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. J.M.L.K. reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.J.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. C.N. reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023.

scholarly journals Standardizing definitions and reporting guidelines for the infertility core outcome set: an international consensus development study†‡

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (12) ◽  
pp. 2735-2745 ◽  
Author(s):  
J M N Duffy ◽  
S Bhattacharya ◽  
S Bhattacharya ◽  
M Bofill ◽  
B Collura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Human Reproduction ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Consensus Development ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Core Outcomes ◽  
Development Methods ◽  
Individual Core

Abstract STUDY QUESTION Can consensus definitions for the core outcome set for infertility be identified in order to recommend a standardized approach to reporting? SUMMARY ANSWER Consensus definitions for individual core outcomes, contextual statements and a standardized reporting table have been developed. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Different definitions exist for individual core outcomes for infertility. This variation increases the opportunities for researchers to engage with selective outcome reporting, which undermines secondary research and compromises clinical practice guideline development. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Potential definitions were identified by a systematic review of definition development initiatives and clinical practice guidelines and by reviewing Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. These definitions were discussed in a face-to-face consensus development meeting, which agreed consensus definitions. A standardized approach to reporting was also developed as part of the process. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus development methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Forty-four potential definitions were inventoried across four definition development initiatives, including the Harbin Consensus Conference Workshop Group and International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, 12 clinical practice guidelines and Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. Twenty-seven participants, from 11 countries, contributed to the consensus development meeting. Consensus definitions were successfully developed for all core outcomes. Specific recommendations were made to improve reporting. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations. There was limited representation from low- and middle-income countries. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS A minimum data set should assist researchers in populating protocols, case report forms and other data collection tools. The generic reporting table should provide clear guidance to researchers and improve the reporting of their results within journal publications and conference presentations. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statement, and over 80 specialty journals have committed to implementing this core outcome set. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. C.N. reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and a financial interest in NexHand. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. J.W. reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. A.V. reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and of the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their ‘traffic light’ system for infertility treatment ‘add-ons’. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023.

scholarly journals ERS Statement: A core outcome set for clinical trials evaluating the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations

2021 ◽  
pp. 2102006
Author(s):  
Alexander G. Mathioudakis ◽  
Fekri Abroug ◽  
Alvar Agusti ◽  
Sachin Ananth ◽  
Per Bakke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Copd Exacerbations ◽  
The Core ◽  
Arterial Blood ◽  
Outcome Set

Clinical trials evaluating the management of acute exacerbations of COPD assess heterogeneous outcomes, often omitting those that are clinically relevant or more important to patients. We have developed a core outcome set, a consensus-based minimum set of important outcomes that we recommend are evaluated in all future clinical trials on exacerbations management, to improve their quality and comparability. COPD exacerbations outcomes were identified through methodological systematic reviews and qualitative interviews with 86 patients from 11 countries globally. The most critical outcomes were prioritized for inclusion in the core outcome set through a two-round Delphi survey that was completed by 1,063 participants (256 patients, 488 health professionals and 319 clinical academics) from 88 countries in 5 continents. Two global, multi-stakeholder, virtual consensus meetings were conducted to (i) finalize the core outcome set and (ii) prioritize a single measurement instrument to be used for evaluating each of the prioritized outcomes. Consensus was informed by rigorous methodological systematic reviews. The views of patients with COPD were accounted for in all stages of the project. Survival, treatment success, breathlessness, quality of life, activities of daily living, need for higher level of care, arterial blood gases, disease progression, future exacerbations and hospital admissions, treatment safety and adherence were all included in the core outcome set. Focused methodological research was recommended to further validate and optimize some of the selected measurement instruments. The panel did not consider the prioritized set of outcomes and associated measurement instruments burdensome for patients and health professionals to use.

scholarly journals Patient-Reported Outcomes in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Measurement of Effect in Research and Clinical Care

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-237
Author(s):  
Jane Fletcher ◽  
Sheldon C. Cooper ◽  
Amelia Swift
Keyword(s):  
Inflammatory Bowel Disease ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Bowel Disease ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel ◽  
Selection Of

The measurement of outcomes is key in evaluating healthcare or research interventions in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). In patient-centred care, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are central to this evaluation. In this review, we provide an overview of validated, adult disease-specific PROMs developed for use in IBD. Our aim is to assist clinicians and researchers in selection of PROMs to measure outcomes in their patient cohort. The Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments database of systematic reviews was the primary resource used to identify PROMs used in IBD. Search terms were ‘Crohn’s disease’, ‘ulcerative colitis’, and ‘IBD’. Seven systematic reviews were identified from this search. In addition, the publication by the IBD Core Outcome Set Working Group was used to identify further PROMs. Three systematic reviews were excluded as they did not meet the inclusion criteria. From the five included systematic reviews, we identified 21 PROMs and their shortened versions. In conclusion, it does not appear that any one PROM is entirely suitable for both research and clinical practice. Overall, the IBDQ-32 is most widely used in research but has the limitation of cost, whereas the IBD-Control has been recommended in the clinical core outcome set.

scholarly journals The Core Outcome DEvelopment for Carrier Screening (CODECS) study: protocol for development of a core outcome set

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ebony Richardson ◽  
Alison McEwen ◽  
Toby Newton-John ◽  
Karine Manera ◽  
Chris Jacobs
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Carrier Screening ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
The Core ◽  
Key Stakeholders ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Methods Of Measurement ◽  
Genetic Carrier Screening

Abstract Background Reproductive genetic carrier screening is a type of genetic testing available to those planning a pregnancy, or during their first trimester, to understand their risk of having a child with a severe genetic condition. There is a lack of consensus for ‘what to measure’ in studies on this intervention, leading to heterogeneity in choice of outcomes and methods of measurement. Such outcome heterogeneity has implications for the quality and comparability of these studies and has led to a lack of robust research evidence in the literature to inform policy and decision-making around the offer of this screening. As reproductive genetic carrier screening becomes increasingly accessible within the general population, it is timely to investigate the outcomes of this intervention. Objectives The development of a core outcome set is an established methodology to address issues with outcome heterogeneity in research. We aim to develop a core outcome set for reproductive genetic carrier screening to clarify and standardise outcomes for research and practice. Methods In accordance with guidance from the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative, this study will consist of five steps: (i) a systematic review of quantitative studies, using narrative synthesis to identify previously reported outcomes, their definitions, and methods of measurement; (ii) a systematic review of qualitative studies using content analysis to identify excerpts related to patient experience and perspectives that can be interpreted as outcomes; (iii) semi-structured focus groups and interviews with patients who have undertaken reproductive genetic carrier screening to identify outcomes of importance to them; (iv) Delphi survey of key stakeholders, including patients, clinicians, and researchers, to refine and prioritise the list of outcomes generated from the previous steps; and (v) a virtual consensus meeting with a purposive sample of key stakeholders to finalise the core outcome set for reporting. Discussion This protocol outlines the core outcome set development process and its novel application in the setting of genetic testing. This core outcome set will support the standardisation of outcome reporting in reproductive carrier screening research and contribute to an evolving literature on outcomes to evaluate genetic testing and genetic counselling as health interventions. COMET core outcome set registration http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1381.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety Outcomes in Systematic Reviews of Interventions for Postoperative Pain in Children: Comparison Against the Recommended Core Outcome Set

Pain Medicine ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (11) ◽  
pp. 2316-2321 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krste Boric ◽  
Svjetlana Dosenovic ◽  
Antonia Jelicic Kadic ◽  
Matija Boric ◽  
Milka Jeric ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Safety Outcomes

scholarly journals Co-producing a multi-stakeholder Core Outcome Set for distal Tibia and Ankle fractures (COSTA): a study protocol

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan A. Pearson ◽  
Elizabeth Tutton ◽  
Alexander Joeris ◽  
Stephen Gwilym ◽  
Richard Grant ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Distal Tibia ◽  
Ankle Fractures ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Core Domain ◽  
Outcome Reporting ◽  
The Core ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Multi Stakeholder ◽  
Core Domain Set

Abstract Background Ankle fracture is a common injury with a strong evidence base focused on effectiveness of treatments. However, there are no reporting guidelines on distal tibia and ankle fractures. This has led to heterogeneity in outcome reporting and consequently, restricted the contribution of evidence syntheses. Over the past decade, core outcome sets have been developed to address this issue and are available for several common fractures, including those of the hip, distal radius, and open tibial fractures. This protocol describes the process to co-produce—with patient partners and other key stakeholders—a multi-stakeholder derived Core Outcome Set for distal Tibia and Ankle fractures (COSTA). The scope of COSTA will be for clinical trials. Methods The study will have five-stages which will include the following: (i) systematic reviews of existing qualitative studies and outcome reporting in randomised controlled trial studies to inform a developing list of potential outcome domains; (ii) qualitative interviews (including secondary data) and focus groups with patients and healthcare professionals to explore the impact of ankle fracture and the outcomes that really matter; (iii) generation of meaningful outcome statements with the study team, international advisory group and patient partners; (iv) a multi-round, international e-Delphi study to achieve consensus on the core domain set; and (v) an evidence-based consensus on a core measurement set will be achieved through a structured group consensus meeting, recommending best assessment approaches for each of the domains in the core domain set. Discussion Development of COSTA will provide internationally endorsed outcome assessment guidance for clinical trials for distal tibia and ankle fractures. This will enhance comparative reviews of interventions, potentially reducing reporting bias and research waste.

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

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. e036224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Arthur Marson ◽  
Joseph C Manning ◽  
Marilyn James ◽  
Simon Craxford ◽  
Sandeep R Deshmukh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
List Type ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
The Core ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Orthopaedic Literature ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Limb Fractures

IntroductionLimb fractures in children are common yet there are few trials that compare treatments for these injuries. There is significant heterogeneity in the outcomes reported in the paediatric orthopaedic literature, which limits the ability to compare study results and draw firm conclusions. The aim of the CORE-Kids Study is to develop a core outcome set for use in research studies of childhood limb fractures. A core outcome set will provide a minimum set of outcomes to be measured in all trials to minimise the heterogeneity of outcomes reported and minimise reporting bias. A core outcome set ensures that outcomes are reported that are relevant to families as well as clinicians. The core outcome set will include additional upper and lower limb modules.MethodsThe development of the core outcome set will require four phases to evaluate:What are the outcomes that are relevant to professionals?What are the outcomes that are relevant to families?What are the most important of these outcomes?Which outcomes should be included in the core outcome set?This will be completed through a systematic review of trials to identify the outcomes domains that are relevant to trialists. A series of semi-structured interviews will be completed with families to identify the outcome domains that are relevant to families. These outcome domains will be used in a three-round Delphi Study to analyse the importance of these outcome domains to a range of stakeholders including parents, clinicians and researchers. Following this, the core outcome set will be decided at a consensus meeting.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been awarded HRA/REC IRAS number 262503. Date of approval 06/08/2019. Dissemination will be through scientific literature and international societies.Trial registrationCore Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative, registration number: 1274. Date of registration 13/12/2018.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018106605.

scholarly journals Outcomes reported on the management of COPD exacerbations: a systematic survey of randomised controlled trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 00072-2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander G. Mathioudakis ◽  
Mia Moberg ◽  
Julie Janner ◽  
Pablo Alonso-Coello ◽  
Jørgen Vestbo
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Copd Exacerbations ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the management of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) report heterogeneous outcome measures, thus rendering their results incomparable, complicating their translation into clinical practice. As a first step in the development of a core outcome set that will aim to homogenise outcome measures in future RCTs, we assessed the outcomes reported in recent relevant RCTs and systematic reviews.We conducted a methodological systematic review (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ registration number CRD42016052437) of RCTs and systematic reviews on COPD exacerbation management indexed on Medline and PubMed during the last decade. We evaluated their methodology, specifically focusing on the reported outcome measures.Based on 123 RCTs and 38 systematic reviews, we found significant variability in the outcomes reported and in their definition. Mortality, which was assessed in 82% of the included trials, was the most frequently assessed outcome, followed by the rate of treatment success or failure (63%), adverse events (59%), health status, symptoms and quality of life (59%), lung function (47%), and duration of exacerbations (42%).The significant heterogeneity in the selection and definition of outcome measures in RCTs and systematic reviews limits the interpretability and comparability of their results, and warrants the development of a core outcome set for COPD exacerbations management.

scholarly journals Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for cauda equina syndrome: systematic literature review, qualitative interviews, Delphi survey and consensus meeting

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. e024002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nisaharan Srikandarajah ◽  
Adam J Noble ◽  
Martin Wilby ◽  
Simon Clark ◽  
Paula R Williamson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Cauda Equina Syndrome ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Cauda Equina ◽  
Consensus Meeting ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
The Core ◽  
Outcome Set

IntroductionCauda equina syndrome (CES) is a serious neurological condition most commonly due to compression of the lumbosacral nerve roots, which can result in significant disability. The evidence for acute intervention in CES is mainly from retrospective studies. There is heterogeneity in the outcomes chosen for analysis in these studies, which makes it difficult to synthesise the data across studies. This study will develop a core outcome set for use in future studies of CES, engaging with key stakeholders and using transparent methodology. This will help ensure that relevant outcomes are used in future and will facilitate attempts to summarise data across studies in systematic reviews.Methods and analysisA systematic literature review will document all the outcomes for CES after surgery mentioned in the literature. The qualitative interviews with patients with CES will be semistructured, audio recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed with the use of NVivo V.10 to identify outcomes and determine the themes described. The outcomes from the literature review and patient interviews will be combined and prioritised to determine what the most important outcomes are in CES research studies to patients and healthcare professionals. The prioritisation will be done through a two-round iterative Delphi survey and a consensus meeting. This process will decide the core outcome set for patients with CES.Ethics and disseminationREC and HRA approval was obtained on the 6/12/16 for the qualitative interviews from South Central—Hampshire A REC. REC reference 16/SC/0587. REC and HRA approval was obtained on 26/3/18 for the Delphi process and consensus meeting from North West—Greater Manchester Central REC. REC reference was 18/NW/0022. The final core outcome set will be published and freely available.Trial registration numberThis study is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials database as study 824.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document