scholarly journals Patient, physiotherapist and surgeon endorsement of the core domain set for total hip and total knee replacement in Germany: a study protocol for an OMERACT initiative

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e035207
Author(s):  
Robert Prill ◽  
Jasvinder A Singh ◽  
Gesine H Seeber ◽  
Sabrina Mai Nielsen ◽  
Susan Goodman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Total Joint Replacement ◽  
Core Domain ◽  
Orthopaedic Surgeons ◽  
The Core ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Clinical Trials Registry ◽  
Core Domain Set

IntroductionThere is a lack of harmonising measures for clinical trials on total joint replacement (TJR) that would allow for results from TJR studies to be compared or pooled. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) TJR core domain set is already endorsed among patients and physicians in the USA and Australia. Physiotherapists use different types of measurements compared to orthopaedic surgeons while both make substantial contributions to research in the field of TJR. To achieve consensus on core measurements sets, patients, physiotherapists and orthopaedic surgeons need to achieve consensus on the core domains for TJR trials.Methods and analysisFor this multistage study, first, the OMERACT TJR core domain set survey will be translated to German and validated according to WHO guidelines. Next, the TJR core domain set will be considered for endorsement in different German stakeholder groups including patients, physiotherapists and orthopaedic surgeons.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for this protocol was given by the ethics committee of the Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus—Senftenberg (BTU—CS, EK 2019—2). This article is based on the protocol version 2.5 from 6 May 2020. Anonymous data will be presented only. We will publish the results in peer-reviewed publications and at international conferences.Trial registration numberGerman Clinical Trials Registry (DRKS00016015).

Achieving Consensus on Total Joint Replacement Trial Outcome Reporting Using the OMERACT Filter: Endorsement of the Final Core Domain Set for Total Hip and Total Knee Replacement Trials for Endstage Arthritis

2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (11) ◽  
pp. 1723-1726 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jasvinder A. Singh ◽  
Michelle M. Dowsey ◽  
Michael Dohm ◽  
Susan M. Goodman ◽  
Amye L. Leong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Total Knee Replacement ◽  
Knee Replacement ◽  
Joint Replacement ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Total Joint Replacement ◽  
Core Domain ◽  
Total Knee ◽  
Core Domain Set

Objective.Discussion and endorsement of the OMERACT total joint replacement (TJR) core domain set for total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) for endstage arthritis; and next steps for selection of instruments.Methods.The OMERACT TJR working group met at the 2016 meeting at Whistler, British Columbia, Canada. We summarized the previous systematic reviews, the preliminary OMERACT TJR core domain set and results from previous surveys. We discussed preliminary core domains for TJR clinical trials, made modifications, and identified challenges with domain measurement.Results.Working group participants (n = 26) reviewed, clarified, and endorsed each of the inner and middle circle domains and added a range of motion domain to the research agenda. TJR were limited to THR and TKR but included all endstage hip and knee arthritis refractory to medical treatment. Participants overwhelmingly endorsed identification and evaluation of top instruments mapping to the core domains (100%) and use of subscales of validated multidimensional instruments to measure core domains for the TJR clinical trial core measurement set (92%).Conclusion.An OMERACT core domain set for hip/knee TJR trials has been defined and we are selecting instruments to develop the TJR clinical trial core measurement set to serve as a common foundation for harmonizing measures in TJR clinical trials.

Outcome Domains and Measures in Total Joint Replacement Clinical Trials: Can We Harmonize Them? An OMERACT Collaborative Initiative

2015 ◽  
Vol 42 (12) ◽  
pp. 2496-2502 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jasvinder A. Singh ◽  
Michael Dohm ◽  
Andrew P. Sprowson ◽  
Peter D. Wall ◽  
Bethan L. Richards ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Joint Replacement ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Total Joint Replacement ◽  
Core Domain ◽  
Trial Outcome ◽  
Clinical Trial Outcome ◽  
Core Domain Set

Objective.To develop a plan for harmonizing outcomes for people undergoing total joint replacement (TJR), to achieve consensus regarding TJR outcome research.Methods.The TJR working group met during the 2014 Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 12 meeting in Budapest, Hungary. Multiple conference calls preceded the face-to-face meeting. Brief presentations were made during a 1.5-h meeting, which included an overview of published systematic reviews of TJR trials and the results of a recent systematic review of TJR clinical trial outcome domains and measures. This was followed by discussion of potential core set areas/domains for TJR clinical trials (as per OMERACT Filter 2.0) as well as the challenges associated with the measurement of these domains.Results.Working group participants discussed which TJR clinical trial outcome domains/areas map to the inner versus outer core for core domain set. Several challenges were identified with TJR outcomes including how to best measure function after TJR, elucidating the source of the pre- and post-TJR joint pain being measured, joint-specific versus generic quality of life instruments and the importance of patient satisfaction and revision surgery as outcomes. A preliminary core domain set for TJR clinical trials was proposed and included pain, function, patient satisfaction, revision, adverse events, and death. This core domain set will be further vetted with a broader audience.Conclusion.An international effort with active collaboration with the orthopedic community to standardize key outcome domains and measures is under way with the TJR working group. This effort will be further developed with new collaborations.

scholarly journals The OMERACT Core Domain Set for Clinical Trials of Shoulder Disorders

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (8) ◽  
pp. 969-975 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sofia Ramiro ◽  
Matthew J. Page ◽  
Samuel L. Whittle ◽  
Hsiaomin Huang ◽  
Arianne P. Verhagen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cognitive Dysfunction ◽  
Outcome Measurement ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Core Domain ◽  
The Core ◽  
Additional Domain ◽  
Shoulder Disorders ◽  
Core Domain Set

Objective.To reach consensus on the core domains to be included in a core domain set for clinical trials of shoulder disorders using the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.1 Core Domain Set process.Methods.At OMERACT 2018, the OMERACT Shoulder Working Group conducted a workshop that presented the OMERACT 2016 preliminary core domain set and its rationale based upon a systematic review of domains measured in shoulder trials and international Delphi sessions involving patients, clinicians, and researchers, as well as a new systematic review of qualitative studies on the experiences of people with shoulder disorders. After discussions in breakout groups, the OMERACT core domain set for clinical trials of shoulder disorders was presented for endorsement by OMERACT 2018 participants.Results.The qualitative review (n = 8) identified all domains included in the preliminary core set. An additional domain, cognitive dysfunction, was also identified, but confidence that this represents a core domain was very low. The core domain set that was endorsed by the OMERACT participants, with 71% agreement, includes 4 “mandatory” trial domains: pain, function, patient global — shoulder, and adverse events including death; and 4 “important but optional” domains: participation (recreation/work), sleep, emotional well-being, and condition-specific pathophysiological manifestations. Cognitive dysfunction was voted out of the core domain set.Conclusion.OMERACT 2018 delegates endorsed a core domain set for clinical trials of shoulder disorders. The next step includes identification of a core outcome measurement set that passes the OMERACT 2.1 Filter for measuring each domain.

scholarly journals Attribution of non-ClinicalTrials.gov registries among WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform-registered trials from 2014 to 2018: A protocol for a meta-epidemiological study

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masahiro Banno ◽  
Yasushi Tsujimoto ◽  
Yuki Kataoka
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Epidemiological Study ◽  
Medical Information ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
World Health ◽  
Study Phase ◽  
Target Sample Size ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Clinical Trials Registry

Background. The attribution of non-ClinicalTrials.gov registries among registered trials of the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) had increased until 2013. However, the attribution after 2013 is unknown. Moreover, no study has investigated the usage of non-ClinicalTrials.gov registries after 2015 or compared the characteristics of trials under non-ClinicalTrials.gov and ClinicalTrials.gov registries. Methods. This will be a meta-epidemiological study. It will include all trials registered on the ICTRP from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018. First, we will describe the total attribution of non-ClinicalTrials.gov registries among the ICTRP-registered trials for each year and each registry worldwide. Second, we will compare the recruitment status, target sample size, study type, study design, countries, prospective registration, funding, and study phase of the trials on ClinicalTrials.gov and other registries from 2014 to 2018. Third, we will report on the distribution of primary registries of trials from the top five countries in order of the quantity of registered trials on the ICTRP. Ethics & Dissemination. Ethics approval is not required for this study. This protocol has been registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR). The findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and may be presented at conferences. Trial Registration Number. UMIN000034401

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 Statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the Very Early Rehabilitation in Speech (VERSE) after stroke trial: an international 3-arm clinical trial to determine the effectiveness of early, intensive, prescribed, direct aphasia therapy

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (8) ◽  
pp. 863-880 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin Godecke ◽  
Tapan Rai ◽  
Dominique A Cadilhac ◽  
Elizabeth Armstrong ◽  
Sandy Middleton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Statistical Analysis ◽  
Statistical Analysis Plan ◽  
Steering Committee ◽  
Aphasia Therapy ◽  
Detailed Statistical Analysis ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Clinical Trials Registry ◽  
Potential Trial ◽  
Stroke Trial

Background Limited evidence exists to support very early intensive aphasia rehabilitation after stroke. VERSE is a PROBE trial designed to determine whether two types of intensive aphasia therapy, beginning within 14 days of acute stroke, provide greater therapeutic and cost-effectiveness than usual care. Objective To publish the detailed statistical analysis plan for the VERSE trial prior to unblinding. This statistical analysis plan was based on the published and registered VERSE trial protocol and was developed by the blinded steering committee and management team, led by the trial statistician. This plan was developed using outcome measures and trial data collection forms. Results The VERSE statistical analysis plan is consistent with reporting standards for clinical trials and provides for clear and open reporting. Conclusions Publication of a statistical analysis plan serves to reduce potential trial reporting bias and outlines transparent pre-specified analyses. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) Registration number: ACTRN12613000776707; Universal Trial Number (UTN) is U1111-1145-4130.

scholarly journals The OMERACT-OARSI Core Domain Set for Measurement in Clinical Trials of Hip and/or Knee Osteoarthritis

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (8) ◽  
pp. 981-989 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toby O. Smith ◽  
Gillian A. Hawker ◽  
David J. Hunter ◽  
Lyn M. March ◽  
Maarten Boers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Outcome Measurement ◽  
Measurement Instrument ◽  
Research Society ◽  
Delphi Survey ◽  
Core Domain ◽  
Knee Oa ◽  
Core Domain Set

Objective.To update the 1997 OMERACT-OARSI (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International) core domain set for clinical trials in hip and/or knee osteoarthritis (OA).Methods.An initial review of the COMET database of core outcome sets (COS) was undertaken to identify all domains reported in previous COS including individuals with hip and/or knee OA. These were presented during 5 patient and health professionals/researcher meetings in 3 continents (Europe, Australasia, North America). A 3-round international Delphi survey was then undertaken among patients, healthcare professionals, researchers, and industry representatives to gain consensus on key domains to be included in a core domain set for hip and/or knee OA. Findings were presented and discussed in small groups at OMERACT 2018, where consensus was obtained in the final plenary.Results.Four previous COS were identified. Using these, and the patient and health professionals/researcher meetings, 50 potential domains formed the Delphi survey. There were 426 individuals from 25 different countries who contributed to the Delphi exercise. OMERACT 2018 delegates (n = 129) voted on candidate domains. Six domains gained agreement as mandatory to be measured and reported in all hip and/or knee OA clinical trials: pain, physical function, quality of life, and patient’s global assessment of the target joint, in addition to the mandated core domain of adverse events including mortality. Joint structure was agreed as mandatory in specific circumstances, i.e., depending on the intervention.Conclusion.The updated core domain set for hip and/or knee OA has been agreed upon. Work will commence to determine which outcome measurement instrument should be recommended to cover each core domain.

scholarly journals Fibromyalgia Syndrome Module at OMERACT 9: Domain Construct

2009 ◽  
Vol 36 (10) ◽  
pp. 2318-2329 ◽  
Author(s):  
PHILIP MEASE ◽  
LESLEY M. ARNOLD ◽  
ERNEST H. CHOY ◽  
DANIEL J. CLAUW ◽  
LESLIE J. CROFFORD ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cognitive Dysfunction ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Outcome Measure ◽  
Core Domain ◽  
Patient Focus Group ◽  
Cerebrospinal Fluid Biomarkers ◽  
Core Set ◽  
Delphi Exercise ◽  
Core Domain Set

The objective of the module was to (1) establish a core domain set for fibromyalgia (FM) assessment in clinical trials and practice, (2) review outcome measure performance characteristics, (3) discuss development of a responder index for assessment of FM in clinical trials, (4) review objective markers, (5) review the domain of cognitive dysfunction, and (6) establish a research agenda for outcomes research. Presentations at the module included: (1) Results of univariate and multivariate analysis of 10 FM clinical trials of 4 drugs, mapping key domains identified in previous patient focus group: Delphi exercises and a clinician/researcher Delphi exercise, and breakout discussions to vote on possible essential domains and reliable measures; (2) Updates regarding outcome measure status; (3) Update on objective markers to measure FM disease state; and (4) Review of the issue of cognitive dysfunction (dyscognition) in FM. Consensus was reached as follows: (1) Greater than 70% of OMERACT participants agreed that pain, tenderness, fatigue, patient global, multidimensional function and sleep disturbance domains should be measured in all FM clinical trials; dyscognition and depression should be measured in some trials; and stiffness, anxiety, functional imaging, and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers were identified as domains of research interest. (2) FM domain outcome measures have generally proven to be reliable, discriminative, and feasible. More sophisticated and comprehensive measures are in development, as is a responder index for FM. (3) Increasing numbers of objective markers are being developed for FM assessment. (4) Cognitive dysfunction assessment by self-assessed and applied outcome measures is being developed. In conclusion, a multidimensional symptom core set is proposed for evaluation of FM in clinical trials. Research on improved measures of single domains and composite measures is ongoing.

scholarly journals The OMERACT Core Domain Set for Outcome Measures for Clinical Trials in Polymyalgia Rheumatica

2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (10) ◽  
pp. 1515-1521 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah L. Mackie ◽  
Helen Twohig ◽  
Lorna M. Neill ◽  
Eileen Harrison ◽  
Beverley Shea ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Polymyalgia Rheumatica ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Inner Core ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Psychological Impact ◽  
Outer Core ◽  
Core Domain ◽  
Core Domain Set

Objective.To inform development of a core domain set for outcome measures for clinical trials in polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR), we conducted patient consultations, a systematic review, a Delphi study, and 2 qualitative studies.Methods.Domains identified by 70% or more of physicians and/or patients in the Delphi study were selected. The conceptual framework derived from the 2 qualitative research studies helped inform the meaning of each domain and its relationship to the others. The draft core domain set was refined by further discussion with patients and physicians who had participated in the Delphi study. At the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 2016, the domains were discussed and prioritized by 8 breakout groups. Formal voting took place at the end of the workshop and in the final plenary.Results.Ninety-three percent of voters in the final plenary agreed that the inner core of domains considered mandatory for clinical trials of PMR should consist the following: laboratory markers of systemic inflammation, pain, stiffness, and physical function. Patient’s global and fatigue were considered important but not mandatory (outer core). The research agenda included psychological impact, weakness, physical activity, participation, sleep, imaging, and health-related quality of life.Conclusion.This core domain set was considered sufficiently well-defined that the next step will be to apply the OMERACT Filter 2.0 Instrument Selection Algorithm to select candidate instruments for a subsequent “deeper dive” into the data. This will allow instruments to be mapped onto each of our core domains to derive a core outcome set for PMR.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document