scholarly journals The “Outcome Reporting in Brief Intervention Trials: Alcohol” (ORBITAL) Core Outcome Set: International Consensus on Outcomes to Measure in Efficacy and Effectiveness Trials of Alcohol Brief Interventions

2021 ◽  
Vol 82 (5) ◽  
pp. 638-646
Author(s):  
Gillian W. Shorter ◽  
Jeremy W. Bray ◽  
Nick Heather ◽  
Anne H. Berman ◽  
Emma L. Giles ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Brief Intervention ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Brief Interventions ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
International Consensus ◽  
Outcome Reporting ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Effectiveness Trials ◽  
Intervention Trials

scholarly journals 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

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Erik Veskimae ◽  
Selvarani Subbarayan ◽  
Riccardo Campi ◽  
Domitille Carron ◽  
Muhammad Imran Omar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer ◽  
Evidence Based Treatment ◽  
Outcome Reporting ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Effectiveness Trials ◽  
Muscle Invasive ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Heterogenous outcome reporting in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) effectiveness trials of adjuvant intervention 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. Keywords:

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 Systematic review of clinical outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials of burn care

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. e025135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amber E Young ◽  
Anna Davies ◽  
Sophie Bland ◽  
Sara Brookes ◽  
Jane M Blazeby
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Care Research ◽  
Burn Care ◽  
Outcome Reporting ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionSystematic reviews collate trial data to provide evidence to support clinical decision-making. For effective synthesis, there must be consistency in outcome reporting. There is no agreed set of outcomes for reporting the effect of burn care interventions. Issues with outcome reporting have been identified, although not systematically investigated. This study gathers empirical evidence on any variation in outcome reporting and assesses the need for a core outcome set for burn care research.MethodsElectronic searches of four search engines were undertaken from January 2012 to December 2016 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), using medical subject headings and free text terms including ‘burn’, ‘scald’ ‘thermal injury’ and ‘RCT’. Two authors independently screened papers, extracted outcomes verbatim and recorded the timing of outcome measurement. Duplicate outcomes (exact wording ± different spelling), similar outcomes (albumin in blood, serum albumin) and identical outcomes measured at different times were removed. Variation in outcome reporting was determined by assessing the number of unique outcomes reported across all included trials. Outcomes were classified into domains. Bias was reduced using five researchers and a patient working independently and together.Results147 trials were included, of which 127 (86.4%) were RCTs, 13 (8.8%) pilot studies and 7 (4.8%) RCT protocols. 1494 verbatim clinical outcomes were reported; 955 were unique. 76.8% of outcomes were measured within 6 months of injury. Commonly reported outcomes were defined differently. Numbers of unique outcomes per trial varied from one to 37 (median 9; IQR 5,13). No single outcome was reported across all studies demonstrating inconsistency of reporting. Outcomes were classified into 54 domains. Numbers of outcomes per domain ranged from 1 to 166 (median 11; IQR 3,24).ConclusionsThis review has demonstrated heterogeneity in outcome reporting in burn care research which will hinder amalgamation of study data. We recommend the development of a Core Outcome Set.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017060908.

scholarly journals Development of a core outcome set for myocardial infarction in clinical trials of traditional Chinese medicine: a study protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. e032256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruijin Qiu ◽  
Changming Zhong ◽  
Songjie Han ◽  
Tianmai He ◽  
Ya Huang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Traditional Chinese Medicine ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Outcome Reporting ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Semistructured Interviews

IntroductionMyocardial infarction (MI) is the most dangerous complication in patients with coronary heart disease. In China, there is an increasing number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) for treating MI. However, the inconsistency of outcome reporting means that a large number of clinical trials cannot be included in systematic reviews to provide the best evidence for clinical practice. The aim of this study is to develop a core outcome set (COS) for future TCM clinical trials of MI, which may improve the consistency of outcome reporting and facilitate the synthesis of data across studies in systematic reviews.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review of MI clinical trials with any intervention. Semistructured interviews will be conducted to obtain the perspectives of patients with MI. The outcomes from the systematic review and semistructured interviews will be grouped and used to develop a questionnaire. The questionnaire will be developed as a supplement for the TCM syndromes of MI and will be constructed from the results of a systematic review, existing medical records and a cross-sectional study. Then two rounds of the Delphi survey will be conducted with different stakeholders (TCM experts and Western medicine experts in cardiovascular disease, methodologists, magazine editors and patients) to determine the importance of the outcomes. Only the TCM experts will need to response to the questionnaire for core TCM syndromes. A face-to-face consensus meeting will be conducted to create a final COS and recommend measurement time for each outcome.Ethics and disseminationThis project has been approved by the Ethics Committee of Dongzhimen Hospital, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine. The final COS will be published and freely available.Trial registration numberThis study is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials database as study 1243 (available at:http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1243).

scholarly journals Development of a core outcome set for effectiveness trials aimed at optimising prescribing in older adults in care homes

Trials ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna N. Millar ◽  
◽  
Amrit Daffu-O’Reilly ◽  
Carmel M. Hughes ◽  
David P. Alldred ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Care Homes ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Effectiveness Trials

scholarly journals Selecting Core Outcomes for Randomised Effectiveness trials In Type 2 diabetes (SCORE-IT): a patient and healthcare professional consensus on a core outcome set for type 2 diabetes

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. e000700 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola L Harman ◽  
John P H Wilding ◽  
Dave Curry ◽  
James Harris ◽  
Jennifer Logue ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Consensus Meeting ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Core Outcomes ◽  
Effectiveness Trials

ObjectivesHeterogeneity in outcomes measured across trials of glucose-lowering interventions for people with type 2 diabetes impacts on the ability to compare findings and may mean that the results have little importance to healthcare professionals and the patients that they care for. The SCORE-IT study (Selecting Core Outcomes for Randomised Effectiveness trials In Type 2 diabetes) has addressed this issue by establishing consensus on the most important outcomes for non-surgical interventions for hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes.Research design and methodsA comprehensive list of outcomes was developed from registered clinical trials, online patient resources, qualitative literature and long-term studies in the field. This list was then scored in a two-round online Delphi survey completed by healthcare professionals, people with type 2 diabetes, researchers in the field and healthcare policymakers. The results of this online Delphi were discussed and ratified at a face-to-face consensus meeting.Results173 people completed both rounds of the online survey (116 people with type 2 diabetes, 37 healthcare professionals, 14 researchers and 6 policymakers), 20 of these attended the consensus meeting (13 people with type 2 diabetes and 7 healthcare professionals). Consensus was reached on 18 core outcomes across five domains, which include outcomes related to diabetes care, quality of life and long-term diabetes-related complications.ConclusionsImplementation of the core outcome set in future trials will ensure that outcomes of importance to all stakeholders are measured and reported, enhancing the relevance of trial findings and facilitating the comparison of results across trials.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document