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

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.

Researchers’ perspectives on methodological challenges and outcomes selection in interventional studies targeting medication adherence in rheumatic diseases: an OMERACT-adherence study

Background Research on adherence interventions in rheumatology is limited by methodological issues, particularly heterogeneous outcomes. We aimed to describe researchers’ experiences with conducting interventional studies targeting medication adherence in rheumatology and their perspectives on establishing core outcomes. Methods Semi-structured interviews using audio conference were conducted with researchers who had conducted an adherence study of any design in the past 10 years. Data collection and thematic analysis were performed iteratively, until saturation. Results We interviewed 13 researchers, most of whom worked in academia and specialized in epidemiology and/or health services research. We identified three themes: 1) improving measurement of adherence (considering all phases of adherence, using appropriate and relevant measures, and establishing clinically meaningful thresholds); 2) challenges in designing and appraising adherence intervention studies (considering the confusion over a plethora of outcomes, difficulties with powering studies to demonstrate meaningful changes, and suboptimal descriptions of adherence interventions in published studies); and 3) advancing outcome assessment in adherence intervention studies (capturing rationale for developing a core domain set as well as recommendations and anticipated challenges by participants). Conclusions Uniquely gathering perspectives from international adherence researchers, our findings led to researcher-informed recommendations for improving adherence research including specifying the targeted adherence phase in designing interventions and studies and providing a glossary of terms to promote consistency in reporting. We also identified recommendations for developing a core domain set for interventional studies targeting medication adherence including involvement of patients, clinicians, and other stakeholders and methodological and practical considerations to establish rigor and support uptake.

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

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).