Measuring communication as a core outcome in aphasia trials: Results of the ROMA-2 international core outcome set development meeting.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wallace SJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10946976 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jul-Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Measuring communication as a core outcome in aphasia trials: Results of the ROMA-2 international core outcome set development meeting.
Wallace Sarah J SJ Worrall Linda L Rose Tanya A TA Alyahya Reem S W RSW Babbitt Edna E Beeke Suzanne S de Beer Carola C Bose Arpita A Bowen Audrey A Brady Marian C MC Breitenstein Caterina C Bruehl Stefanie S Bryant Lucy L Cheng Bonnie B Y BBY Cherney Leora R LR Conroy Paul P Copland David A DA Croteau Claire C Cruice Madeline M Dipper Lucy L Hilari Katerina K Howe Tami T Kelly Helen H Kiran Swathi S Laska Ann-Charlotte AC Marshall Jane J Murray Laura L LL Patterson Janet J Pearl Gill G Quinting Jana J Rochon Elizabeth E Rose Miranda L ML Rubi-Fessen Ilona I Sage Karen K Simmons-Mackie Nina N Visch-Brink Evy E Volkmer Anna A Webster Janet J Whitworth Anne A Dorze Guylaine Le GL
International journal of language & communication disorders 20221230 4
<h4>Background</h4>Evidence-based recommendations for a core outcome set (COS; minimum set of outcomes) for aphasia treatment research have been developed (the Research Outcome Measurement in Aphasia-ROMA, COS). Five recommended core outcome constructs: communication, language, quality of life, emotional well-being and patient-reported satisfaction/impact of treatment, were identified through three international consensus studies. Constructs were paired with outcome measurement instruments (OMIs ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundTrigeminal neuralgia (TN) is an excruciating unilateral facial pain, which negatively affects patient's quality of life. Historically, it has been difficult to compare treatment efficacy due to the lack of standardized outcomes. In addition, patients' perspective has seldomly been acknowledged. The aim of this study was to reach consensus on what outcomes of treatment are important to different TN stakeholders (patients, clinicians and researchers), to identify the TN Core Outcome Set (TRINCOS).MethodsA list of outcomes identified through a systematic review and focus group work was used to develop the survey questionnaire. A three-round Delphi was conducted. Participants were asked to score the outcomes on scale from 1 to 9 (1-3 not important;4-6 important but not critical;7-9 critical). Outcomes scored as critical by ≥70% and not important by <15% were retained, and those for which no consensus was reached were discussed at a consensus meeting.ResultsOf the 70 participants who completed the Delphi, 26 were patients, 38 were clinicians and six were researchers. Of the 40 outcomes presented, 17 were scored as critical and no consensus was met for 23 outcomes. Agreement was reached during a consensus meeting on 10 outcomes across six domains (pain, side effects, social impact, quality of life, global improvement, and satisfaction with treatment).ConclusionImplementation of TRINCOS in future clinical trials will improve homogeneity of studies' results, reduce the redundancy in the outcome assessment and effectively allow comparison of different treatments to better inform researchers, clinicians and most importantly patients, about the efficacy of the different treatments.SignificanceImplementation of a 10-item core outcome set in trigeminal neuralgia will improve comparability between studies allowing patients to have faster access to better treatments.
| S-EPMC10092666 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionInterventions to treat speech-language difficulties in primary progressive aphasia (PPA) often use word accuracy as a highly comparable outcome. However, there are more constructs of importance to people with PPA that have received less attention.MethodsFollowing Core Outcome Set Standards for Development Recommendations (COSSTAD), this study comprised: Stage 1 - systematic review to identify measures; Stage 2 - consensus groups to identify important outcome constructs for people with PPA (n = 82) and care partners (n = 91); Stage 3 - e-Delphi consensus with 57 researchers.ResultsThe systematic review identified 84 Outcome Measurement Instruments. Core outcome constructs identified included: (1) Participate in conversations with family and friends, (2) get words out, (3) be more fluent, (4) convey a message by any means, and (5) understand what others are saying. Researchers were unable to reach a consensus on measurement instruments.DiscussionFurther work is required to develop appropriate measurement instruments that address all core outcome constructs important to key stakeholders.HighlightsWe introduce new symptom-led perspectives on primary progressive aphasia (PPA). The focus is on non-fluent/agrammatic (nfvPPA) and semantic (svPPA) variants. Foregrounding of early and non-verbal features of PPA and clinical trajectories is featured. We introduce a symptom-led staging scheme for PPA. We propose a prototype for a functional impairment scale, the PPA Progression Planning Aid.
| S-EPMC11781257 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimNecrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) is the most lethal disease of the gastrointestinal tract of preterm infants. New and existing management strategies need clinical evaluation. Large heterogeneity exists in the selection, measurement, and reporting of outcome measures in NEC intervention studies. This hampers meta-analyses and the development of evidence-based management guidelines. We aim to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for NEC that includes the most relevant outcomes for patients and physicians, from moment of diagnosis into adulthood. This COS is designed for use in NEC treatment trials, in infants with confirmed NEC.MethodsThis study is designed according to COS-STAD (Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development) recommendations and the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative Handbook. We obtained a waiver from the Ethics Review Board and prospectively registered this study with COMET (Study 1920). We will approach 125 clinicians and/or researchers from low-middle and high-income countries based on their scientific output (using SCIVAL, a bibliometric tool). Patients and parents will be approached through local patient organisations. Participants will be separated into three panels, to assess differences in priorities between former patients and parents (1. lay panel), clinicians and researchers involved in the neonatal period (2. neonatal panel) and after the neonatal period (3. post-neonatal panel). They will be presented with outcomes currently used in NEC research, identified through a systematic review, in a Delphi process. Eligible outcome domains are also identified from the patients and parents' perspectives. Using a consensus process, including three online Delphi rounds and a final face-to-face consensus meeting, the COS will be finalised and include outcomes deemed essential to all stakeholders: health care professionals, parents and patients' representatives. The final COS will be reported in accordance with the COS-Standards for reporting (COS-STAR) statement.ConclusionsDevelopment of an international COS will help to improve homogeneity of outcome measure reporting in NEC, will enable adequate and efficient comparison of treatment strategies, and will help the interpretation and implementation of clinical trial results. This will contribute to high-quality evidence regarding the best treatment strategy for NEC in preterm infants.
| S-EPMC10230797 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is no agreement which outcomes should be measured when investigating interventions for periodontal diseases. It is difficult to compare or combine studies with different outcomes; resulting in research wastage and uncertainty for patients and healthcare professionals.ObjectiveDevelop a core outcome set (COS) relevant to key stakeholders for use in effectiveness trials investigating prevention and management of periodontal diseases.MethodsMixed method study involving literature review; online Delphi Study; and face-to-face consensus meeting.ParticipantsKey stakeholders: patients, dentists, hygienist/therapists, periodontists, researchers.ResultsThe literature review identified 37 unique outcomes. Delphi round 1: 20 patients and 51 dental professional and researchers prioritised 25 and suggested an additional 11 outcomes. Delphi round 2: from the resulting 36 outcomes, 13 patients and 39 dental professionals and researchers prioritised 22 outcomes. A face-to-face consensus meeting was hosted in Dundee, Scotland by an independent chair. Eight patients and six dental professional and researchers participated. The final COS contains: Probing depths, Quality of life, Quantified levels of gingivitis, Quantified levels of plaque, Tooth loss.ConclusionsImplementation of this COS will ensure the results of future effectiveness trials for periodontal diseases are more relevant to patients and dental professionals, reducing research wastage. This could reduce uncertainty for patients and dental professionals by ensuring the evidence used to inform their choices is meaningful to them. It could also strengthen the quality and certainty of the evidence about the relative effectiveness of interventions.RegistrationCOMET Database: http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/265?result=true.
| S-EPMC8297801 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOutcome measurement is essential to progress clinical practice and improve patient care.AimTo develop a Core Outcome Set for best care for the dying person.DesignWe followed the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative guidelines, which involved identifying potential outcomes via a systematic literature review (n = 619 papers) and from participants in the "iLIVE" project (10 countries: 101 patients, 37 family members, 63 clinicians), followed by a two-round Delphi study, and a consensus meeting.Setting/participantsClinicians, researchers, family members, and patient representatives from 20 countries participated in the Delphi Rounds 1 (n = 462) and 2 (n = 355). Thirty-two participants attended the consensus meeting.ResultsFrom the systematic review and the cohort study we identified 256 and 238 outcomes respectively, from which we extracted a 52-outcome list covering areas related to the patients' physical, psychosocial, and spiritual dimensions, family support, place of care and care delivery, relational aspects of care, and general concepts. A preliminary 13-outcome list reached consensus during the Delphi. At the consensus meeting, a 14-item Core Outcome Set was ratified by the participants.ConclusionsThis study involved a large and diverse sample of key stakeholders in defining the core outcome set for best care for the dying person, focusing on the last days of life. By actively integrating the perspectives of family carers and patient representatives from various cultural backgrounds this Core Outcome Set enriches our understanding of essential elements of care for the dying and provides a solid foundation for advancing quality of end-of-life care.
| S-EPMC11673312 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSurgery is the primary treatment that can offer potential cure for gastric cancer, but is associated with significant risks. Identifying optimal surgical approaches should be based on comparing outcomes from well designed trials. Currently, trials report different outcomes, making synthesis of evidence difficult. To address this, the aim of this study was to develop a core outcome set (COS)-a standardized group of outcomes important to key international stakeholders-that should be reported by future trials in this field.MethodsStage 1 of the study involved identifying potentially important outcomes from previous trials and a series of patient interviews. Stage 2 involved patients and healthcare professionals prioritizing outcomes using a multilanguage international Delphi survey that informed an international consensus meeting at which the COS was finalized.ResultsSome 498 outcomes were identified from previously reported trials and patient interviews, and rationalized into 56 items presented in the Delphi survey. A total of 952 patients, surgeons, and nurses enrolled in round 1 of the survey, and 662 (70 per cent) completed round 2. Following the consensus meeting, eight outcomes were included in the COS: disease-free survival, disease-specific survival, surgery-related death, recurrence, completeness of tumour removal, overall quality of life, nutritional effects, and 'serious' adverse events.ConclusionA COS for surgical trials in gastric cancer has been developed with international patients and healthcare professionals. This is a minimum set of outcomes that is recommended to be used in all future trials in this field to improve trial design and synthesis of evidence.
| S-EPMC10364901 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundComparisons of clinical trial findings in systematic reviews can be hindered by the heterogeneity of the outcomes reported. Moreover, the outcomes that matter most to patients might be underreported. A core outcome set can address these issues, as it defines a minimum set of outcomes that should be reported in all clinical trials in a particular area of research. The objective in this study was to develop a core outcome set for clinical trials of medication review in multi-morbid older patients with polypharmacy.MethodsFirstly, eligible outcomes were identified through a systematic review of trials of medication review in older patients (≥65 years) and interviews with 15 older patients. Secondly, an international three-round Delphi survey in four countries involving patients, healthcare professionals, and experts was conducted to validate outcomes to be included in the core outcome set. Consensus meetings were conducted to validate the results.ResultsOf the 164 participants invited to take part in the Delphi survey, 150 completed Round 1, including 55 patients or family caregivers, 55 healthcare professionals, and 40 experts. A total of 129 participants completed all three rounds. Sixty-four eligible outcomes were extracted from 47 articles, 32 clinical trial protocols, and patient interviews. Thirty outcomes were removed and one added after Round 1, 18 outcomes were removed after Round 2, and seven after Round 3. Results were discussed during consensus meetings. Consensus was reached on seven outcomes, which constitute the core outcome set: drug-related hospital admissions; drug overuse; drug underuse; potentially inappropriate medications; clinically significant drug-drug interactions; health-related quality of life; pain relief.ConclusionsWe developed a core outcome set of seven outcomes which should be used in future trials of medication review in multi-morbid older patients with polypharmacy.
| S-EPMC5809844 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This report provides a summary of the third meeting of the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative held in San Diego, CA, U.S.A., 6-7 April 2013 (HOME III). The meeting addressed the four domains that had previously been agreed should be measured in every eczema clinical trial: clinical signs, patient-reported symptoms, long-term control and quality of life. Formal presentations and nominal group techniques were used at this working meeting, attended by 56 voting participants (31 of whom were dermatologists). Significant progress was made on the domain of clinical signs. Without reference to any named scales, it was agreed that the intensity and extent of erythema, excoriation, oedema/papulation and lichenification should be included in the core outcome measure for the scale to have content validity. The group then discussed a systematic review of all scales measuring the clinical signs of eczema and their measurement properties, followed by a consensus vote on which scale to recommend for inclusion in the core outcome set. Research into the remaining three domains was presented, followed by discussions. The symptoms group and quality of life groups need to systematically identify all available tools and rate the quality of the tools. A definition of long-term control is needed before progress can be made towards recommending a core outcome measure.
| S-EPMC4298247 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo develop a core outcome set for the evaluation of interventions that aim to improve how people make decisions about whether to participate in randomized controlled trials (of healthcare interventions), the ELICIT Study.Study designInternational mixed-method study involving a systematic review of existing outcomes, semi-structured interviews, an online Delphi survey, and a face-to-face consensus meeting.ResultsThe literature review and stakeholder interviews (n = 25) initially identified 1045 reported outcomes that were grouped into 40 individually distinct outcomes. These 40 outcomes were scored for importance in two rounds of an online Delphi survey (n = 79), with 18 people attending the consensus meeting. Consensus was reached on 12 core outcomes: therapeutic misconception; comfort with decision; authenticity of decision; communication about the trial; empowerment; sense of altruism; equipoise; knowledge; salience of questions; understanding, how helpful the process was for decision making; and trial attrition.ConclusionThe ELICIT core outcome set is the first internationally agreed minimum set of outcomes deemed essential to be measured in all future studies evaluating interventions to improve decisions about participating in an randomized controlled trial. Use of the ELICIT core set will ensure that results from these trials are comparable and relevant to all stakeholders.RegistrationCOMET database - http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/595.
| S-EPMC8485845 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesA core outcome set (COS) describes a minimum set of outcomes to be reported by all clinical trials of one healthcare condition. Delphi surveys are frequently used to achieve consensus on core outcomes. International input is important to achieve global COS uptake. We aimed to investigate participant representation in international Delphi surveys, with reference to the inclusion of patients and participants from low and middle income countries as stakeholders (LMICs).DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesEMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, COMET database and hand-searching.Eligibility criteriaProtocols and studies describing Delphi surveys used to develop an international COS for trial reporting, published between 1 January 2017 and 6 June 2019.Data extraction and synthesisDelphi participants were grouped as patients or healthcare professionals (HCPs). Participants were considered international if their country of origin was different to that of the first or senior author. Data extraction included participant numbers, country of origin, country income group and whether Delphi surveys were translated. We analysed the impact these factors had on outcome prioritisation.ResultsOf 90 included studies, 69% (n=62) were completed and 31% (n=28) were protocols. Studies recruited more HCPs than patients (median 60 (IQR 30-113) vs 30 (IQR 14-66) participants, respectively). A higher percentage of HCPs was international compared with patients (57% (IQR 37-78) vs 20% (IQR 0-68)). Only 31% (n=28) studies recruited participants from LMICs. Regarding recruitment from LMICs, patients were under-represented (16% studies; n=8) compared with HCPs (22%; n=28). Few (7%; n=6) studies translated Delphi surveys. Only 3% studies (n=3) analysed Delphi responses by geographical location; all found differences in outcome prioritisation.ConclusionsThere is a disproportionately lower inclusion of international patients, compared with HCPs, in COS-development Delphi surveys, particularly within LMICs. Future international Delphi surveys should consider exploring for geographical and income-based differences in outcome prioritisation.Prospero registration numberCRD42019138519.
| S-EPMC7684826 | biostudies-literature