Development of a core set of outcome measures for OAB treatment.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction and hypothesis
Standardized measures enable the comparison of outcomes across providers and treatments giving valuable information for improving care quality and efficacy. The aim of this project was to define a minimum standard set of outcome measures and case-mix factors for evaluating the care of patients with overactive bladder (OAB).Methods
The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) convened an international working group (WG) of leading clinicians and patients to engage in a structured method for developing a core outcome set. Consensus was determined by a modified Delphi process, and discussions were supported by both literature review and patient input.Results
The standard set measures outcomes of care for adults seeking treatment for OAB, excluding residents of long-term care facilities. The WG focused on treatment outcomes identified as most important key outcome domains to patients: symptom burden and bother, physical functioning, emotional health, impact of symptoms and treatment on quality of life, and success of treatment. Demographic information and case-mix factors that may affect these outcomes were also included.Conclusions
The standardized outcome set for evaluating clinical care is appropriate for use by all health providers caring for patients with OAB, regardless of specialty or geographic location, and provides key data for quality improvement activities and research.
SUBMITTER: Foust-Wright C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5705742 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Development of a core set of outcome measures for OAB treatment.
Foust-Wright Caroline C Wissig Stephanie S Stowell Caleb C Olson Elizabeth E Anderson Anita A Anger Jennifer J Cardozo Linda L Cotterill Nikki N Gormley Elizabeth Ann EA Toozs-Hobson Philip P Heesakkers John J Herbison Peter P Moore Kate K McKinney Jessica J Morse Abraham A Pulliam Samantha S Szonyi George G Wagg Adrian A Milsom Ian I
International urogynecology journal 20170925 12
<h4>Introduction and hypothesis</h4>Standardized measures enable the comparison of outcomes across providers and treatments giving valuable information for improving care quality and efficacy. The aim of this project was to define a minimum standard set of outcome measures and case-mix factors for evaluating the care of patients with overactive bladder (OAB).<h4>Methods</h4>The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) convened an international working group (WG) of leadin ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundCore Outcome Sets (COS) are defined as the minimum sets of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all randomised controlled trials to facilitate combination and comparability of research. The aim of this review is to produce an item bank of previously reported outcome measures from published studies in amblyopia, strabismus and ocular motility disorders to initiate the development of COS.MethodsA review was conducted to identify articles reporting outcome measures for amblyopia, strabismus and ocular motility disorders. Using systematic methods according to the COMET handbook we searched key electronic bibliographic databases from 1st January 2011 to 27th September 2016 using MESH terms and alternatives indicating the different subtypes of amblyopia, strabismus and ocular motility disorders in relation to treatment outcomes and all synonyms. We included Cochrane reviews, other systematic reviews, controlled trials, non-systematic reviews and retrospective studies. Data was extracted to tabulate demographics of included studies, primary and secondary outcomes, methods of measurement and their time points.ResultsA total of 142 studies were included; 42 in amblyopia, 33 in strabismus, and 68 in ocular motility disorders (one study overlap between amblyopia and strabismus). We identified ten main outcome measure domains for amblyopia, 14 for strabismus, and ten common "visual or motility" outcome measure domains for ocular motility disorders. Within the domains, we found variable nomenclature being used and diversity in methods and timings of measurements.ConclusionThis review highlights discrepancies in outcome measure reporting within published literature for amblyopia, strabismus and ocular motility and it generated an item bank of the most commonly used and reported outcome measures for each of the three conditions from recent literature to start the process of COS development. Consensus among all stakeholders including patients and professionals is recommended to establish a useful COS.
| S-EPMC6368710 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveAmong the challenges in conducting clinical trials in large-vessel vasculitis (LVV), including both giant cell arteritis (GCA) and Takayasu arteritis (TA), is the lack of standardized and meaningful outcome measures. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Vasculitis Working Group initiated an international effort to develop and validate data-driven outcome tools for clinical investigation in LVV.MethodsAn international Delphi exercise was completed to gather opinions from clinical experts on LVV-related domains considered important to measure in trials. Patient interviews and focus groups were completed to identify outcomes of importance to patients. The results of these activities were presented and discussed in a "Virtual Special Interest Group" using telephone- and Internet-based conferences, discussions through electronic mail, and an in-person session at the 2016 OMERACT meeting. A preliminary core set of domains common for all forms of LVV with disease-specific elements was proposed.ResultsThe majority of experts agree with using common outcome measures for GCA and TA, with the option of supplementation with disease-specific items. Following interviews and focus groups, pain, fatigue, and emotional effect emerged as health-related quality of life domains important to patients. Current disease assessment tools, including the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score, were found to be inadequate to assess disease activity in GCA and standardized assessment of imaging tests were felt crucial to study LVV, especially TA.ConclusionInitial data from a clinician Delphi exercise and structured patient interviews have provided themes toward an OMERACT-endorsed core set of domains and outcome measures.
| S-EPMC5712274 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionA lack of uniformity in the choice of outcome measurement in hemophilia care and research has led to studies with incomparable results. We identified a need to define core outcome measures for use in research and clinical care of persons with hemophilia.ObjectiveTo move toward a core set of outcome measures for the assessment of persons with hemophilia in research and practice.MethodsA modified nominal groups process was conducted with an international group of hemophilia experts, including persons with hemophilia as follows. Step 1: item generation for all potential outcome measures. Step 2: survey where respondents voted on the relative importance and usefulness of each item. Steps 3/4: 2-day meeting where attendees voted for items they valued, followed by open discussion and a second round of voting. Step 5: survey where respondents selected their top five items from those with >50% agreement at the meeting.ResultsThe highest ranked items for the pediatric core set (% agreement) are treatment satisfaction (92.7%), joint health (83.3%), a measure of access to treatment (82.5%), a measure of treatment adherence (72.5%), and generic performance based physical function (72.1%). The highest ranked items for the adult core set (% agreement) are total bleeding events (88.1%), EuroQol five dimensions (85.4%), treatment adherence (82.1%), joint health (79.1%), and number/location of bleeds per unit time (78.6%).ConclusionThis process generated a list of preferred outcome measures to consider for assessment in persons with hemophilia. This information now requires refinement to define optimal core sets for use in different clinical/research contexts.
| S-EPMC7292657 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimPatient-reported outcome (PRO) measures (PROMs) are standard measures in the assessment of colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment, but the range and complexity of available PROMs may be hindering the synthesis of evidence. This systematic review aimed to: (i) summarize PROMs in studies of CRC surgery and (ii) categorize PRO content to inform the future development of an agreed minimum 'core' outcome set to be measured in all trials.MethodAll PROMs were identified from a systematic review of prospective CRC surgical studies. The type and frequency of PROMs in each study were summarized, and the number of items documented. All items were extracted and independently categorized by content by two researchers into 'health domains', and discrepancies were discussed with a patient and expert. Domain popularity and the distribution of items were summarized.ResultsFifty-eight different PROMs were identified from the 104 included studies. There were 23 generic, four cancer-specific, 11 disease-specific and 16 symptom-specific questionnaires, and three ad hoc measures. The most frequently used PROM was the EORTC QLQ-C30 (50 studies), and most PROMs (n = 40, 69%) were used in only one study. Detailed examination of the 50 available measures identified 917 items, which were categorized into 51 domains. The domains comprising the most items were 'anxiety' (n = 85, 9.2%), 'fatigue' (n = 67, 7.3%) and 'physical function' (n = 63, 6.9%). No domains were included in all PROMs.ConclusionThere is major heterogeneity of PRO measurement and a wide variation in content assessed in the PROMs available for CRC. A core outcome set will improve PRO outcome measurement and reporting in CRC trials.
| S-EPMC4744711 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe use of core outcome sets (COS) ensures that researchers measure and report those outcomes that are most likely to be relevant to users of their research. Several hundred COS projects have been systematically identified to date, but there has been no formal quality assessment of these studies. The Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) project aimed to identify minimum standards for the design of a COS study agreed upon by an international group, while other specific guidance exists for the final reporting of COS development studies (Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting [COS-STAR]).Methods and findingsAn international group of experienced COS developers, methodologists, journal editors, potential users of COS (clinical trialists, systematic reviewers, and clinical guideline developers), and patient representatives produced the COS-STAD recommendations to help improve the quality of COS development and support the assessment of whether a COS had been developed using a reasonable approach. An open survey of experts generated an initial list of items, which was refined by a 2-round Delphi survey involving nearly 250 participants representing key stakeholder groups. Participants assigned importance ratings for each item using a 1-9 scale. Consensus that an item should be included in the set of minimum standards was defined as at least 70% of the voting participants from each stakeholder group providing a score between 7 and 9. The Delphi survey was followed by a consensus discussion with the study management group representing multiple stakeholder groups. COS-STAD contains 11 minimum standards that are the minimum design recommendations for all COS development projects. The recommendations focus on 3 key domains: the scope, the stakeholders, and the consensus process.ConclusionsThe COS-STAD project has established 11 minimum standards to be followed by COS developers when planning their projects and by users when deciding whether a COS has been developed using reasonable methods.
| S-EPMC5689835 | 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:ObjectiveThe objectives of the study were to (1) map questions in epilepsy-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of children's health-related quality of life (HRQoL) to a proposed core outcome set (COS) for childhood epilepsy research and (2) gain insight into the acceptability of two leading candidate PROMs.MethodWe identified 11 epilepsy-specific PROMs of children's HRQoL (17 questionnaire versions) in a previous systematic review. Each item from the PROMs was mapped to 38 discrete outcomes across 10 domains of the COS: seizures, sleep, social functioning, mental health, cognition, physical functioning, behavior, adverse events, family life, and global quality of life. We consulted with three children with epilepsy and six parents of children with epilepsy in Patient Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) work to gain an understanding of the acceptability of the two leading PROMs from our review of measurement properties: Quality of Life in Childhood Epilepsy (QOLCE-55) and Health-Related Quality of Life Measure for Children with Epilepsy (CHEQOL).ResultsSocial Functioning is covered by all PROMs except DISABKIDS and G-QOLCE and Mental Health is covered by all PROMs except G-QOLCE and Hague Restrictions in Childhood Epilepsy Scale (HARCES). Only two PROMs (Epilepsy and Learning Disability Quality of Life (ELDQOL) and Glasgow Epilepsy Outcome Scale (GEOS-YP)) have items that cover the Seizure domain. The QOLCE-55 includes items that cover the domains of Physical Functioning, Social Functioning, Behavior, Mental Health, and Cognition. The CHEQOL parent and child versions cover the same domains as QOLCE-55 except for Physical Functioning and Behavior, and the child version has one item that covers the discrete outcome of Overall Quality of Life and one item that covers the discrete outcome of Relationship with parents and siblings. The QOLCE-55 parent version was acceptable to the parents we consulted with, and CHEQOL parent and child versions were described as acceptable to our child and parent advisory panel members.SignificanceMapping items from existing epilepsy-specific PROMs for children is an important step in operationalizing our COS for childhood epilepsy research, alongside evaluation of their measurement properties. Two leading PROMS, QOLCE-55 and CHEQOL, cover a wide range of domains from our COS and would likely be used in conjunction with assessment tools selected for specific study objectives. The PPIE work provided practical insights into the administration and acceptability of candidate PROMs in appropriate context. We promote our COS as a framework for selecting outcomes and PROMs for future childhood epilepsy evaluative research.
| S-EPMC7689576 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC7050303 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveMenopause is the natural cessation of menstruation and may be accompanied by troublesome symptoms including hot flushes and night sweats (vasomotor symptoms) and genitourinary symptoms. Randomized trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of interventions for these symptoms have reported a wide range of outcomes and used inconsistent measures. This variation precludes comparing and combining data from different trials. To overcome this limitation, we will develop a Core Outcome Set for Menopausal Symptoms.MethodsWe will systematically review the literature to identify the outcomes reported in the interventional trials for vasomotor and genitourinary symptoms. This list will be entered into a two-round modified Delphi survey to be completed by clinicians, researchers, and consumers (women who have experienced menopause). Participants will score outcomes on a nine-point scale from "not important" to "critically important." Representatives from each stakeholder group will then meet to discuss the results and finalize the Core Outcome Set. Ethics approval was not required as this was considered service evaluation and development. The study is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative (http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/917).ResultsAn agreed upon set of minimum outcomes and outcome measures will facilitate combining and comparing findings from future trials of treatments for menopausal symptoms.ConclusionsThis Core Outcome Set will better enable women and clinicians to select effective treatments, improve the quality of trial reporting, reduce research wastage, and improve care for women with troublesome menopausal symptoms. VIDEO SUMMARY:: http://links.lww.com/MENO/A633.
| S-EPMC7709924 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveEvidence for the management of acute otitis externa (AOE) is limited, with unclear diagnostic criteria and variably reported outcome measures that may not reflect key stakeholder priorities. We aimed to develop 1) a definition, 2) diagnostic criteria and 3) a core outcome set (COS) for AOE.Study designCOS development according to Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) methodology and parallel consensus selection of diagnostic criteria/definition.SettingStakeholders from the United Kingdom.Subjects and methodsComprehensive literature review identified candidate items for the COS, definition and diagnostic criteria. Nine individuals with past AOE generated further patient-centred candidate items. Candidate items were rated for importance by patient and professional (ENT doctors, general practitioners, microbiologists, nurses, audiologists) stakeholders in a three-round online Delphi exercise. Consensus items were grouped to form the COS, diagnostic criteria, and definition.ResultsCandidate COS items from patients (n = 28) and literature (n = 25) were deduplicated and amalgamated to a final candidate list (n = 46). Patients emphasised quality-of-life and the impact on daily activities/work. Via the Delphi process, stakeholders agreed on 31 candidate items. The final COS covered six outcomes: pain; disease severity; impact on quality-of-life and daily activities; patient satisfaction; treatment-related outcome; and microbiology. 14 candidate diagnostic criteria were identified, 8 reaching inclusion consensus. The final definition for AOE was 'diffuse inflammation of the ear canal skin of less than 6 weeks duration'.ConclusionThe development and adoption of a consensus definition, diagnostic criteria and a COS will help to standardise future research in AOE, facilitating meta-analysis. Consulting former patients throughout development highlighted deficiencies in the outcomes adopted previously, in particular concerning the impact of AOE on daily life.
| S-EPMC8121300 | biostudies-literature