Identifying What to Measure in Acne Clinical Trials: First Steps towards Development of a Core Outcome Set.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Layton AM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5746175 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Identifying What to Measure in Acne Clinical Trials: First Steps towards Development of a Core Outcome Set.
Layton Alison M AM Eady E Anne EA Thiboutot Diane M DM Tan Jerry J
The Journal of investigative dermatology 20170427 8
Similar Datasets
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:IntroductionThe aim of this study is to explore outcomes currently reported in physiotherapy trials for bronchiectasis and investigate the level of consistency in outcome reporting. This mapping of outcomes will be used to inform the development of a core outcome set (COS) for physiotherapy research in bronchiectasis. Outcomes reported in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and RCT protocols were reviewed and evaluated. We included trials with physiotherapy as the main intervention, including pulmonary rehabilitation, exercise prescription, airway clearance, positive expiratory pressure devices, breathing training, self-management plans, and home exercise program. Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the physiotherapy evidence database (PEDro) were searched from inception using a prespecified search strategy. Records including adult patients with bronchiectasis were included. Outcomes were listed verbatim and categorised into domains based on a pre-specified system, frequency of reporting and sources of variation were inspected.ResultsOf 2158 abstracts screened, 37 trials (1202 participants) and 17 trial protocols were identified. Eighteen different physiotherapy techniques were investigated. A total of 331 outcomes were reported. No single outcome was reported by all trials. The most reported outcomes were lung function (27 trials, 50%), health related quality of life (26 trials, 48.1%), and dyspnoea (18 trials, 33.3%). A list of 104 unique outcomes covering 23 domains was created. Trials focus on physiological outcomes, mainly those related to respiratory system functions. Outcomes related to functioning and life impact are often neglected.ConclusionOutcome reporting in physiotherapy research for bronchiectasis was found to be inconsistent in terms of choosing and defining outcomes. Developing a core outcome set in this area of research is needed to facilitate aggregation of future trial results in systematic reviews that will in turn inform the strength of evidence for the effectiveness of physiotherapy. Outcome choice should include all stakeholders, including patients.Trial registrationThis study is registered in the PROSPERO registry under the number CRD42021266247.
| S-EPMC10019700 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHeterogeneity in the outcomes collected and reported in trials of interventions to prevent obesity in the first five years of life highlights the need for a core outcome set to streamline intervention evaluation and synthesis of effects. This study aimed to develop a core outcome set for use in early childhood obesity prevention intervention studies in children from birth to five years of age (COS-EPOCH).MethodsThe development of the core outcome set followed published guidelines and consisted of three stages: (1) systematic scoping review of outcomes collected and reported in early childhood obesity prevention trials; (2) e-Delphi study with stakeholders to prioritise outcomes; (3) meeting with stakeholders to reach consensus on outcomes. Stakeholders included parents/caregivers of children aged ≤ five years, policy-makers/funders, researchers, health professionals, and community and organisational stakeholders interested in obesity prevention interventions.ResultsTwenty-two outcomes from nine outcome domains (anthropometry, dietary intake, sedentary behaviour, physical activity, sleep, outcomes in parents/caregivers, environmental, emotional/cognitive functioning, economics) were included in the core outcome set: infant tummy time; child diet quality, dietary intake, fruit and vegetable intake, non-core food intake, non-core beverage intake, meal patterns, weight-based anthropometry, screentime, time spent sedentary, physical activity, sleep duration, wellbeing; parent/caregiver physical activity, sleep and nutrition parenting practices; food environment, sedentary behaviour or physical activity home environment, family meal environment, early childhood education and care environment, household food security; economic evaluation.ConclusionsThe systematic stakeholder-informed study identified the minimum outcomes recommended for collection and reporting in early childhood obesity prevention trials. Future work will investigate the recommended instruments to measure each of these outcomes. The core outcome set will standardise guidance on the measurement and reporting of outcomes from early childhood obesity prevention interventions, to better facilitate evidence comparison and synthesis, and maximise the value of data collected across studies.
| S-EPMC9492532 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:There is no consensus on which domains should be measured or which instruments should be used in clinical trials for psoriasis therapies. Objective:To achieve international consensus among psoriasis stakeholders on a core set of domains that should be measured in all psoriasis clinical trials. Design, Setting, and Participants:Literature review, pre-Delphi survey exercises, nominal group discussions, and audience voting at 4 stakeholder meetings were used to develop candidate domains for 2 rounds of a Delphi survey. Stakeholders were patients or advocates of patients with psoriasis and health care professionals (HCPs) with expertise in psoriasis, including physicians, scientists, advocacy organization representatives, and regulators. Delphi surveys were conducted electronically from October through December 2015 and between September and October 2016. Stakeholder discussions with audience response voting were conducted at live meetings in the United States, Canada, and Italy from January 2013 to December 2016 to refine and ratify the core set of domains. Main Outcomes and Measures:Two rounds of an electronic Delphi survey were used to determine consensus. A domain was considered "core" (ie, should be measured in all trials) if a threshold consensus of at least 70% was met in both patient and HCP groups. Domains meeting consensus in only 1 group were considered to be important but were not required to be measured in all trials ("middle ring"). These domains were included for rerating in round 2. Domains that did not meet consensus in either of the groups ("outer ring") were considered to be of uncertain importance and were placed in the research agenda. Results:In round 1 of the Delphi survey, 107 HCPs and 14 patients participated. Most HCPs (72 [67%]) were dermatologists between 46 and 64 years old (71 [66%]), white (78 [73%]), and male (75 [70%]) from North America (60 [57%]) and Europe (34 [32%]).There were 10 pharmaceutical industry clinical or health economic scientists, 3 advocacy organization representatives, 2 regulatory agency representatives, and 5 "other." In the second round, 77 HCPs and 15 patients participated. Of the 20 candidate domains, the following 6 met consensus as core domains: skin manifestations, psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis symptoms, health-related quality of life, investigator global assessment, patient global assessment, and treatment satisfaction. Secondary skin manifestations as well as nail, inverse, genital, and guttate psoriasis were classified as important but not mandatory. Psoriatic arthritis signs, work productivity or participation, economic impact (direct and indirect cost), and cardiovascular disease comprised the research agenda. Conclusions and Relevance:This iterative Delphi process yielded international consensus among professional and patient stakeholders on 6 domains that should be measured in all clinical trials for psoriasis. Future International Dermatology Outcome Measures group efforts will focus on development of a core outcome measurement set for psoriasis trials.
| S-EPMC6233740 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionIn 2004, nearly 11 million severely burn-injured patients required medical care worldwide. Burns cause prolonged hospitalisation and long-term disability. Although mortality has been reduced, morbidity remains significant.Burn care is costly and decision-making is challenging. A range of procedures are performed at different times after injury; new technology is emerging and alternate care pathways are regularly introduced. Data to guide evidence-based decision-making are lacking. Researchers use different outcomes to assess recovery, so it is not possible to combine trial information to draw meaningful conclusions. Early recovery measures include length of hospital stay, healing time and treatment complications. Longer-term outcomes include issues with function, cosmesis and psychological health. Reporting an agreed set of the most important outcomes (core outcome set (COS)) in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) will allow effective evidence synthesis to support clinical decisions. Patient input will ensure relevance.Methods and analysisThe aim is to produce a burn COS for RCT reporting. A long list of outcomes will be identified through systematic reviews of clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Additional outcomes will be identified from interviews with patients over 10 years, parents of children of any age and multidisciplinary professionals. A two-stage modified Delphi exercise will be undertaken to prioritise and condense the list, with patients (n=150) at different stages of recovery. We will also include nursing, therapy (n=100) and medical staff (n=100). A reduced list will be taken to consensus meetings with families and clinical staff to achieve a final COS.Ethics and disseminationA COS will reduce outcome reporting heterogeneity in burn care research, allowing more effective use of research funding and facilitating evidence synthesis and evidence-based clinical decision-making. Stakeholders will include journal editors, health commissioners, researchers, patients and professionals. The study has ethical approval and is registered with Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative (http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/798?result=true).
| S-EPMC5734442 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInvasive off- or on-pump cardiac surgery (elective and emergency procedures, excluding transplants are routinely performed to treat complications of ischaemic heart disease. Randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluate the effectiveness of treatments in the setting of cardiac surgery. However, the impact of RCTs is weakened by heterogeneity in outcome measuring and reporting, which hinders comparison across trials. Core outcome sets (COS, a set of outcomes that should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in clinical trials for a specific clinical field) help reduce this problem. In light of the above, we developed a COS for cardiac surgery effectiveness trials.MethodsPotential core outcomes were identified a priori by analysing data on 371 RCTs of 58,253 patients. We reached consensus on core outcomes in an international three-round eDelphi exercise. Outcomes for which at least 60% of the participants chose the response option "no" and less than 20% chose the response option "yes" were excluded.ResultsEighty-six participants from 23 different countries involving adult cardiac patients, cardiac surgeons, anaesthesiologists, nursing staff and researchers contributed to this eDelphi. The panel reached consensus on four core outcomes: 1) Measure of mortality, 2) Measure of quality of life, 3) Measure of hospitalisation and 4) Measure of cerebrovascular complication to be included in adult cardiac surgery trials.ConclusionThis study used robust research methodology to develop a minimum core outcome set for clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of treatments in the setting of cardiac surgery. As a next step, appropriate outcome measurement instruments have to be selected.
| S-EPMC5667757 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Diabetes prevention intervention studies in women with previous gestational diabetes have increased, but no consensus exists on core outcomes to support comparisons and synthesis of findings. We aimed to systematically catalogue outcomes in diabetes after pregnancy prevention interventions with the goal of developing a core outcome set. Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trials Register, and CINAHL were searched from inception to October 2017. Post-partum lifestyle and diabetes screening intervention studies in women with previous gestational diabetes and/or their families were eligible. No limits were placed on intervention type, duration, or location. Two authors independently screened and performed data extraction on outcomes, measurement tools, and relevant study characteristics. We analysed data from 38 studies (29 randomised controlled trials and 9 pre-post intervention evaluations) comprising 12,509 participants. Most publications (80%) occurred between the years 2012 and 2017. Among 172 outcomes, we identified 36 outcome groups and classified them under three domains: health status (body weight, body composition, diabetes risk, cardiometabolic risk, diabetes development, mental health, pregnancy outcomes, and fitness), health behaviours (dietary, physical activity, diabetes screening, behaviour change, and breastfeeding), and intervention processes (implementation). The health status domain contained the most commonly reported outcomes, but measurement tools were very heterogeneous. Despite the recent explosion in diabetes after pregnancy prevention studies, large variation in outcomes and measurement methods exists. Research is needed to define a core outcome set to standardise diabetes after pregnancy prevention interventions. The core outcome set should engage a wide group of stakeholders to identify impactful indicators for future trials.
| S-EPMC7296791 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimStandardizing evaluative outcomes and their assessment facilitates comparisons between clinical studies and provides a basis for comparing direct effects of different treatment options. The aim of this study was to systematically review types of outcomes and measurement instruments used in studies regarding treatment options for slow-transit constipation (STC) in adults.MethodsIn this systematic review of the literature, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO from inception through February 2018, for papers assessing any STC treatment in adult patients. Outcomes were systematically extracted and categorized in domains using the conceptual framework of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology filter 2.0. Outcome reporting was stratified by decade of publication, intervention, and study type.ResultsForty-seven studies were included in this systematic review. Fifty-nine different types of outcomes were identified. The outcomes were structured in three core areas and 18 domains. The most commonly reported domains were defecation functions (94%), gastrointestinal transit (53%), and health-care service use (51%). The most frequently reported outcomes were defecation frequency (83%), health-related quality of life (43%), and adverse events and complications (43%). In 62% of the studies, no primary outcome was defined, whereas in two studies, more than one primary outcomes were selected. A wide diversity of measurement instruments was used to assess the reported outcomes.ConclusionOutcomes reported in studies on STC in adults are heterogeneous. A lack of standardization complicates comparisons between studies. Developing a core outcome set for STC in adults could contribute to standardization of outcome reporting in (future) studies.
| S-EPMC7027471 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10946976 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimExtrahepatic biliary atresia is a rare disorder. This creates challenges in the quality and quantity of research conducted. This issue is exacerbated by the potential heterogeneity in the reported outcomes in research examining the management of biliary atresia. A core outcome set is required to standardise reporting on the management of biliary atresia in research, facilitate systematic reviews that include outcomes of greatest importance to patients and clinicians, and to evaluate the quality of the existing evidence base on the management of biliary atresia.MethodsA list of all potential outcomes will be developed through a systematic review of the literature. This list will be refined through a three-stage Delphi approach, involving key stakeholders in the management of biliary atresia. This will include patients and their parents, clinicians, nurses and allied health professionals. In this way, outcomes will be prioritised into a set of consensus core outcomes.ConclusionThe development of a core outcome set in biliary atresia management is needed to guide future research and assist in evaluating the quality of existing research.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted by the Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC), Ref: HREC/20/QCHQ/62448. Results of the study will be published in an open access format.
| S-EPMC8362727 | biostudies-literature