Which outcome measures are reported by clinical trials investigating OME treatment? A case for standardised reporting.
ABSTRACT: Many different OME treatment trials have been published using different outcomes measures to evaluate the success of particular interventions. We set out to identify the variation in reporting of outcome measures in OME trials that exists at present. This has been achieved by reviewing published trials to determine which outcome measures have been reported.The literature review was carried out using PUBMED database (1980 to 2013). Data were collected on the treatment outcomes reported, with particular focus on the methods of assessment and the number of treatment outcomes used in each study.The 171 studies identified used 12 broad treatment outcome measures. The most common outcome measure was OME resolution (48%) followed by hearing level (36%). Only 95 studies used a single outcome measure, with 76 studies using between 2 and 4 outcome measures. The method of assessment varied between studies that used the same treatment outcome measures.OME treatment trials report a wide range of measures and comparison across studies is thus difficult. Establishing a core set of outcome measures to be reported by all trials in the future could be useful, and would allow comprehensive comparison of different studies and minimise potential for reporting bias.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Heterogeneity has been noted in the selection and reporting of disease-specific, pediatric outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The consequence is invalid results or difficulty comparing results across trials. The primary objective of this systematic review was to assess primary outcome and outcome measure selection and reporting, in pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) treatment trials. As secondary objectives, we compared trial disease definition to established concensus guidelines, and the efficacy of current EoE treatments. METHODS:We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and CINAHL since 2001. We also searched clinical trial registries (portal.nihr.ac.uk; clinicaltrials.gov; isrctn.com; and anzctr.org.au) and references of included studies. We included RCTs of EoE treatment in patients 0-18 years. Two authors independently assessed articles. RESULTS:Eleven studies met inclusion criteria. All identified primary outcomes, however, of 9 unique primary outcomes, only 2 were used in more than one study. In total, 25 unique primary and secondary outcome measures were employed for pediatric EoE treatment trials. Measurement properties and rationale for their selection was rarely provided. Uptake of consensus-based diagnostic criteria was 25 % in trials initiated after 2011. Due to the small number and heterogeneity of studies obtained, no meta-analysis of treatment efficacy could be undertaken. This SR was limited to exclusively pediatric RCTs. CONCLUSIONS:The results of this study confirm the need for a standardized set of core outcomes that are universally reported in pediatric EoE trials. Consistent disease definition and standardized outcome reporting will facilitate meta-analyses across similar trials and inform future clinical decision-making. Systematic review registration number CRD42013003798.
Project description:BACKGROUND:The suitability of disease activity indices has been challenged, with growing interest in objective measures of inflammation. AIM:To undertake a systematic review of efficacy and safety outcomes in placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with Crohn's disease. METHODS:MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Library were searched until November 2015, for RCTs of adult Crohn's disease patients treated with medical or surgical therapies. Data on efficacy and safety outcomes, end-point definitions, and measurement instruments were extracted and stratified by publication date (pre-2009 and 2009 onwards). RESULTS:One hundred and eighty-one RCTs (110 induction and 71 maintenance) were identified, including 23 850 patients. About 92.3% reported clinical efficacy endpoints. The Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) dominated, defining clinical response or remission in 63.5% of trials (35 definitions of response or remission). CDAI < 150 was the commonest endpoint, but reporting reduced between periods (46.4%-41.1%), whilst use of CDAI100 increased (16.8%-30.4%). Fistula studies most commonly reported fistula closure (9, 90.0%). Reporting of biomarker, endoscopy and histology endpoints increased overall (33.3%-40.6%, 14.4%-30.4% and 3.2%-12.5%, respectively), but were heterogeneous and rarely reported in fistula trials. Patient-reported outcome measures were reported in 41.4% of trials and safety endpoints in 35.4%. Many of the common adverse events relate to disease exacerbation or treatment failure. CONCLUSIONS:Trial endpoints vary across studies, over time and are distinct in fistula studies. Despite growth in reporting of objective measures of inflammation and in patient-reported outcome measures, there is a lack of standardisation. This confirms the need for a core outcome set for comparative effectiveness research in Crohn's disease.
Project description:Trypanosoma brucei is a blood-borne, protozoan parasite that causes African sleeping sickness in humans and nagana in animals. The current chemotherapy relies on only a handful of drugs that display undesirable toxicity, poor efficacy and drug-resistance. In this study, we explored the use of lysosomotropic drugs to induce bloodstream form T. brucei cell death via lysosome destabilization.We measured drug concentrations that inhibit cell proliferation by 50% (IC<sub>50<sub>) for several compounds, chosen based on their lysosomotropic effects previously reported in Plasmodium falciparum. The lysosomal effects and cell death induced by L-leucyl-L-leucyl methyl ester (LeuLeu-OMe) were further analyzed by flow cytometry and immunofluorescence analyses of different lysosomal markers. The effect of autophagy in LeuLeu-OMe-induced lysosome destabilization and cytotoxicity was also investigated in control and autophagy-deficient cells.LeuLeu-OMe was selected for detailed analyses due to its strong inhibitory profile against T. brucei with minimal toxicity to human cell lines in vitro. Time-dependent immunofluorescence studies confirmed an effect of LeuLeu-OMe on the lysosome. LeuLeu-OMe-induced cytotoxicity was also found to be dependent on the acidic pH of the lysosome. Although an increase in autophagosomes was observed upon LeuLeu-OMe treatment, autophagy was not required for the cell death induced by LeuLeu-OMe. Necrosis appeared to be the main cause of cell death upon LeuLeu-OMe treatment.LeuLeu-OMe is a lysosomotropic agent capable of destabilizing lysosomes and causing necrotic cell death in bloodstream form of T. brucei.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:A gluten-free diet is the only treatment option of coeliac disease, but recently an increasing number of trials have begun to explore alternative treatment strategies. We aimed to review the literature on coeliac disease therapeutic trials and issue recommendations for outcome measures. DESIGN:Based on a literature review of 10?062 references, we (17 researchers and 2 patient representatives from 10 countries) reviewed the use and suitability of both clinical and non-clinical outcome measures. We then made expert-based recommendations for use of these outcomes in coeliac disease trials and identified areas where research is needed. RESULTS:We comment on the use of histology, serology, clinical outcome assessment (including patient-reported outcomes), quality of life and immunological tools including gluten immunogenic peptides for trials in coeliac disease. CONCLUSION:Careful evaluation and reporting of outcome measures will increase transparency and comparability of coeliac disease therapeutic trials, and will benefit patients, healthcare and the pharmaceutical industry.
Project description:The plethora of studies in chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) has not resulted in the development of an evidence-based treatment strategy, largely due to heterogeneous outcome measures that preclude cross-study comparisons and guideline development. This study aimed to identify and quantify the heterogeneity of outcome measures reported in the CSDH literature and to build a case for the development of a consensus-based core outcome set. This systematic review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and was registered with the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42014007266). All full-text English language studies with >10 patients (prospective) or >100 patients (retrospective) published after 1990 examining clinical outcomes in CSDH were eligible for inclusion. One hundred two eligible studies were found. There were 14 (13.7%) randomized controlled trials, one single arm trial (1.0%), 25 (24.5%) cohort comparison studies, and 62 (60.8%) prospective or retrospective cohort studies. Outcome domains reported by the studies included mortality (63.8% of included studies), recurrence (94.1%), complications (48.0%), functional outcomes (40.2%), and radiological (38.2%) outcomes. There was significant heterogeneity in the definitions of the outcome measures, as evidenced by the seven different definitions of the term "recurrence," with no definition given in 19 studies. The time-points of assessment for all the outcome domains varied greatly from inpatient/hospital discharge to 18 months. This study establishes and quantifies the heterogeneity of outcome measure reporting in CSDH and builds the case for the development of a robust consensus-based core outcome set for future studies to adhere to as part of the Core Outcomes and Common Data Elements in CSDH (CODE-CSDH) project.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Core 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. METHODS:A 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. RESULTS:A 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. CONCLUSION:This 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.
Project description:Over the last decade, many studies were performed regarding treatment options for hemorrhoidal disease. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) should have well-defined primary and secondary outcomes. However, the reported outcome measures are numerous and diverse. The heterogeneity of outcome definition in clinical trials limits transparency and paves the way for bias. The development of a core outcome set (COS) helps minimizing this problem. A COS is an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials of a specific disease. The aim of this project is to generate a COS regarding the outcome of treatment after hemorrhoidal disease.A Delphi study will be performed by an international steering group healthcare professionals and patients with the intention to create a standard outcome set for future clinical trials for the treatment of hemorrhoidal disease. First, a literature review will be conducted to establish which outcomes are used in clinical trials for hemorrhoidal disease. Secondly, both healthcare professionals and patients will participate in several consecutive rounds of online questionnaires and a face-to-face meeting to refine the content of the COS.Development of a COS for hemorrhoidal disease defines a minimum outcome-reporting standard and will improve the quality of research in the future.
Project description:(1) To systematically collect and organize into clinical categories all outcomes reported in trials for abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB); (2) to rank the importance of outcomes for patient decision making; and (3) to improve future comparisons of effects in trials of AUB interventions.Systematic review of English-language randomized controlled trials of AUB treatments in MEDLINE from 1950 to June 2008. All outcomes and definitions were extracted and organized into major outcome categories by an expert group. Each outcome was ranked "critically important," "important," or "not important" for informing patients' choices.One hundred thirteen articles from 79 trials met the criteria. One hundred fourteen different outcomes were identified, only 15 (13%) of which were ranked as critically important and 29 (25%) as important. Outcomes were grouped into eight categories: (1) bleeding; (2) quality of life; (3) pain; (4) sexual health; (5) patient satisfaction; (6) bulk-related complaints; (7) need for subsequent surgical treatment; and (8) adverse events.To improve the quality, consistency, and utility of future AUB trials, we recommend assessing a limited number of clinical outcomes for bleeding, disease-specific quality of life, pain, sexual health, and bulk-related symptoms both before and after treatment and reporting satisfaction and adverse events. Further development of validated patient-based outcome measures and the standardization of outcome reporting are needed.
Project description:Background:Trigeminal neuralgia (TN) is a painful disorder characterized by sudden electric shock-like pain. It is a rare condition for which multiple treatments are available, including medical and surgical. The best treatment option is yet to be defined, and this is related to the lack of definition in the treatment outcomes and outcome measures. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize all the outcomes and outcomes measures that have been published to date and highlight variability in their use. Methods:We have conducted a literature search using a wide range of databases (1946-2019 for medical and 2008-2019 for surgical treatment), for all intervention studies in TN. Four hundred and sixty-seven studies were selected for data extraction on TN classification, data collection method, intervention, and treatment outcomes mapped to the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT guidelines). Results:Most studies collected data on pain (n = 459) and side effects (n = 386) domains; however, very few collected data on the impact of treatment on physical (n = 46) and emotional functioning (n = 17) and on patient satisfaction (n = 35). There was high variability on outcome measures used for pain relief (n = 10), pain intensity (n = 9), and frequency of pain episodes (n = 3). Conclusions:A clear definition of what are the important outcomes for patients with TN is essential. The choice of standardized outcome measures allowing for consistent reporting in TN treatment will allow for comparison of studies and facilitate treatment choice for patients and clinicians thus, improving health outcomes and reducing health care cost.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Pregestational diabetes mellitus (PGDM) is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes including increased rates of caesarean section birth, macrosomia, congenital malformation, prematurity, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit and stillbirth. As a result, there has been an increase in interventions to improve outcomes in both mother and infant. To date, meaningful comparisons between these studies are limited due to heterogeneity in outcome selection and reporting. The aim of this study is to develop a core outcome set (COS) for randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of pregnant women with PGDM.<h4>Methods</h4>The study consists of three steps. The first step is a systematic review of the literature to assess outcomes reported in randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of pregnant women with PGDM. The second step is a three round, online Delphi survey to prioritise these outcomes. In this step, stakeholders (including women with PGDM, healthcare workers, researchers and policymakers) will be asked to rank the importance of outcomes for inclusion in the COS using a 9-point Likert type scale. Outcomes that meet the inclusion criteria after completion of the Delphi surveys will be brought to the consensus meeting. The consensus meeting will be the third and final step, where the COS will be finalised. The consensus meeting will include members from each stakeholder group.<h4>Discussion</h4>This paper describes the process used to develop a COS for the reporting of studies evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in pregnant women with PGDM. The COS will enable greater comparison between and information synthesis across RCTs in the treatment of PGDM. In addition, this COS will also help improve trial reporting and minimise research waste by prioritising the collection and reporting of outcomes that matter to all relevant stakeholder groups.<h4>Trial registration</h4>This COS has been registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative ( http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1425 ) on the 4th of November 2019. The systematic review component of this study has also been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020173549 ).