“Vicarious thinking” is a key driver of score change in Delphi surveys for COS development and is facilitated by feedback of results

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank and acknowledge the participants in the Delphi surveys used here. We also thank individuals who contributed significantly to the wider COS development projects: Professor Andrew G. Renehan and Professor Caroline Sanders (CORMAC); Dr. Thomas B. L. Lam (COMPACTERS); Professor Iain A Bruce and Professor Jane M Blazeby (GASTROS). Funding: This work was supported by a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Senior Investigator Award (NF-SI_0513-10025). The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Standardising the reporting of outcomes in gastric cancer surgery trials:protocol for the development of a core outcome set and accompanying outcome measurement instrument set (the GASTROS study)

Abstract Background Gastric cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Whilst surgery is the mainstay of curative treatment, it is associated with significant risks. Surgical strategies for treating gastric cancer should be based on evidence from systematic reviews of well-designed randomised controlled trials. However, inconsistencies in the reporting of outcomes from these trials makes evidence synthesis unreliable. We present a protocol for an international consensus study to develop a standardised set of outcomes and measurement tools – a ‘core outcome set’ (COS) – to be used by all future trials examining therapeutic surgical interventions for gastric cancer. The GASTROS study aims to standardise the reporting of outcomes in gastric cancer surgery trials through an international consensus process of key stakeholders including health care professionals and patients. Methods The first of three stages in the study will identify a ‘long-list’ of potentially important outcomes to be prioritised. These will be extracted from a systematic review of relevant academic literature and patient interviews. Stage 2 will comprise an eDelphi survey which will consider the views of patients, nurse specialists and surgeons to prioritise the most important outcomes. A meeting of stakeholder representatives will ratify the COS. Stage 3 will focus on identifying appropriate instruments to measure the prioritised outcomes by means of quality assessment of available measurement instruments and stakeholder consultation. Discussion This study aims to standardise the reporting of outcomes in future trials examining therapeutic surgical interventions for gastric cancer. It is anticipated that standardisation of outcome reporting in these surgical effectiveness trials will enhance the evidence base for clinical practice. Highlighting outcomes of greatest importance to patients will ensure that their perspectives are central to research in this field

How are trial outcomes prioritised by stakeholders from different regions? Analysis of an international Delphi survey to develop a core outcome set in gastric cancer surgery

BACKGROUND: International stakeholder participation is important in the development of core outcome sets (COS). Stakeholders from varying regions may value health outcomes differently. Here, we explore how region, health income and participant characteristics influence prioritisation of outcomes during development of a COS for gastric cancer surgery trials (the GASTROS study). METHODS: 952 participants from 55 countries participating in a Delphi survey during COS development were eligible for inclusion. Recruits were grouped according to region (East or West), country income classification (high and low-to-middle income) and other characteristics (e.g. patients; age, sex, time since surgery, mode of treatment, surgical approach and healthcare professionals; clinical experience). Groups were compared with respect to how they categorised 56 outcomes identified as potentially important to include in the final COS (‘consensus in’, ‘consensus out’, ‘no consensus’). Outcomes categorised as ‘consensus in’ or ‘consensus out’ by all 3 stakeholder groups would be automatically included in or excluded from the COS respectively. RESULTS: In total, 13 outcomes were categorised ‘consensus in’ (disease-free survival, disease-specific survival, surgery-related death, recurrence of cancer, completeness of tumour removal, overall quality of life, nutritional effects, all-cause complications, intraoperative complications, anaesthetic complications, anastomotic complications, multiple organ failure, and bleeding), 13 ‘consensus out’ and 31 ‘no consensus’. There was little variation in prioritisation of outcomes by stakeholders from Eastern or Western countries and high or low-to-middle income countries. There was little variation in outcome prioritisation within either health professional or patient groups. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that there is little variation in opinion within stakeholder groups when participant region and other characteristics are considered. This finding may help COS developers when designing their Delphi surveys and recruitment strategies. Further work across other clinical fields is needed before broad recommendations can be made

Weight Loss Following Bariatric Surgery in People with or without Metabolic Syndrome: A 5-Year Observational Comparative Study

Aim: Whilst bariatric surgery is the most effective treatment for severe obesity, the aim of this study was to evaluate whether postoperative weight loss is similar in patients with or without metabolic syndrome. Methods: We performed a 5-year observational retrospective comparative cohort analysis of bariatric surgery in 333 patients (72% women) without (Group A, n = 133) or with (Group B, n = 200) metabolic syndrome at baseline. Results: Overall mean (SD) baseline body mass index was 51.7 (7.5) with no significant difference between groups. Overall mean percent total weight loss (%TWL) was 31.9% by 24 months after surgery. Although %TWL was greater in Group A (34.9%) than in Group B (30.2%, p = 0.006) at 24 months, there were no significant differences between groups subsequently up to 60 months of follow-up. Systolic and diastolic blood pressures and lipid profiles improved in both groups. In patients with metabolic syndrome at baseline, mean HbA1c reduced by 36.4% at 12 months and was sustained over the study period. Conclusions: We report that bariatric surgery results in comparable long-term weight loss in patients with or without metabolic syndrome alongside expected improvements in metabolic comorbidities

Methods for conducting international Delphi surveys to optimise global participation in core outcome set development: a case study in gastric cancer informed by a comprehensive literature review

Copyright © 2021, The Author(s) Open Access. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.Background: Core outcome sets (COS) should be relevant to key stakeholders and widely applicable and usable. Ideally, they are developed for international use to allow optimal data synthesis from trials. Electronic Delphi surveys are commonly used to facilitate global participation; however, this has limitations. It is common for these surveys to be conducted in a single language potentially excluding those not fluent in that tongue. The aim of this study is to summarise current approaches for optimising international participation in Delphi studies and make recommendations for future practice. Methods: A comprehensive literature review of current approaches to translating Delphi surveys for COS development was undertaken. A standardised methodology adapted from international guidance derived from 12 major sets of translation guidelines in the field of outcome reporting was developed. As a case study, this was applied to a COS project for surgical trials in gastric cancer to translate a Delphi survey into 7 target languages from regions active in gastric cancer research. Results: Three hundred thirty-two abstracts were screened and four studies addressing COS development in rheumatoid and osteoarthritis, vascular malformations and polypharmacy were eligible for inclusion. There was wide variation in methodological approaches to translation, including the number of forward translations, the inclusion of back translation, the employment of cognitive debriefing and how discrepancies and disagreements were handled. Important considerations were identified during the development of the gastric cancer survey including establishing translation groups, timelines, understanding financial implications, strategies to maximise recruitment and regulatory approvals. The methodological approach to translating the Delphi surveys was easily reproducible by local collaborators and resulted in an additional 637 participants to the 315 recruited to complete the source language survey. Ninety-nine per cent of patients and 97% of healthcare professionals from non-English-speaking regions used translated surveys. Conclusion: Consideration of the issues described will improve planning by other COS developers and can be used to widen international participation from both patients and healthcare professionals.This study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Doctoral Research Fellowship Grant (DRF-2015-08-023). JMB is partially funded by the NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre and the MRC ConDUCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research. PRW was funded by the MRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research (Grant ref: MR/K025635/01).info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio