Identifying a core set of outcome domains to measure in clinical trials for shoulder disorders: a modified Delphi study.

OBJECTIVE: To achieve consensus on the most important outcome domains to measure across all clinical trials for shoulder disorders. METHODS: We performed an online modified Delphi study with an international, multidisciplinary and multistakeholder panel. A literature review and the OMERACT Filter 2.0 framework was used to generate a list of potential core domains, which were presented to patients, clinicians and researchers in two Delphi rounds. Participants were asked to judge the importance of each potential core domain and provide a rationale for their response. A core domain was defined a priori as a domain that at least 67% of participants considered core. RESULTS: In both rounds, 335 individuals were invited to participate (268 clinicians/researchers and 67 patients); response rates were 27% (n=91) and 29% (n=96), respectively. From a list of 41 potential core domains, four domains met our criteria for inclusion: 'pain', 'physical functioning', 'global assessment of treatment success' and 'health-related quality of life'. Two additional domains, 'sleep functioning' and 'psychological functioning', met the criteria for inclusion by some, but not all stakeholder groups. There was consensus that 'number of deaths' was not a core domain, but insufficient agreement on whether or not several other domains, including 'range of motion' and 'muscle strength', were core domains. CONCLUSIONS: Based on international consensus from patients, clinicians and researchers, 'pain', 'physical functioning', 'global assessment of treatment success' and 'health-related quality of life' were considered core outcome domains for shoulder disorder trials. The value of several other domains needs further consideration

An empirical study using permutation-based resampling in meta-regression

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In meta-regression, as the number of trials in the analyses decreases, the risk of false positives or false negatives increases. This is partly due to the assumption of normality that may not hold in small samples. Creation of a distribution from the observed trials using permutation methods to calculate <it>P </it>values may allow for less spurious findings. Permutation has not been empirically tested in meta-regression. The objective of this study was to perform an empirical investigation to explore the differences in results for meta-analyses on a small number of trials using standard large sample approaches verses permutation-based methods for meta-regression.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We isolated a sample of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) for interventions that have a small number of trials (herbal medicine trials). Trials were then grouped by herbal species and condition and assessed for methodological quality using the Jadad scale, and data were extracted for each outcome. Finally, we performed meta-analyses on the primary outcome of each group of trials and meta-regression for methodological quality subgroups within each meta-analysis. We used large sample methods and permutation methods in our meta-regression modeling. We then compared final models and final <it>P </it>values between methods.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We collected 110 trials across 5 intervention/outcome pairings and 5 to 10 trials per covariate. When applying large sample methods and permutation-based methods in our backwards stepwise regression the covariates in the final models were identical in all cases. The <it>P </it>values for the covariates in the final model were larger in 78% (7/9) of the cases for permutation and identical for 22% (2/9) of the cases.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We present empirical evidence that permutation-based resampling may not change final models when using backwards stepwise regression, but may increase <it>P </it>values in meta-regression of multiple covariates for relatively small amount of trials.</p

Patients' experience of shoulder disorders: a systematic review of qualitative studies for the OMERACT Shoulder Core Domain Set.

OBJECTIVES:To describe the experiences (including symptoms and perceived impacts on daily living) of people with a shoulder disorder. METHODS:Systematic review of qualitative studies. We searched for eligible qualitative studies indexed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CINAHL (EBSCO), SportDiscus (EBSCO) and Ovid PsycINFO up until November 2017. Two authors independently screened studies for inclusion, appraised their methodological quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist, used thematic synthesis methods to generate themes describing the experiences reported by participants and assessed the confidence in the findings using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) approach. RESULTS:The inclusion criteria were met by eight studies, which included 133 participants (49 females and 84 males) with either rotator cuff disease, adhesive capsulitis, proximal humeral fracture, shoulder instability or unspecified shoulder pain. We generated seven themes to describe what people in the included studies reported experiencing: pain; physical function/activity limitations; participation restriction; sleep disruption; cognitive dysfunction; emotional distress; and other pathophysiological manifestations (other than pain). There were interactions between the themes, with particular experiences impacting on others (e.g. pain leading to reduced activities and sleep disruption). Following grading of the evidence, we considered it likely that most of the review findings were a reasonable representation of the experiences of people with shoulder disorders. CONCLUSION:Patients with shoulder disorders contend with considerable disruption to their life. The experiences described should be considered by researchers seeking to select the most appropriate outcomes to measure in clinical trials and other research studies in people with shoulder disorders

Methods and processes for development of a CONSORT extension for reporting pilot randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Feasibility and pilot studies are essential components of planning or preparing for a larger randomized controlled trial (RCT). They are intended to provide useful information about the feasibility of the main RCT-with the goal of reducing uncertainty and thereby increasing the chance of successfully conducting the main RCT. However, research has shown that there are serious inadequacies in the reporting of pilot and feasibility studies. Reasons for this include a lack of explicit publication policies for pilot and feasibility studies in many journals, unclear definitions of what constitutes a pilot or feasibility RCT/study, and a lack of clarity in the objectives and methodological focus. All these suggest that there is an urgent need for new guidelines for reporting pilot and feasibility studies. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this paper is to describe the methods and processes in our development of an extension to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement for reporting pilot and feasibility RCTs, that are executed in preparation for a future, more definitive RCT. METHODS/DESIGN: There were five overlapping parts to the project: (i) the project launch-which involved establishing a working group and conducting a review of the literature; (ii) stakeholder engagement-which entailed consultation with the CONSORT group, journal editors and publishers, the clinical trials community, and funders; (iii) a Delphi process-used to assess the agreement of experts on initial definitions and to generate a reporting checklist for pilot RCTs, based on the 2010 CONSORT statement extension applicable to reporting pilot studies; (iv) a consensus meeting-to discuss, add, remove, or modify checklist items, with input from experts in the field; and (v) write-up and implementation-which included a guideline document which gives an explanation and elaboration (E&E) and which will provide advice for each item, together with examples of good reporting practice. This final part also included a plan for dissemination and publication of the guideline. CONCLUSIONS: We anticipate that implementation of our guideline will improve the reporting completeness, transparency, and quality of pilot RCTs, and hence benefit several constituencies, including authors of journal manuscripts, funding agencies, educators, researchers, and end-users

The OMERACT Core Domain Set for Clinical Trials of Shoulder Disorders.

OBJECTIVE:To reach consensus on the core domains to be included in a core domain set for clinical trials of shoulder disorders using the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.1 Core Domain Set process. METHODS:At OMERACT 2018, the OMERACT Shoulder Working Group conducted a workshop that presented the OMERACT 2016 preliminary core domain set and its rationale based upon a systematic review of domains measured in shoulder trials and international Delphi sessions involving patients, clinicians, and researchers, as well as a new systematic review of qualitative studies on the experiences of people with shoulder disorders. After discussions in breakout groups, the OMERACT core domain set for clinical trials of shoulder disorders was presented for endorsement by OMERACT 2018 participants. RESULTS:The qualitative review (n = 8) identified all domains included in the preliminary core set. An additional domain, cognitive dysfunction, was also identified, but confidence that this represents a core domain was very low. The core domain set that was endorsed by the OMERACT participants, with 71% agreement, includes 4 "mandatory" trial domains: pain, function, patient global - shoulder, and adverse events including death; and 4 "important but optional" domains: participation (recreation/work), sleep, emotional well-being, and condition-specific pathophysiological manifestations. Cognitive dysfunction was voted out of the core domain set. CONCLUSION:OMERACT 2018 delegates endorsed a core domain set for clinical trials of shoulder disorders. The next step includes identification of a core outcome measurement set that passes the OMERACT 2.1 Filter for measuring each domain

A systematic review of natural health product treatment for vitiligo

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Vitiligo is a hypopigmentation disorder affecting 1 to 4% of the world population. Fifty percent of cases appear before the age of 20 years old, and the disfigurement results in psychiatric morbidity in 16 to 35% of those affected.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Our objective was to complete a comprehensive, systematic review of the published scientific literature to identify natural health products (NHP) such as vitamins, herbs and other supplements that may have efficacy in the treatment of vitiligo. We searched eight databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE for vitiligo, leucoderma, and various NHP terms. Prospective controlled clinical human trials were identified and assessed for quality.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Fifteen clinical trials were identified, and organized into four categories based on the NHP used for treatment. 1) L-phenylalanine monotherapy was assessed in one trial, and as an adjuvant to phototherapy in three trials. All reported beneficial effects. 2) Three clinical trials utilized different traditional Chinese medicine products. Although each traditional Chinese medicine trial reported benefit in the active groups, the quality of the trials was poor. 3) Six trials investigated the use of plants in the treatment of vitiligo, four using plants as photosensitizing agents. The studies provide weak evidence that photosensitizing plants can be effective in conjunction with phototherapy, and moderate evidence that <it>Ginkgo biloba </it>monotherapy can be useful for vitiligo. 4) Two clinical trials investigated the use of vitamins in the therapy of vitiligo. One tested oral cobalamin with folic acid, and found no significant improvement over control. Another trial combined vitamin E with phototherapy and reported significantly better repigmentation over phototherapy only. It was not possible to pool the data from any studies for meta-analytic purposes due to the wide difference in outcome measures and poor quality ofreporting.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Reports investigating the efficacy of NHPs for vitiligo exist, but are of poor methodological quality and contain significant reporting flaws. L-phenylalanine used with phototherapy, and oral <it>Ginkgo biloba </it>as monotherapy show promise and warrant further investigation.</p

The value of health care – a matter of discussion in Germany

BACKGROUND: Interest in assessing the value of health-care services in Germany has considerably increased since the foundation of the Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen, IQWiG (Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care). The practical application of value assessment illustrates how problematic the process can be. In all decisions made for the provision of health care, data concerning the measurable dimensions (quantity and quality of efficacy and effectiveness, validity of the results and costs) flow into a complex and not yet standardized decision-making process concerning public financing. Some of these decisions are based on data of uncertain validity, unknown reproducibility and unclear appropriateness. DISCUSSION: In this paper we describe the theoretical aspects of value from psychological and economic viewpoints and discuss national and international approaches. Methodic details and difficulties in assessing the value of health-care services are analysed. A definition of the intangible value of health-care services will be proposed which contains only three factors: the absolute risk reduction (usually a measure of efficacy), the validity of the scientific papers examined and the type of the expected effectiveness (prevention of death and disability, restitution of well-being). The intangible value describes the additional benefit when comparing two possible actions, like treatment or observation only. CONCLUSION: The description of intangible value from the viewpoint of different stakeholders is a useful measure for subsequent steps (not discussed here) – the evaluation of costs and of patient benefit. A standardised, transparent, fair and democratic evaluation is essential for the definition of a basic benefit package

CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomised Trials

Kenneth Schulz and colleagues describe the 2010 version of the CONSORT Statement, which updates the previous reporting guideline based on new methodological evidence and accumulated experience