A methodological approach for assessing the uptake of core outcome sets using ClinicalTrials.gov: findings from a review of randomised controlled trials of rheumatoid arthritis

Objective To assess the uptake of the rheumatoid arthritis core outcome set using a new assessment method of calculating uptake from data in clinical trial registry entries. Design Review of randomised trials. Setting ClinicalTrials.gov. Subjects 273 randomised trials of drug interventions for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and registered in ClinicalTrials.gov between 2002 and 2016. Full publications were identified for completed studies from information in the trial registry or from an internet search using Google and the citation database Web of Science. Main outcome measure The percentage of trials reporting or planning to measure the rheumatoid arthritis core outcome set calculated from the information presented in the trial registry and compared with the percentage reporting the rheumatoid arthritis core outcome set in the resulting trial publications. Results The full rheumatoid arthritis core outcome set was reported in 81% (116/143) of trials identified on the registry as completed (or terminated) for which results were found in either the published literature or the registry. For trials identified on the registry as completed (or terminated), using information only available in the registry gives an estimate for uptake of 77% (145/189). Conclusions The uptake of the rheumatoid arthritis core outcome set in clinical trials has continued to increase over time. Using the information on outcomes listed for completed or terminated studies in a trial registry provides a reasonable estimate of the uptake of a core outcome set and is a more efficient and up-to-date approach than examining the outcomes in published trial reports. The method proposed may provide an efficient approach for an up-to-date assessment of the uptake of the 300 core outcome sets already published

Model-based sensitivity analysis for outcome reporting bias in the meta analysis of benefit and harm outcomes

Outcome reporting bias occurs when outcomes in research studies are selectively reported, the selection being influenced by the study results. For benefit outcomes, we have shown how risk assessments using the Outcome Reporting Bias in Trials risk classification scale can be used to calculate bias-adjusted treatment effect estimates. This paper presents a new and simpler version of the benefits method, and shows how it can be extended to cover the partial reporting and non-reporting of harm outcomes. Our motivating example is a Cochrane systematic review of 12 studies of Topiramate add-on therapy for drug-resistant partial epilepsy. Bias adjustments for partially reported or unreported outcomes suggest that the review has overestimated the benefits and underestimated the harms of the test treatment

Developing a core outcome set for hand fractures and joint injuries in adults.

The aim of this study was to develop a core outcome set of what to measure in all future clinical research on hand fractures and joint injuries in adults. Phase 1 consisted of steps to identify potential outcome domains through systematic review of published studies, and exploration of the patient perspective through qualitative research, consisting of 25 semi-structured interviews and five focus groups. Phase 2 involved key stakeholder groups (patients, hand surgeons, and hand therapists) prioritizing the outcome domains via a three-round international Delphi survey, with a final consensus meeting to agree the final core outcome set. The systematic review of 160 studies identified 74 outcome domains based on the World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. Overall, 35 domains were generated through thematic analysis of the patient interviews and focus groups. The domains from these elements were synthesised to develop 37 outcome domains as the basis of the Delphi survey, with a further four generated from participant suggestions in Round 1. The Delphi survey identified 20 outcome domains as 'very important' for the core outcome set. At the consensus meeting, 27 participants from key stakeholder groups selected seven outcomes for the core outcome set: pain/discomfort with activity, pain/discomfort with rest, fine hand use/dexterity, self-hygiene/personal care, return to usual work/job, range of motion, and patient satisfaction with outcome/result. This set of core outcome domains is recommended as a minimum to be reported in all clinical research on hand fractures and joint injuries in adults. While this establishes what to measure, future work will focus on determining how best to measure these outcomes. By adopting this patient-centred core outcome set, consistency and comparability of studies will be improved, aiding meta-analysis and strengthening the evidence base for management of these common and impactful injuries

Cars, CONSORT 2010, and Clinical Practice

Just like you would not buy a car without key information such as service history, you would not "buy" a clinical trial report without key information such as concealment of allocation. Implementation of the updated CONSORT 2010 statement enables the reader to see exactly what was done in a trial, to whom and when. A fully "CONSORTed" trial report does not necessarily mean the trial is a good one, but at least the reader can make a judgement. Clear reporting is a pre-requisite for judgement of study quality. The CONSORT statement evolves as empirical research moves on. CONSORT 2010 is even clearer than before and includes some new items with a particular emphasis on selective reporting of outcomes. The challenge is for everyone to use it

COS-Speech: Protocol to develop a core outcome set for dysarthria after stroke for use in clinical practice and research

BACKGROUND: Dysarthria after stroke is when speech intelligibility is impaired, and this occurs in half of all stroke survivors. Dysarthria often leads to social isolation, poor psychological well-being and can prevent return to work and social lives. Currently, a variety of outcome measures are used in clinical research and practice when monitoring recovery for people who have dysarthria. When research studies use different measures, it is impossible to compare results from trials and delays our understanding of effective clinical treatments. The aim of this study is to develop a core outcome set (COS) to agree what aspects of speech recovery should be measured for dysarthria after stroke (COS-Speech) in research and clinical practice. METHODS: The COS-Speech study will include five steps: (1) development of a long list of possible outcome domains of speech that should be measured to guide the survey; (2) recruitment to the COS-Speech study of three key stakeholder groups in the UK and Australia: stroke survivors, communication researchers and speech and language therapists/pathologists; (3) two rounds of the Delphi survey process; (4) a consensus meeting to agree the speech outcomes to be measured and a follow-up consensus meeting to match existing instruments/measures (from parallel systematic review) to the agreed COS-Speech; (5) dissemination of COS-Speech. DISCUSSION: There is currently no COS for dysarthria after stroke for research trials or clinical practice. The findings from this research study will be a minimum COS, for use in all dysarthria research studies and clinical practice looking at post-stroke recovery of speech. These findings will be widely disseminated using professional and patient networks, research and clinical forums as well as using a variety of academic papers, videos, accessible writing such as blogs and links on social media. TRIAL REGISTRATION: COS-Speech is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database, October 2021 https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1959. In addition, “A systematic review of the psychometric properties and clinical utility of instruments measuring dysarthria after stroke” will inform the consensus meeting to match measures to COS-Speech. The protocol for the systematic reviews registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022302998. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06958-7

Development and inter-rater reliability of the Liverpool adverse drug reaction causality assessment tool.

To develop and test a new adverse drug reaction (ADR) causality assessment tool (CAT)

Outcome reporting bias in trials: a methodological approach for assessment and adjustment in systematic reviews

Systematic reviews of clinical trials aim to include all relevant studies conducted on a particular topic and to provide an unbiased summary of their results, producing the best evidence about the benefits and harms of medical treatments. Relevant studies, however, may not provide the results for all measured outcomes or may selectively report only some of the analyses undertaken, leading to unnecessary waste in the production and reporting of research, and potentially biasing the conclusions to systematic reviews. In this article, Kirkham and colleagues provide a methodological approach, with an example of how to identify missing outcome data and how to assess and adjust for outcome reporting bias in systematic reviews

Adverse drug reactions and off-label and unlicensed medicines in children: a nested case control study of inpatients in a pediatric hospital

Off-label and unlicensed (OLUL) prescribing has been prevalent in pediatric practice. Using data from a prospective cohort study of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) among pediatric inpatients, we aimed to test the hypothesis that OLUL status is a risk factor for ADRs