Trial outcomes and information for clinical decision-making: a comparative study of opinions of health professionals

Background: Trials are robust sources of data for clinical practice, however, trial outcomes may not reflect what is important to communicate for decision making. The study compared clinicians’ views of outcomes to include in a core outcome set for colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery, with what clinicians considered important information for clinical practice (core information). Methods: Potential outcomes/information domains were identified through systematic literature reviews, reviews of hospital information leaflets and interviews with patients. These were organized into 6 categories, and used to design a questionnaire survey that asked surgeons and nurses from a sample of CRC centers to rate the importance of each domain as an outcome or as information on a 9-point Likert scale. Respondents were re-surveyed (round 2) following group feedback (Delphi methods). Comparisons were made by calculating the difference in mean scores between the outcomes and information domains, and paired t-tests were used to explore the difference between mean scores of the 6 outcome/information categories. Results: Data sources identified 1216 outcomes/information of CRC surgery that informed a 94 item questionnaire. First round questionnaires were returned from 63/81 (78%) of centers. Clinicians rated 76/94 (84%) domains of higher importance to measure in trials than to information to communicate to patients in Round 1. This was reduced to 24/47 (51%) in Round 2. The greatest difference was evident in domains about survival, which was rated much more highly as a trial outcome than important piece of information for decision-making (mean difference 2.3, 95% CI 1.9-2.8, p<0.0001). Specific complications and quality-of-life domains were rated similarly (mean difference 0.18, 95% CI -0.1-0.4, p=0.2 and 0.2, 95% CI -0.1-0.5, p=0.2 respectively). Conclusions: Whilst clinicians want to measure key outcomes in trials, they rate these as less important to communicate in decision-making with patients. This discrepancy needs to be explored and addressed to maximize the impact of trials on clinical practice

Core Outcomes for Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Consensus Study

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of worldwide morbidity and mortality. Surgical treatment is common, and there is a great need to improve the delivery of such care. The gold standard for evaluating surgery is within well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, the impact of RCTs is diminished by a lack of coordinated outcome measurement and reporting. A solution to these issues is to develop an agreed standard “core” set of outcomes to be measured in all trials to facilitate cross-study comparisons, meta-analysis, and minimize outcome reporting bias. This study defines a core outcome set for CRC surgery. Methods and Findings: The scope of this COS includes clinical effectiveness trials of surgical interventions for colorectal cancer. Excluded were nonsurgical oncological interventions. Potential outcomes of importance to patients and professionals were identified through systematic literature reviews and patient interviews. All outcomes were transcribed verbatim and categorized into domains by two independent researchers. This informed a questionnaire survey that asked stakeholders (patients and professionals) from United Kingdom CRC centers to rate the importance of each domain. Respondents were resurveyed following group feedback (Delphi methods). Outcomes rated as less important were discarded after each survey round according to predefined criteria, and remaining outcomes were considered at three consensus meetings; two involving international professionals and a separate one with patients. A modified nominal group technique was used to gain the final consensus. Data sources identified 1,216 outcomes of CRC surgery that informed a 91 domain questionnaire. First round questionnaires were returned from 63 out of 81 (78%) centers, including 90 professionals, and 97 out of 267 (35%) patients. Second round response rates were high for all stakeholders (>80%). Analysis of responses lead to 45 and 23 outcome domains being retained after the first and second surveys, respectively. Consensus meetings generated agreement on a 12 domain COS. This constituted five perioperative outcome domains (including anastomotic leak), four quality of life outcome domains (including fecal urgency and incontinence), and three oncological outcome domains (including long-term survival). Conclusion: This study used robust consensus methodology to develop a core outcome set for use in colorectal cancer surgical trials. It is now necessary to validate the use of this set in research practice

Patient-reported outcome measures for cancer caregivers: a systematic review

Purpose Informal caregivers provide invaluable help and support to people with cancer. As treatments extend survival and the potential burdens on carers increase, there is a need to assess the impact of the role. This systematic review identified instruments that measure the impact of caregiving, evaluated their psychometric performance specifically in cancer and appraised the content. Methods A 2-stage search strategy was employed to: 1. identify instruments that measure the impact of caregiving, 2. run individual searches on each measure to identify publications evaluating psychometric performance in the target population. Searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Psychinfo and restricted to English for instrument used and article language. Psychometric performance was evaluated for content and construct validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, precision, responsiveness and acceptability. Individual scale items were extracted and systematically categorised into conceptual domains. Results 10 papers were included reporting on the psychometric properties of 8 measures. Although construct validity and internal consistency were most frequently evaluated, no study comprehensively evaluated all relevant properties. Few studies met our inclusion criteria so it was not possible to consider the psychometric performance of the measures across a group of studies. Content analysis resulted in 16 domains with 5 overarching themes: lifestyle disruption; wellbeing; health of the caregiver; managing the situation and relationships. Conclusions Few measures of caregiver impact have been subject to psychometric evaluation in cancer caregivers. Those that have do not capture well changes in roles and responsibilities within the family and career, indicating the need for a new instrument

Systematic review of outcome domains and instruments used in clinical trials of tinnitus treatments in adults

BACKGROUND: There is no evidence-based guidance to facilitate design decisions for confirmatory trials or systematic reviews investigating treatment efficacy for adults with tinnitus. This systematic review therefore seeks to ascertain the current status of trial designs by identifying and evaluating the reporting of outcome domains and instruments in the treatment of adults with tinnitus. METHODS: Records were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE CINAHL, EBSCO, and CENTRAL clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, ICTRP) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Eligible records were those published from 1 July 2006 to 12 March 2015. Included studies were those reporting adults aged 18 years or older who reported tinnitus as a primary complaint, and who were enrolled into a randomised controlled trial, a before and after study, a non-randomised controlled trial, a case-controlled study or a cohort study, and written in English. Studies with fewer than 20 participants were excluded. RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty-eight studies were included. Thirty-five different primary outcome domains were identified spanning seven categories (tinnitus percept, impact of tinnitus, co-occurring complaints, quality of life, body structures and function, treatment-related outcomes and unclear or not specified). Over half the studies (55 %) did not clearly define the complaint of interest. Tinnitus loudness was the domain most often reported (14 %), followed by tinnitus distress (7 %). Seventy-eight different primary outcome instruments were identified. Instruments assessing multiple attributes of the impact of tinnitus were most common (34 %). Overall, 24 different patient-reported tools were used, predominantly the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (15 %). Loudness was measured in diverse ways including a numerical rating scale (8 %), loudness matching (4 %), minimum masking level (1 %) and loudness discomfort level (1 %). Ten percent of studies did not clearly report the instrument used. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate poor appreciation of the basic principles of good trial design, particularly the importance of specifying what aspect of therapeutic benefit is the main outcome. No single outcome was reported in all studies and there was a broad diversity of outcome instruments. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: The systematic review protocol is registered on PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews): CRD42015017525. Registered on 12 March 2015 revised on 15 March 2016. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1399-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

The outcomes of Perthes' disease of the hip: a study protocol for the development of a core outcome set.

BACKGROUND: Perthes' disease is an idiopathic osteonecrosis of a developmental hip that is most frequent in Northern Europe. Currently, the absence of a common set of standardised outcomes makes comparisons between studies of different interventions challenging. This study aims to summarise the outcomes used in clinical research of interventions for Perthes' disease and define a set of core outcomes (COS) to ensure that the variables of primary importance are measured and reported in future research studies investigating Perthes' disease. METHODS: A systematic review of the current literature will be used to identify a list of outcomes reported in previous studies. Additional important outcomes will be sought by interviewing a group of children with Perthes' disease, adults who were treated with the disease in infancy and parents of children with the disease. This list will then be evaluated by experts in Perthes' disease using a Delphi survey divided into two rounds to ascertain the importance of each outcome. The final outcomes list obtained from the Delphi survey will be then discussed during a consensus meeting of representative key stakeholders in order to define the COS to be reported in future clinical trials related to Perthes' disease. DISCUSSION: The absence of high-quality research and clear guidelines concerning the management of Perthes' disease is, at least in part, due to the difficulties in the comparing the results from previous studies. The development of a COS seeks to standardise outcomes collected in future research studies to enable comparisons between studies to be made and to facilitate meta-analyses of results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative (COMET), 1003 . Registered on 20 July 2017. Prospero International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, CRD 42017069742 . Registered on 10 July 2017

Development of a core outcome set for idiopathic clubfoot management.

AIMS: This study aims to define a set of core outcomes (COS) to allow consistent reporting in order to compare results and assist in treatment decisions for idiopathic clubfoot. METHODS: A list of outcomes will be obtained in a three-stage process from the literature and from key stakeholders (patients, parents, surgeons, and healthcare professionals). Important outcomes for patients and parents will be collected from a group of children with idiopathic clubfoot and their parents through questionnaires and interviews. The outcomes identified during this process will be combined with the list of outcomes previously obtained from a systematic review, with each outcome assigned to one of the five core areas defined by the Outcome Measures Recommended for use in Randomized Clinical Trials (OMERACT). This stage will be followed by a two round Delphi survey aimed at key stakeholders in the management of idiopathic clubfoot. The final outcomes list obtained will then be discussed in a consensus meeting of representative key stakeholders. CONCLUSION: The inconsistency in outcomes reporting in studies investigating idiopathic clubfoot has made it difficult to define the success rate of treatments and to compare findings between studies. The development of a COS seeks to define a minimum standard set of outcomes to collect in all future clinical trials for this condition, to facilitate comparisons between studies and to aid decisions in treatment. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(4):255-260

Development of a Core Outcome Set for effectiveness trials aimed at optimising prescribing in older adults in care homes

Background: Prescribing medicines for older adults in care homes is known to be sub-optimal. Whilst trials testing interventions to optimise prescribing in this setting have been published, heterogeneity in outcome reporting has hindered comparison of interventions, thus limiting evidence synthesis. The aim of this study was to develop a core outcome set (COS), a list of outcomes which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, for all effectiveness trials involving optimising prescribing in care homes. The COS was developed as part of the Care Homes Independent Pharmacist Prescribing Study (CHIPPS). Methods: A long-list of outcomes was identified through a review of published literature and stakeholder input. Outcomes were reviewed and refined prior to entering a two-round online Delphi exercise and then distributed via a web link to the CHIPPS Management Team, a multidisciplinary team including pharmacists, doctors and Patient Public Involvement representatives (amongst others), who comprised the Delphi panel. The Delphi panellists (n = 19) rated the importance of outcomes on a 9-point Likert scale from 1 (not important) to 9 (critically important). Consensus for an outcome being included in the COS was defined as ≥70% participants scoring 7–9 and <15% scoring 1–3. Exclusion was defined as ≥70% scoring 1–3 and <15% 7–9. Individual and group scores were fed back to participants alongside the second questionnaire round, which included outcomes for which no consensus had been achieved. Results: A long-list of 63 potential outcomes was identified. Refinement of this long-list of outcomes resulted in 29 outcomes, which were included in the Delphi questionnaire (round 1). Following both rounds of the Delphi exercise, 13 outcomes (organised into seven overarching domains: medication appropriateness, adverse drug events, prescribing errors, falls, quality of life, all-cause mortality and admissions to hospital (and associated costs)) met the criteria for inclusion in the final COS. Conclusions: We have developed a COS for effectiveness trials aimed at optimising prescribing in older adults in care homes using robust methodology. Widespread adoption of this COS will facilitate evidence synthesis between trials. Future work should focus on evaluating appropriate tools for these key outcomes to further reduce heterogeneity in outcome measurement in this context

Comparative costs and activity from a sample of UK clinical trials units

Background: The costs of medical research are a concern. Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) need to better understand variations in the costs of their activities. Methods: Representatives of ten CTUs and two grant-awarding bodies pooled their experiences in discussions over 1.5 years. Five of the CTUs provided estimates of, and written justification for, costs associated with CTU activities required to implement an identical protocol. The protocol described a 5.5-year, nonpharmacological randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted at 20 centres. Direct and indirect costs, the number of full time equivalents (FTEs) and the FTEs attracting overheads were compared and qualitative methods (unstructured interviews and thematic analysis) were used to interpret the results. Four members of the group (funding-body representatives or award panel members) reviewed the justification statements for transparency and information content. Separately, 163 activities common to trials were assigned to roles used by nine CTUs; the consistency of role delineation was assessed by Cohen's κ. Results: Median full economic cost of CTU activities was £769,637 (range: £661,112 to £1,383,323). Indirect costs varied considerably, accounting for between 15% and 59% (median 35%) of the full economic cost of the grant. Excluding one CTU, which used external statisticians, the total number of FTEs ranged from 2.0 to 3.0; total FTEs attracting overheads ranged from 0.3 to 2.0. Variation in directly incurred staff costs depended on whether CTUs: supported particular roles from core funding rather than grants; opted not to cost certain activities into the grant; assigned clerical or data management tasks to research or administrative staff; employed extensive on-site monitoring strategies (also the main source of variation in non-staff costs). Funders preferred written justifications of costs that described both FTEs and indicative tasks for funded roles, with itemised non-staff costs. Consistency in role delineation was fair (κ = 0.21-0.40) for statisticians/data managers and poor for other roles (κ < 0.20). Conclusions: Some variation in costs is due to factors outside the control of CTUs such as access to core funding and levels of indirect costs levied by host institutions. Research is needed on strategies to control costs appropriately, especially the implementation of risk-based monitoring strategies