Impact of question order on prioritisation of outcomes in the development of a core outcome set: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Core outcome set (COS) developers increasingly employ Delphi surveys to elicit stakeholders' opinions of which outcomes to measure and report in trials of a particular condition or intervention. Research outside of Delphi surveys and COS development demonstrates that question order can affect response rates and lead to 'context effects', where prior questions determine an item's meaning and influence responses. This study examined the impact of question order within a Delphi survey for a COS for oesophageal cancer surgery. METHODS: A randomised controlled trial was nested within the Delphi survey. Patients and health professionals were randomised to receive a survey including clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), where the PRO section appeared first or last. Participants rated (1-9) the importance of 68 items for inclusion in a COS (ratings 7-9 considered 'essential'). Analyses considered the impact of question order on: (1) survey response rates; (2) participants' responses; and (3) items retained at end of the survey. RESULTS: In total, 116 patients and 71 professionals returned completed surveys. Question order did not affect response rates among patients, but fewer professionals responded when clinical items appeared first (difference = 31.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 13.6-48.9%, P = 0.001). Question order led to different context effects within patients and professionals. While patients rated clinical items highly, irrespective of question order, more PROs were rated essential when appearing last rather than first (difference = 23.7%, 95% CI = 10.5-40.8%). Among professionals, the greatest impact was on clinical items; a higher percentage rated essential when appearing last (difference = 11.6%, 95% CI = 0.0-23.3%). An interaction between question order and the percentage of PRO/clinical items rated essential was observed for patients (P = 0.025) but not professionals (P = 0.357). Items retained for further consideration at the end of the survey were dependent on question order, with discordant items (retained by one question order group only) observed in patients (18/68 [26%]) and professionals (20/68 [29%]). CONCLUSIONS: In the development of a COS, participants' ratings of potential outcomes within a Delphi survey depend on the context (order) in which the outcomes are asked, consequently impacting on the final COS. Initial piloting is recommended with consideration of the randomisation of items in the survey to reduce potential bias. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The randomised controlled trial reported within this paper was nested within the development of a core outcome set to investigate processes in core outcome set development. Outcomes were not health-related and trial registration was not therefore applicable

An intra-neural microstimulation system for ultra-high field magnetic resonance imaging and magnetoencephalography.

BACKGROUND: Intra-neural microstimulation (INMS) is a technique that allows the precise delivery of low-current electrical pulses into human peripheral nerves. Single unit INMS can be used to stimulate individual afferent nerve fibres during microneurography. Combining this with neuroimaging allows the unique monitoring of central nervous system activation in response to unitary, controlled tactile input, with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) providing exquisite spatial localisation of brain activity and magnetoencephalography (MEG) high temporal resolution. NEW METHOD: INMS systems suitable for use within electrophysiology laboratories have been available for many years. We describe an INMS system specifically designed to provide compatibility with both ultra-high field (7T) fMRI and MEG. Numerous technical and safety issues are addressed. The system is fully analogue, allowing for arbitrary frequency and amplitude INMS stimulation. RESULTS: Unitary recordings obtained within both the MRI and MEG screened-room environments are comparable with those obtained in 'clean' electrophysiology recording environments. Single unit INMS (current <7μA, 200μs pulses) of individual mechanoreceptive afferents produces appropriate and robust responses during fMRI and MEG. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHOD(S): This custom-built MRI- and MEG-compatible stimulator overcomes issues with existing INMS approaches; it allows well-controlled switching between recording and stimulus mode, prevents electrical shocks because of long cable lengths, permits unlimited patterns of stimulation, and provides a system with improved work-flow and participant comfort. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that the requirements for an INMS-integrated system, which can be used with both fMRI and MEG imaging systems, have been fully met

The COMET Handbook: version 1.0

The selection of appropriate outcomes is crucial when designing clinical trials in order to compare the effects of different interventions directly. For the findings to influence policy and practice, the outcomes need to be relevant and important to key stakeholders including patients and the public, health care professionals and others making decisions about health care. It is now widely acknowledged that insufficient attention has been paid to the choice of outcomes measured in clinical trials. Researchers are increasingly addressing this issue through the development and use of a core outcome set, an agreed standardised collection of outcomes which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all trials for a specific clinical area. Accumulating work in this area has identified the need for guidance on the development, implementation, evaluation and updating of core outcome sets. This Handbook, developed by the COMET Initiative, brings together current thinking and methodological research regarding those issues. We recommend a four-step process to develop a core outcome set. The aim is to update the contents of the Handbook as further research is identified

A Core Outcome Set for the Benefits and Adverse Events of Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery: The BARIACT Project.

This is the final version. Available from PLoS via the DOI in this record.BACKGROUND: Bariatric and metabolic surgery is used as a treatment for patients with severe and complex obesity. However, there is a need to improve outcome selection and reporting in bariatric surgery trials. A Core Outcome Set (COS), an agreed minimum set of outcomes reported in all studies of a specific condition, may achieve this. Here, we present the development of a COS for BARIAtric and metabolic surgery Clinical Trials-the BARIACT Study. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Outcomes identified from systematic reviews and patient interviews informed a questionnaire survey. Patients and health professionals were surveyed three times and asked to rate the importance of each item on a 1-9 scale. Delphi methods provided anonymised feedback to participants. Items not meeting predefined criteria were discarded between rounds. Remaining items were discussed at consensus meetings, held separately with patients and professionals, where the COS was agreed. Data sources identified 2,990 outcomes, which were used to develop a 130-item questionnaire. Round 1 response rates were moderate but subsequently improved to above 75% for other rounds. After rounds 2 and 3, 81 and 14 items were discarded, respectively, leaving 35 items for discussion at consensus meetings. The final COS included nine items: "weight," "diabetes status," "cardiovascular risk," "overall quality of life (QOL)," "mortality," "technical complications of the specific operation," "any re-operation/re-intervention," "dysphagia/regurgitation," and "micronutrient status." The main limitation of this study was that it was based in the United Kingdom only. CONCLUSIONS: The COS is recommended to be used as a minimum in all trials of bariatric and metabolic surgery. Adoption of the COS will improve data synthesis and the value of research data. Future work will establish methods for the measurement of the outcomes in the COS.Medical Research Council (MRC)National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)National Institute for Health Research (NIHR

Natural variation in immune responses to neonatal mycobacterium bovis bacillus calmette-guerin (BCG) vaccination in a cohort of Gambian infants

Background There is a need for new vaccines for tuberculosis (TB) that protect against adult pulmonary disease in regions where BCG is not effective. However, BCG could remain integral to TB control programmes because neonatal BCG protects against disseminated forms of childhood TB and many new vaccines rely on BCG to prime immunity or are recombinant strains of BCG. Interferon-gamma (IFN-) is required for immunity to mycobacteria and used as a marker of immunity when new vaccines are tested. Although BCG is widely given to neonates IFN- responses to BCG in this age group are poorly described. Characterisation of IFN- responses to BCG is required for interpretation of vaccine immunogenicity study data where BCG is part of the vaccination strategy. Methodology/Principal Findings 236 healthy Gambian babies were vaccinated with M. bovis BCG at birth. IFN-, interleukin (IL)-5 and IL-13 responses to purified protein derivative (PPD), killed Mycobacterium tuberculosis (KMTB), M. tuberculosis short term culture filtrate (STCF) and M. bovis BCG antigen 85 complex (Ag85) were measured in a whole blood assay two months after vaccination. Cytokine responses varied up to 10 log-fold within this population. The majority of infants (89-98% depending on the antigen) made IFN- responses and there was significant correlation between IFN- responses to the different mycobacterial antigens (Spearman’s coefficient ranged from 0.340 to 0.675, p=10-6-10-22). IL-13 and IL-5 responses were generally low and there were more non-responders (33-75%) for these cytokines. Nonetheless, significant correlations were observed for IL-13 and IL-5 responses to different mycobacterial antigens Conclusions/Significance Cytokine responses to mycobacterial antigens in BCG-vaccinated infants are heterogeneous and there is significant inter-individual variation. Further studies in large populations of infants are required to identify the factors that determine variation in IFN- responses

Design considerations in a clinical trial of a cognitive behavioural intervention for the management of low back pain in primary care : Back Skills Training Trial

Background Low back pain (LBP) is a major public health problem. Risk factors for the development and persistence of LBP include physical and psychological factors. However, most research activity has focused on physical solutions including manipulation, exercise training and activity promotion. Methods/Design This randomised controlled trial will establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a group programme, based on cognitive behavioural principles, for the management of sub-acute and chronic LBP in primary care. Our primary outcomes are disease specific measures of pain and function. Secondary outcomes include back beliefs, generic health related quality of life and resource use. All outcomes are measured over 12 months. Participants randomised to the intervention arm are invited to attend up to six weekly sessions each of 90 minutes; each group has 6–8 participants. A parallel qualitative study will aid the evaluation of the intervention. Discussion In this paper we describe the rationale and design of a randomised evaluation of a group based cognitive behavioural intervention for low back pain

Understanding usual care for patients with multimorbidity: baseline data from a cluster-randomised trial of the 3D intervention in primary care.

OBJECTIVES: Recent evidence has highlighted the high prevalence and impact of multimorbidity, but the evidence base for improving management is limited. We have tested a new complex intervention for multimorbidity (the 3D model). The paper describes the baseline characteristics of practices and patients in order to establish the external validity of trial participants. It also explores current 'usual primary care' for multimorbidity, against which the 3D intervention was tested. DESIGN: Analysis of baseline data from patients in a cluster-randomised controlled trial and additional data from practice staff. SETTING: Primary care in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with multimorbidity (n=5253) and 154 practice staff. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Using surveys and routinely available data, we compared the characteristics of participating and non-participating practices and participating and non-participating eligible patients.Baseline questionnaire data from patient participants was used to examine participant illness burden, treatment burden and perceptions of receiving patient-centred care. We obtained data about usual care preintervention from practice staff using questionnaires and a structured pro forma. RESULTS: Participating practices were slightly larger, in less deprived areas, and with slightly higher scores for patient satisfaction compared with non-participating practices. Patients with dementia or learning difficulties were likely to be excluded by their general practitioners, but comparison of participants with non-participants identified only minor differences in characteristics, suggesting that the sample was otherwise representative. Patients reported substantial illness burden, and an important minority reported high treatment burden. Although patients reported relatively high levels of satisfaction with care, many reported not having received potentially important components of care. CONCLUSION: This trial achieved good levels of external validity. Although patients were generally satisfied with primary care services, there was significant room for improvement in important aspects of care for multimorbidity that are targeted by the 3D intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN06180958; Post-results

Synthesis and summary of patient-reported outcome measures to inform the development of a core outcome set in colorectal cancer surgery

AIM: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures (PROMs) are standard measures in the assessment of colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment, but the range and complexity of available PROMs may be hindering the synthesis of evidence. This systematic review aimed to: (i) summarize PROMs in studies of CRC surgery and (ii) categorize PRO content to inform the future development of an agreed minimum 'core' outcome set to be measured in all trials. METHOD: All PROMs were identified from a systematic review of prospective CRC surgical studies. The type and frequency of PROMs in each study were summarized, and the number of items documented. All items were extracted and independently categorized by content by two researchers into 'health domains', and discrepancies were discussed with a patient and expert. Domain popularity and the distribution of items were summarized. RESULTS: Fifty-eight different PROMs were identified from the 104 included studies. There were 23 generic, four cancer-specific, 11 disease-specific and 16 symptom-specific questionnaires, and three ad hoc measures. The most frequently used PROM was the EORTC QLQ-C30 (50 studies), and most PROMs (n = 40, 69%) were used in only one study. Detailed examination of the 50 available measures identified 917 items, which were categorized into 51 domains. The domains comprising the most items were 'anxiety' (n = 85, 9.2%), 'fatigue' (n = 67, 7.3%) and 'physical function' (n = 63, 6.9%). No domains were included in all PROMs. CONCLUSION: There is major heterogeneity of PRO measurement and a wide variation in content assessed in the PROMs available for CRC. A core outcome set will improve PRO outcome measurement and reporting in CRC trials