'Trial Exegesis': Methods for Synthesizing Clinical and Patient Reported Outcome (PRO) Data in Trials to Inform Clinical Practice:A Systematic Review

PURPOSE:The CONSORT extension for patient reported outcomes (PROs) aims to improve reporting, but guidance on the optimal integration with clinical data is lacking. This study examines in detail the reporting of PROs and clinical data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in gastro-intestinal cancer to inform design and reporting of combined PRO and clinical data from trials to improve the 'take home' message for clinicians to use in practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS:The case study was undertaken in gastro-intestinal cancer trials. Well-conducted RCTs reporting PROs with validated instruments were identified and categorized into those combining PRO and clinical data in a single paper, or those separating data into linked primary and supplemental papers. Qualitative methods were developed to examine reporting of the critical interpretation of the trial results (trial exegesis) in the papers in relation of the PRO and clinical outcomes and applied to each publication category. Results were used to inform recommendations for practice. RESULTS:From 1917 screened abstracts, 49 high quality RCTs were identified reported in 36 combined and 15 linked primary and supplemental papers. In-depth analysis of manuscript text identified three categories for understanding trial exegesis: where authors reported a "detailed", "general", or absent PRO rationale and integrated interpretation of clinical and PRO results. A total of 11 (30%) and 6 (16%) combined papers reported "detailed" PRO rationale and integrated interpretation of results although only 2 (14%) and 1 (7%) primary papers achieved the same standard respectively. Supplemental papers provide better information with 11 (73%) and 3 (20%) achieving "detailed" rationale and integrated interpretation of results. Supplemental papers, however, were published a median of 20 months after the primary RCT data in lower impact factor journals (median 16.8 versus 5.2). CONCLUSION:It is recommended that single papers, with detailed PRO rationale and integrated PRO and clinical data are published to optimize trial exegesis. Further work to examine whether this improves the use of PRO data to inform practice is needed

A review of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register reveals inconsistency in the choice and measurement of SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes in prevention trials

Background: Multiple studies are evaluating how to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. Interventions are wide ranging and include vaccines, prophylactic drugs, public health safety measures, and behavioural interventions. Heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and reported is leading to research waste and inefficiency, slowing worldwide identification and implementation of effective methods to prevent infection. A core outcome set (COS) for studies of interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection has recently been developed, identifying infection as a critical outcome to measure. This paper examines how SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes are measured in registered COVID-19 prevention trials and considers how this can be improved. Methods: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to identify and review SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes in prevention trials, including the rationale for choice of outcome measurement. We included phase 3 and 4 trials of COVID-19 prevention interventions. Early phase trials and studies relating to the transmission, treatment or management of COVID-19 were excluded. Results: We identified 430 entries in the register, of which 199 unique prevention trials were included across eight settings and 12 intervention types. Fifteen (8%) trials did not include any SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes. The remaining 184 (92%) studies included a total of 268 SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes, of which 32 (17%) did not specify how infection would be measured. Testing (i.e. formal diagnostic test) as a standalone method for determining infection was used in 57 (31%) trials, whereas defining infection by symptoms alone was used in 16 (9%) trials. All other trials (n=79, 43%) included multiple infection outcomes, defined in different ways. Discussion: There is considerable variation in how SARS-CoV-2 infection is measured within and across different interventions and settings. Furthermore, few studies report the rationale for outcome selection and measurement. Better transparency and standardisation of SARS-CoV-2 infection measurement is needed for the findings from prevention trials to inform decision-making.</ns3:p

A core outcome set for seamless, standardized evaluation of innovative surgical procedures and devices (COHESIVE):a patient and professional stakeholder consensus study

To develop a COS, an agreed minimum set of outcomes to measure and report in all studies evaluating the introduction and evaluation of novel surgical techniques. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Agreement on the key outcomes to measure and report for safe and efficient surgical innovation is lacking, hindering transparency and risking patient harm. METHODS: (I) Generation of a list of outcome domains from published innovation-specific literature, policy/regulatory body documents, and surgeon interviews; (II) Prioritization of identified outcome domains using an international, multi-stakeholder Delphi survey; (III) Consensus meeting to agree the final COS. Participants were international stakeholders, including patients/public, surgeons, device manufacturers, regulators, trialists, methodologists, and journal editors. RESULTS: A total of 7972 verbatim outcomes were identified, categorized into 32 domains, and formatted into survey items/questions. Four hundred ten international participants (220 professionals, 190 patients/public) completed at least one round 1 survey item, of which 153 (69.5%) professionals and 116 (61.1%) patients completed at least one round 2 item. Twelve outcomes were scored “consensus in” (“very important” by ≥70% of patients and professionals) and 20 “no consensus.” A consensus meeting, involving context: modifications, unexpected disadvantages, device problems, technical procedure completion success, patients’ experience relating to the procedure being innovative, surgeons’/operators’ experience. Other domains relate to intended benefits, whether the overall desired effect was achieved and expected disadvantages. CONCLUSIONS: The COS is recommended for use in all studies before definitive randomized controlled trial evaluation to promote safe, transparent, and efficient surgical innovation

Three nested randomized controlled trials of peer only or multiple stakeholder group feedback within Delphi surveys during core outcome and information set development

Top 10 items rated essential in round 1. (DOCX 17 kb