Variability of outcome reporting in Hirschsprung's Disease and gastroschisis: a systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Allin BS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5150519 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Variability of outcome reporting in Hirschsprung's Disease and gastroschisis: a systematic review.
Allin Benjamin Saul Raywood BS Irvine Amy A Patni Nicholas N Knight Marian M
Scientific reports 20161212
Heterogeneity in outcome reporting limits identification of gold-standard treatments for Hirschsprung's Disease(HD) and gastroschisis. This review aimed to identify which outcomes are currently investigated in HD and gastroschisis research so as to counter this heterogeneity through informing development of a core outcome set(COS). Two systematic reviews were conducted. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they compared surgical interventions for primary treatment of HD in review one, and gast ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:Gastroschisis is a congenital anomaly that needs surgical management for repositioning intestines into the abdominal cavity and for abdominal closure. Higher hospital or surgeon volume has previously been found to be associated with better clinical outcomes for different especially high-risk, low volume procedures. Therefore, we aim to examine the relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and outcomes for gastroschisis. METHODS:We will perform a systematic literature search from inception onwards in Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Biosis Previews without applying any limitations. In addition, we will search trial registries and relevant conference proceedings. We will include (cluster-) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective or retrospective cohort studies analyzing the relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and clinical outcomes. The primary outcomes will be survival and mortality. Secondary outcomes will be different measures of morbidity (e.g., severe gastrointestinal complications, gastrointestinal dysfunctions, and sepsis), quality of life, and length of stay. We will systematically assess risk of bias of included studies using RoB 2 for individually or cluster-randomized trials and ROBINS-I for cohort studies, and extract data on the study design, patient characteristics, case-mix adjustments, statistical methods, hospital and surgeon volume, and outcomes into standardized tables. Title and abstract screening, full text screening, critical appraisal, and data extraction of results will be conducted by two reviewers independently. Other data will be extracted by one reviewer and checked for accuracy by a second one. Any disagreements will be resolved by discussion. We will not pool results statistically as we expect included studies to be clinically and methodologically very diverse. We will conduct a systematic synthesis without meta-analysis and use GRADE for assessing the certainty of the evidence. DISCUSSION:Given the lack of a comprehensive summary of findings on the relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and outcomes for gastroschisis, this systematic review will put things right. Results can be used to inform decision makers or clinicians and to adapt medical care. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:Open Science Framework (DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/EX34M ; https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/HGPZ2 ).
| S-EPMC7469094 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionHyperlipidemia is an underlying process behind cardiovascular disease. Chinese medicine (CM) may be effective in treating hyperlipidemia, but there is a lack of studies with high methodological quality. A major reason for this is heterogeneity in outcome reporting. Therefore, this study explores the degree of outcome reporting variation in CM trials for hyperlipidemia. It then generates a list of potentially important outcomes for developing a core outcome set (COS).MethodsA systematic review of literature focusing on studies of CM for hyperlipidemia was conducted. Outcomes were listed verbatim and grouped into 8 domains. Outcome frequency and definition uniformity were analyzed.Results3,702 studies and 452 individual outcomes were identified. These outcomes were reported 27,328 times, of which 1.6% were reported as primary outcomes, and 13.3% were defined. The most frequent outcome was total triglyceride, represented in 86.7% of the studies, followed by total cholesterol (86.0%), total effective rate (75.1%), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (73.2%), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (60.5%). However, 43.6% of outcomes were reported only once. The largest outcome domain was "pathological or pathophysiological outcomes," which included 67.0% of outcomes. Of the "response rate related outcomes" domain, total effective rate was the most frequently reported outcome (n = 2,780), and 95.3% of the studies gave a clear definition. However, these definitions were often contradictory. Only 10 papers reported cardiovascular events, 3 of which referred to them as primary outcomes. Moreover, ten patient-reported outcomes were reported in the retrieved literature 19 times in total. The majority of the outcomes did not report measurement instruments (MIs) (269/453, 59.4%). MIs of the surrogate outcomes were reported more frequently.ConclusionOutcome reporting in CM trials for hyperlipidemia is inconsistent and ill-defined, creating barriers to data synthesis and comparison. Thus, we propose and are developing a COS for CM trials for hyperlipidemia.
| S-EPMC8211496 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Therapeutic mammaplasty (TM) is an oncological procedure which combines tumour resection with breast reduction and mastopexy techniques. Previous systematic reviews have demonstrated the oncological safety of TM but reporting of critically important outcomes, such as quality of life, aesthetic and functional outcomes, are limited, piecemeal or inconsistent. This systematic review aimed to identify all outcomes reported in clinical studies of TM to facilitate development of a core outcome set. Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science were searched from inception to 5 August 2020. Included studies reported clinical outcomes following TM for adult women. Two authors screened articles independently for eligibility. Data were extracted regarding the outcome definition and classification type (for example, oncological, quality of life, etc.), time of outcome reporting and measurement tools. Of 5709 de-duplicated records, 148 were included in the narrative synthesis. The majority of studies (n = 102, 68.9 per cent) reported measures of survival and/or recurrence; approximately three-quarters (n = 75, 73.5 per cent) had less than 5 years follow-up. Aesthetic outcome was reported in half of studies (n = 75, 50.7 per cent) using mainly subjective, non-validated measurement tools. The time point at which aesthetic assessment was conducted was highly variable, and only defined in 48 (64.0 per cent) studies and none included a preoperative baseline for comparison. Few studies reported quality of life (n = 30, 20.3 per cent), functional outcomes (n = 5, 3.4 per cent) or resource use (n = 28, 18.9 per cent). Given the oncological equivalence of TM and mastectomy, treatment decisions are often driven by aesthetic and functional outcomes, which are infrequently and inconsistently reported with non-validated measurement tools.
| S-EPMC8665419 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTotal knee arthroplasty (TKA) is one of the most effective ways to treat end-stage painful conditions of the knee. However, non-standardized reporting patterns can make quantitative analysis of patient outcomes difficult.MethodsA systematic review of the literature was performed using keywords "total knee arthroplasty" and "total knee replacement." Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) meeting the inclusion criteria were sorted and reviewed. Type of study, outcome measures used to report their results, and the actual results were recorded. Quantitative analysis was performed.ResultsA total of 233 RCTs were included. There was significant variability in the reporting of short term and long term outcomes in total knee arthroplasty. The most common treatment domains in order of decreasing frequency were objective knee function, subjective knee function, perioperative complications, and pain. Range of motion was the most common outcome metric reported in all the RCTs and also was the most common metric used to assess objective knee function. The most common patient reported outcome measure used to assess postoperative function was the Knee Society Score followed by Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. The Visual Analog Scale was the most common measurement tool used to assess postoperative pain. Most studies assessed patient outcomes in three treatment domains. None reported outcomes in all seven domains.ConclusionThere is significant variability in outcome reporting patterns in TKA literature. Most studies do not track outcomes comprehensively, with a significant minority of the RCTs tracking outcomes in only one treatment domain.
| S-EPMC7394795 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:There is currently no accepted standard for reporting outcomes following cardiac surgery. The objective of this paper was to systematically review the literature to evaluate the current use and definition of perioperative outcomes reported in cardiac surgery trials. METHODS AND RESULTS:We reviewed 5 prominent medical and surgical journals on Medline from January 1, 2010, to June 30, 2014, for randomized controlled trials involving coronary artery bypass grafting and/or valve surgery. We identified 34 trials meeting inclusion criteria. Sample sizes ranged from 57 to 4752 participants (median 351). Composite end points were used as a primary outcome in 56% (n=19) of the randomized controlled trials and as a secondary outcome in 12% (n=4). There were 14 different composite end points. Mortality at any time (all-cause and/or cardiovascular) was reported as an individual end point or as part of a combined end point in 82% (n=28), myocardial infarction was reported in 68% (n=23), and bleeding was reported in 24% (n=8). Patient-centered outcomes, such as quality of life and functional classification, were reported in 29% (n=10). Definition of clinical events such as myocardial infarction, stroke, renal failure, and bleeding varied considerably among trials, particularly for postoperative myocardial infarction and bleeding, for which 8 different definitions were used for each. CONCLUSIONS:Outcome reporting in the cardiac surgery literature is heterogeneous, and efforts should be made to standardize the outcomes reported and the definitions used to ascertain them. The development of standardizing outcome reporting is an essential step toward strengthening the process of evidence-based care in cardiac surgery.
| S-EPMC4599473 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction There is a lack of consensus on what the critical outcomes in replantation are and how best to measure them. This review aims to identify all reported outcomes and respective outcome measures used in digital replantation. Materials and Methods Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and single-arm observational studies of adults undergoing replantation with at least one well-described outcome or outcome measure were identified. Primary outcomes were classified into six domains, and outcome measures were classified into eight domains. The clinimetric properties were identified and reported. A total of 56 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. Results In total, 29 continuous and 29 categorical outcomes were identified, and 87 scales and instruments were identified. The most frequently used outcomes were survival of replanted digit, sensation, and time in hospital. Outcomes and measures were most variable in domains of viability, quality of life, and motor function. Only eight measures used across these domains were validated and proven reliable. Conclusion Lack of consensus creates an obstacle to reporting, understanding, and comparing the effectiveness of various replantation strategies.
| S-EPMC7735551 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimStandardizing evaluative outcomes and their assessment facilitates comparisons between clinical studies and provides a basis for comparing direct effects of different treatment options. The aim of this study was to systematically review types of outcomes and measurement instruments used in studies regarding treatment options for slow-transit constipation (STC) in adults.MethodsIn this systematic review of the literature, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO from inception through February 2018, for papers assessing any STC treatment in adult patients. Outcomes were systematically extracted and categorized in domains using the conceptual framework of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology filter 2.0. Outcome reporting was stratified by decade of publication, intervention, and study type.ResultsForty-seven studies were included in this systematic review. Fifty-nine different types of outcomes were identified. The outcomes were structured in three core areas and 18 domains. The most commonly reported domains were defecation functions (94%), gastrointestinal transit (53%), and health-care service use (51%). The most frequently reported outcomes were defecation frequency (83%), health-related quality of life (43%), and adverse events and complications (43%). In 62% of the studies, no primary outcome was defined, whereas in two studies, more than one primary outcomes were selected. A wide diversity of measurement instruments was used to assess the reported outcomes.ConclusionOutcomes reported in studies on STC in adults are heterogeneous. A lack of standardization complicates comparisons between studies. Developing a core outcome set for STC in adults could contribute to standardization of outcome reporting in (future) studies.
| S-EPMC7027471 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSystematic reviews collate trial data to provide evidence to support clinical decision-making. For effective synthesis, there must be consistency in outcome reporting. There is no agreed set of outcomes for reporting the effect of burn care interventions. Issues with outcome reporting have been identified, although not systematically investigated. This study gathers empirical evidence on any variation in outcome reporting and assesses the need for a core outcome set for burn care research.MethodsElectronic searches of four search engines were undertaken from January 2012 to December 2016 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), using medical subject headings and free text terms including 'burn', 'scald' 'thermal injury' and 'RCT'. Two authors independently screened papers, extracted outcomes verbatim and recorded the timing of outcome measurement. Duplicate outcomes (exact wording ± different?spelling), similar outcomes (albumin in blood, serum albumin) and identical outcomes measured at different times were removed. Variation in outcome reporting was determined by assessing the number of unique outcomes reported across all included trials. Outcomes were classified into domains. Bias was reduced using five researchers and a patient working independently and together.Results147 trials were included, of which 127 (86.4%) were RCTs, 13 (8.8%) pilot studies and 7 (4.8%) RCT protocols. 1494 verbatim clinical outcomes were reported; 955 were unique. 76.8% of outcomes were measured within 6?months of injury. Commonly reported outcomes were defined differently. Numbers of unique outcomes per trial varied from one to 37 (median 9; IQR 5,13). No single outcome was reported across all studies demonstrating inconsistency of reporting. Outcomes were classified into 54 domains. Numbers of outcomes per domain ranged from 1 to 166 (median 11; IQR 3,24).ConclusionsThis review has demonstrated heterogeneity in outcome reporting in burn care research which will hinder amalgamation of study data. We recommend the development of a Core Outcome Set.Prospero registration numberCRD42017060908.
| S-EPMC6398699 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although gastroschisis is often diagnosed by prenatal ultrasound, there is still a gap in the literature about which prenatal ultrasound markers can predict complex gastroschisis. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the ultrasound markers that characterize complex gastroschisis. A systematic review of the literature was conducted according to the guidelines of PRISMA. The protocol was registered (PROSPERO ID CRD42020211685). Meta-analysis was displayed graphically on Forest plots, which estimate prevalence rates and risk ratios, with 95% confidence intervals, using STATA version 15.0. The combined prevalence of intestinal complications in fetuses with complex gastroschisis was 27.0%, with a higher prevalence of atresia (about 48%), followed by necrosis (about 25%). The prevalence of deaths in newborns with complex gastroschisis was 15.0%. The predictive ultrasound markers for complex gastroschisis were intraabdominal bowel dilatation (IABD) (RR 3.01, 95% CI 2.22 to 4.07; I2 = 15.7%), extra-abdominal bowel dilatation (EABD) (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.39; I2 = 77.1%), and polyhydramnios (RR 3.81, 95% CI 2.09 to 6.95; I2 = 0.0%). This review identified that IABD, EABD, and polyhydramnios were considered predictive ultrasound markers for complex gastroschisis. However, evidence regarding gestational age at the time of diagnosis is needed.
| S-EPMC8619043 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study questionWhich outcomes and outcome measures are reported in interventional trials evaluating the treatment of adenomyosis?Summary answerWe identified 38 studies, reporting on 203 outcomes using 133 outcome measures.What is known alreadyHeterogeneity in outcome evaluation and reporting has been demonstrated for several gynaecological conditions and in fertility studies. In adenomyosis, previous systematic reviews have failed to perform a quantitative analysis for central outcomes, due to variations in outcome reporting and measuring.Study design size durationA systematic search of Embase, Medline and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) was performed with a timeframe from 1950 until February 2021, following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA).Participants/materials setting methodsStudies reporting on any uterus-sparing intervention to treat adenomyosis, both prospective and retrospective, were eligible for inclusion. Inclusion criteria were a clear definition of diagnostic criteria for adenomyosis and the modality used to make the diagnosis, a clear description of the intervention, a follow-up time of ≥6 months, a study population of n ≥ 20, a follow-up rate of at least 80%, and English language. The population included premenopausal women with adenomyosis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Evidence Project risk of bias tool.Main results and the role of chanceWe included 38 studies (6 randomized controlled trials and 32 cohort studies), including 5175 participants with adenomyosis. The studies described 10 interventions and reported on 203 outcomes, including 43 classified as harms, in 29 predefined domains. Dysmenorrhoea (reported in 82%), heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) (in 79%) and uterine volume (in 71%) were the most common outcomes. Fourteen different outcome measures were used for dysmenorrhoea and 17 for HMB. Quality of life was reported in 9 (24%) studies, patient satisfaction with treatment in 1 (3%). A clear primary outcome was stated in only 18%.Limitations reasons for cautionThis review includes studies with a high risk of bias.Wider implications of the findingsShortcomings in the definition and choice of outcomes and outcome measures limit the value of the conducted research. The development and implementation of a core outcome set (COS) for interventional studies in adenomyosis could improve research quality. This review suggests a lack of patient-centred research in adenomyosis and people with adenomyosis should be involved in the development and implementation of the COS.Study funding/competing interestsNo funds specifically for this work were received. T.T. receives fees from General Electrics for lectures on ultrasound independently of this project.Trial registration numberThis review is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number CRD42020177466) and the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative (registration number 1649).
| S-EPMC8398753 | biostudies-literature