Dataset Information

Protocol for the development of a Core Outcome Set (COS) for hemorrhoidal disease: an international Delphi study.

ABSTRACT: Over the last decade, many studies were performed regarding treatment options for hemorrhoidal disease. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) should have well-defined primary and secondary outcomes. However, the reported outcome measures are numerous and diverse. The heterogeneity of outcome definition in clinical trials limits transparency and paves the way for bias. The development of a core outcome set (COS) helps minimizing this problem. A COS is an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials of a specific disease. The aim of this project is to generate a COS regarding the outcome of treatment after hemorrhoidal disease.A Delphi study will be performed by an international steering group healthcare professionals and patients with the intention to create a standard outcome set for future clinical trials for the treatment of hemorrhoidal disease. First, a literature review will be conducted to establish which outcomes are used in clinical trials for hemorrhoidal disease. Secondly, both healthcare professionals and patients will participate in several consecutive rounds of online questionnaires and a face-to-face meeting to refine the content of the COS.Development of a COS for hemorrhoidal disease defines a minimum outcome-reporting standard and will improve the quality of research in the future.

SUBMITTER: van Tol RR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5486628 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Protocol for the development of a Core Outcome Set (COS) for hemorrhoidal disease: an international Delphi study.

van Tol R R RR Melenhorst J J Dirksen C D CD Stassen L P S LPS Breukink S O SO

International journal of colorectal disease 20170513 7

<h4>Purpose</h4>Over the last decade, many studies were performed regarding treatment options for hemorrhoidal disease. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) should have well-defined primary and secondary outcomes. However, the reported outcome measures are numerous and diverse. The heterogeneity of outcome definition in clinical trials limits transparency and paves the way for bias. The development of a core outcome set (COS) helps minimizing this problem. A COS is an agreed minimum set of outcom ...[more]

PMID: 28501943

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesA core outcome set (COS) describes a minimum set of outcomes to be reported by all clinical trials of one healthcare condition. Delphi surveys are frequently used to achieve consensus on core outcomes. International input is important to achieve global COS uptake. We aimed to investigate participant representation in international Delphi surveys, with reference to the inclusion of patients and participants from low and middle income countries as stakeholders (LMICs).DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesEMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, COMET database and hand-searching.Eligibility criteriaProtocols and studies describing Delphi surveys used to develop an international COS for trial reporting, published between 1 January 2017 and 6 June 2019.Data extraction and synthesisDelphi participants were grouped as patients or healthcare professionals (HCPs). Participants were considered international if their country of origin was different to that of the first or senior author. Data extraction included participant numbers, country of origin, country income group and whether Delphi surveys were translated. We analysed the impact these factors had on outcome prioritisation.ResultsOf 90 included studies, 69% (n=62) were completed and 31% (n=28) were protocols. Studies recruited more HCPs than patients (median 60 (IQR 30-113) vs 30 (IQR 14-66) participants, respectively). A higher percentage of HCPs was international compared with patients (57% (IQR 37-78) vs 20% (IQR 0-68)). Only 31% (n=28) studies recruited participants from LMICs. Regarding recruitment from LMICs, patients were under-represented (16% studies; n=8) compared with HCPs (22%; n=28). Few (7%; n=6) studies translated Delphi surveys. Only 3% studies (n=3) analysed Delphi responses by geographical location; all found differences in outcome prioritisation.ConclusionsThere is a disproportionately lower inclusion of international patients, compared with HCPs, in COS-development Delphi surveys, particularly within LMICs. Future international Delphi surveys should consider exploring for geographical and income-based differences in outcome prioritisation.Prospero registration numberCRD42019138519.

Project description:BackgroundAs the development of core outcome sets (COS) increases, guidance for developing and reporting high-quality COS continues to evolve; however, a number of methodological uncertainties still remain. The objectives of this study were: (1) to explore the impact of including patient interviews in developing a COS, (2) to examine the impact of using a 5-point versus a 9-point rating scale during Delphi consensus methods on outcome selection and (3) to inform and contribute to COS development methodology by advancing the evidence base on COS development techniques.MethodsSemi-structured patient interviews and a nested randomised controlled parallel group trial as part of the Pelvic Girdle Pain Core Outcome Set project (PGP-COS). Patient interviews, as an adjunct to a systematic review of outcomes reported in previous studies, were undertaken to identify preliminary outcomes for including in a Delphi consensus survey. In the Delphi survey, participants were randomised (1:1) to a 5-point or 9-point rating scale for rating the importance of the list of preliminary outcomes.ResultsFour of the eight patient interview derived outcomes were included in the preliminary COS, however, none of these outcomes were included in the final PGP-COS. The 5-point rating scale resulted in twice as many outcomes reaching consensus after the 3-round Delphi survey compared to the 9-point scale. Consensus on all five outcomes included in the final PGP-COS was achieved by participants allocated the 5-point rating scale, whereas consensus on four of these was achieved by those using the 9-point scale.ConclusionsUsing patient interviews to identify preliminary outcomes as an adjunct to conducting a systematic review of outcomes measured in the literature did not appear to influence outcome selection in developing the COS in this study. The use of different rating scales in a Delphi survey, however, did appear to impact on outcome selection. The 5-point scale demonstrated greater congruency than the 9-point scale with the outcomes included in the final PGP-COS. Future research to substantiate our findings and to explore the impact of other rating scales on outcome selection during COS development, however, is warranted.

Project description:The use of core outcome sets (COS) ensures that researchers measure and report those outcomes that are most likely to be relevant to users of their research. Several hundred COS projects have been systematically identified to date, but there has been no formal quality assessment of these studies. The Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) project aimed to identify minimum standards for the design of a COS study agreed upon by an international group, while other specific guidance exists for the final reporting of COS development studies (Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting [COS-STAR]).An international group of experienced COS developers, methodologists, journal editors, potential users of COS (clinical trialists, systematic reviewers, and clinical guideline developers), and patient representatives produced the COS-STAD recommendations to help improve the quality of COS development and support the assessment of whether a COS had been developed using a reasonable approach. An open survey of experts generated an initial list of items, which was refined by a 2-round Delphi survey involving nearly 250 participants representing key stakeholder groups. Participants assigned importance ratings for each item using a 1-9 scale. Consensus that an item should be included in the set of minimum standards was defined as at least 70% of the voting participants from each stakeholder group providing a score between 7 and 9. The Delphi survey was followed by a consensus discussion with the study management group representing multiple stakeholder groups. COS-STAD contains 11 minimum standards that are the minimum design recommendations for all COS development projects. The recommendations focus on 3 key domains: the scope, the stakeholders, and the consensus process.The COS-STAD project has established 11 minimum standards to be followed by COS developers when planning their projects and by users when deciding whether a COS has been developed using reasonable methods.

Dataset Information

Protocol for the development of a Core Outcome Set (COS) for hemorrhoidal disease: an international Delphi study.

Publications

Protocol for the development of a Core Outcome Set (COS) for hemorrhoidal disease: an international Delphi study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets