Core Outcome Sets in Miscarriage Trials (COSMisT) study: a study protocol.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
'Core outcome sets' are an agreed, standardised set of outcomes based on what key stakeholders (clinicians, patients, their partners, researchers, service developers, funding organisations and so on) consider the important outcomes in the management or prevention of a condition. This paper describes the rationale and design for the development of Core Outcome Sets for Miscarriage Trials.Methods and analysis
Systematic reviews, interviews and focus groups with patients and their partners will be conducted to identify potential core outcomes that will be introduced into a modified Delphi survey. To ensure all key stakeholders are included, patients, partners, clinicians, charities and researchers will be invited to take part in the modified Delphi survey. There will be three rounds of scoring and rescoring during the Delphi survey to reach consensus regarding outcomes to be included in the core set, which will be subsequently refined through face-to-face consensus discussions.Ethics and dissemination
The use of core outcome sets allows results from different studies to be compared and combined, thereby reducing inconsistency and aiding interpretation of study findings. It also means research is more likely to report relevant outcomes and so can reduce reporting bias. Understanding which outcomes are important to patients has the potential to act as a driver to improve both the quality and cost-effectiveness of miscarriage services.
SUBMITTER: Smith P
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5701979 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionDelirium is a common, serious and potentially preventable condition with devastating impact on the quality of life prompting a proliferation of interventional trials. Core outcome sets aim to standardise outcome reporting by identifying outcomes perceived fundamental for measurement in trials of a specific interest area. Our aim is to develop international consensus on two core outcome sets for trials of interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium, irrespective of study population. We aim to identify additional core outcomes specific to the critically ill, acutely hospitalised patients, palliative care and older adults.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review of published and ongoing delirium trials (1980 onwards) and one-on-one interviews of patients who have experienced delirium and family members. These data will inform Delphi round 1 of a two-stage consensus process. In round 2, we will provide participants their own response, summarised group responses and those of patient/family participants for rescoring. We will randomise participants to receive feedback as proportion scoring the outcome as critical or as group mean responses. We will hold a consensus meeting using nominal group technique to finalise outcomes for inclusion. We will repeat the Delphi process and consensus meeting to select measures for each core outcome. We will recruit 240 Delphi participants giving us 80% power to detect a 1.0-1.5 point (9-point scale) difference by feedback method between rounds. We will analyse differences for subsequent scores, magnitude of opinion change, items retained and level of agreement.Ethics and disseminationWe are obtaining research ethics approvals according to local governance. Participation will be voluntary and data deidentified. Support from three international delirium organisations will be instrumental in dissemination and core outcome set uptake. We will disseminate through peer-reviewed open access publications and present at conferences selected to reach a wide range of knowledge users.
| S-EPMC5623471 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionChildhood overweight and obesity is prevalent in the first 5 years of life, and can result in significant health and economic consequences over the lifetime. The outcomes currently measured and reported in randomised controlled trials of early childhood obesity prevention interventions to reduce this burden of obesity are heterogeneous, and measured in a variety of ways. This variability limits the comparability of findings between studies, and contributes to research waste. This protocol presents the methodology for the development of two core outcome sets (COS) for obesity prevention interventions in children aged from 1 to 5 years from a singular development process: (1) a COS for interventions targeting physical activity and sedentary behaviour and (2) a COS for interventions targeting child feeding and dietary intake. Core outcomes related to physical activity and sedentary behaviour in children aged ≤1 year will also be identified to complement an existing COS for early feeding interventions, and provide a broader set of core outcomes in this age range. This will result in a suite of COS useful for measuring and reporting outcomes in early childhood obesity prevention studies, including multicomponent interventions.Methods and analysisDevelopment of the COS will follow international best practice guidelines. A scoping review of trial registries will identify commonly reported outcomes and associated measurement instruments. Key stakeholders involved in obesity prevention, including policy-makers/funders, parents, researchers, health practitioners and community and organisational stakeholders will participate in an e-Delphi study and consensus meeting regarding inclusion of outcomes in the COS. Finally, recommended outcome measure instruments will be identified through literature review and group consensus.Ethics and disseminationDeakin University Human Research Ethics Committee (HEAG-H 231_2020). The COS will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and engagement with key stakeholders.
| S-EPMC8728369 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Selective reporting bias, inconsistency in the chosen outcomes between trials and irrelevance of the chosen outcomes for women, limit the efficiency and value of research for prevention and treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). One way to address these challenges is to develop core outcome sets (COSs). METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The aim of this manuscript is to present a protocol for a study to develop COSs for GDM prevention and treatment. This is a three-phase project consisting of (1) a systematic review of the literature to create two lists of outcomes that have been reported in trials and systematic reviews of trials of interventions for the prevention and treatment of GDM, (2) a three-round, web-based e-Delphi survey with key stakeholders to prioritise these outcomes and (3) a consensus meeting to resolve any remaining disagreements and to agree on two COSs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval to conduct this study was obtained from the ethics committee at Galway University Hospitals on 13 December 2018 (Reference: C.A.2078). We will disseminate our research findings through peer-reviewed, open access publications and present at international conferences to reach a wide range of knowledge users.
| S-EPMC6887023 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesMost Asian countries have employed Chinese medicine (CM) and Western medicine to treat lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Evidence synthesis and comparison of effectiveness are difficult since outcomes examined and presented through trials possess heterogeneity. This study aimed to solve the outcome problems for CM clinical trials in LSS by building a core outcome set (COS).MethodsTo achieve an agreement on a set of core outcome domains, a four-phase study was carried out. First, we identified candidate outcome domains by systematically reviewing trials. In addition, we identified outcome domains associated with patients by conducting semistructured interviews with patients. Next, outcome domains were processed through a national two-round Delphi survey, in which 18 patients and 21 experts were recruited. Finally, the above domains were converted as a core outcome domain set based on a consensus meeting, in which 24 stakeholders were recruited.ResultsSeventeen outcome subdomains were identified by the systematic review and interviews. The Delphi survey assigned a priority to four outcome domains in the first round and four outcomes additionally in the second round. The core outcome domains were determined through discussion and redefinition of outcomes in the consensus meeting: pain and discomfort, health-related quality of life, lumbar function, activities of daily living, measures of walking, patient global assessment, adverse events and CM-specific outcomes.ConclusionCOS-CM-LSS is likely to enhance the consistency of outcomes reported in clinical trials. In-depth research should be conducted for the exploration of the best methods to examine the above outcomes.
| S-EPMC10582923 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo explore the outcome domains and measurement instruments reported in published randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions for shoulder pain (rotator cuff disease, adhesive capsulitis, or nonspecific shoulder pain).Study design and settingWe included trials comparing physical therapy to any other intervention for shoulder pain, indexed up to March 2015 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, or CINAHL Plus. Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted information on the domains and measurement instruments reported.ResultsWe included 171 trials. Most trials measured pain (87%), function (72%), and range of movement (67%), whereas adverse events, global assessment of treatment success, strength, and health-related quality of life were measured in 18-27% of trials, and work disability and referral for surgery were measured in less than 5% of trials. Thirty-five different measurement instruments for pain and 29 for function were noted. Measurement of function increased markedly from 1973 to 2014. In rotator cuff disease trials, there was a more frequent measurement of pain and strength and a less frequent measurement of range of movement compared with adhesive capsulitis trials.ConclusionsThere was wide diversity in the domains and measurement instruments reported. Our results provide the foundation for the development of a core domain and outcome measurement set for use in future shoulder pain trials.
| S-EPMC4711903 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionCore outcome sets are standardised lists of outcomes, which should be measured and reported in all clinical studies of a specific condition. This study aims to develop core outcome sets for economic evaluations in asthma studies. Economic outcomes include items such as costs, resource use or quality-adjusted life years. The starting point in developing core outcome sets will be conducting a systematic literature review to establish a preliminary list of reporting items to be considered for inclusion in the core outcome set.Methods and analysisWe will conduct literature searches of peer-reviewed studies published from January 1990 to January 2017. These will include any comparative or observational studies (including economic models) and systematic reviews reporting economic outcomes. All identified economic outcomes will be tabulated together with the major study characteristics, such as population, study design, the nature and intensity of the intervention, mode of data collection and instrument(s) used to derive an outcome. We will undertake a 'realist synthesis review' to analyse the identified economic outcomes. The outcomes will be summarised in the context of evaluation perspectives, types of economic evaluation and methodological approaches. Parallel to undertaking a systematic review, we will conduct semistructured interviews with stakeholders (including people with personal experience of asthma, health professionals, researchers and decision makers) in order to explore additional outcomes which have not been considered, or used, in published studies. The list of outcomes generated from the systematic review and interviews with stakeholders will form the basis of a Delphi survey to refine the identified outcomes into a core outcome set.Ethics and disseminationThe review will not involve access to individual-level data. Findings from our systematic review will be communicated to a broad range of stakeholders including clinical guideline developers, research funders, trial registries, ethics committees and other regulators.
| S-EPMC5724145 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOutcome assessment in perioperative exercise trials for lung cancer is heterogeneous, often omitting those that are important and patient-relevant. This heterogeneity hinders the synthesis of evidence. To address this issue, a core outcome set, an agreed-upon standardized set of outcomes to be measured and reported, is required to reduce heterogeneity among outcome measurements. This study protocol describes the methodology, aiming to develop a core outcome set for perioperative exercise intervention trials for lung cancer in clinical practice.MethodsThe project will follow the standard methodology recommended by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative, which is divided into four steps. Stage I: Conducting a scoping review of outcomes reported in clinical trials and protocols to develop a list of potential outcome domains. Stage II: Conducting semi-structured interviews to obtain important outcomes for patients. Stage III: Choosing the most important outcomes by conducting two rounds of the Delphi exercise. Stage IV: Achieving a consensus in a face-to-face meeting to discuss the final core outcome set.DiscussionThis is the first project identified for the core outcome set of perioperative exercise trials in lung cancer, which will enhance the quality, comparability, and usability of future trials and positively impact perioperative exercise and the care of patients with lung cancer.Trials registrationCore Outcome Measurement in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative database registration: https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2091.
| S-EPMC10905863 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This masterclass introduces the topic of core outcome sets, describing rationale and methods for developing them, and providing some examples that are relevant for clinical research and practice.A core outcome set is a minimum consensus-based set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials for a specific health condition and/or intervention. Issues surrounding outcome assessment, such as selective reporting and inconsistency across studies, can be addressed by the development of a core set. As suggested by key initiatives in this field (i.e. OMERACT and COMET), the development requires achieving consensus on: (1) core outcome domains and (2) core outcome measurement instruments. Different methods can be used to reach consensus, including: literature systematic reviews to inform the process, qualitative research with clinicians and patients, group discussions (e.g. nominal group technique), and structured surveys (e.g. Delphi technique). Various stakeholders should be involved in the process, with particular attention to patients.Several COSs have been developed for musculoskeletal conditions including a longstanding one for low back pain, IMMPACT recommendations on outcomes for chronic pain, and OMERACT COSs for hip, knee and hand osteoarthritis. There is a lack of COSs for neurological, geriatric, cardio-respiratory and pediatric conditions, therefore, future research could determine the value of developing COSs for these conditions.
| S-EPMC5537457 | biostudies-other
Project description:Orthodontic treatment is commonly undertaken in young people, with over 40% of children in the UK needing treatment and currently one third having treatment, at a cost to the National Health Service in England and Wales of £273 million each year. Most current research about orthodontic care does not consider what patients truly feel about, or want, from treatment, and a diverse range of outcomes is being used with little consistency between studies. This study aims to address these problems, using established methodology to develop a core outcome set for use in future clinical trials of orthodontic interventions in children and young people.This is a mixed-methods study incorporating four distinct stages. The first stage will include a scoping review of the scientific literature to identify primary and secondary outcome measures that have been used in previous orthodontic clinical trials. The second stage will involve qualitative interviews and focus groups with orthodontic patients aged 10 to 16 years to determine what outcomes are important to them. The outcomes elicited from these two stages will inform the third stage of the study in which a long-list of outcomes will be ranked in terms of importance using electronic Delphi surveys involving clinicians and patients. The final stage of the study will involve face-to-face consensus meetings with all stakeholders to discuss and agree on the outcome measures that should be included in the final core outcome set.This research will help to inform patients, parents, clinicians and commissioners about outcomes that are important to young people undergoing orthodontic treatment. Adoption of the core outcome set in future clinical trials of orthodontic treatment will make it easier for results to be compared, contrasted and combined. This should translate into improved decision-making by all stakeholders involved.The project has been registered on the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials ( COMET ) website, January 2016.
| S-EPMC5545003 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundTissue-agnostic drug development provides a paradigm shift in precision medicine and requires innovative trial designs. However, outcome selection for such trials can prove challenging. The objectives of this review were to: (i) Identify and map core outcome sets (COS), across 11 immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) in order to facilitate the selection of relevant outcomes across the conditions for innovative trials of tissue-agnostic drug therapies. (ii) Compare outcomes or endpoints recommended by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) to identify and highlight similarities and differences.MethodsThe Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET), International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM), FDA and EMA databases were searched from inception to 28th December 2019. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts of retrieved entries and conducted the subsequent full text screening. Hand searching of the reference lists and citation searching of the selected publications was conducted. The methodological quality of the included peer-reviewed articles was independently assessed by the reviewers based on the items of the COS-Standards for Development recommendations (COS-STAD) checklist. Core outcomes from the included publications were extracted and mapped across studies and conditions. Regulatory guidance from FDA and EMA, where available for clinical trials for the IMIDs, were obtained from their databases and recommendations on outcomes to measure directly compared.ResultsForty-four COS publications were included in the final analysis. Outcomes such as disease activity, pain, fatigue, quality of life, physical function, work limitation/productivity, steroid use and biomarkers were recommended across majority of the conditions. There were significant similarities and differences in FDA and EMA recommendations. The only instance where either regulatory body directly referenced a COS was for jSLE-both referenced the Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organization (PRINTO) COS.ConclusionsThe findings from this systematic review provide valuable information to inform outcome selection in tissue-agnostic trials for IMIDs. There is a need for increased collaboration between regulators and COS developers and inclusion of regulators as key stakeholders in COS development to enhance the quality of COS.Trial registrationNot registered.
| S-EPMC8761289 | biostudies-literature