Development of a core set of outcome measures for OAB treatment.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Foust-Wright C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5705742 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Development of a core set of outcome measures for OAB treatment.
Foust-Wright Caroline C Wissig Stephanie S Stowell Caleb C Olson Elizabeth E Anderson Anita A Anger Jennifer J Cardozo Linda L Cotterill Nikki N Gormley Elizabeth Ann EA Toozs-Hobson Philip P Heesakkers John J Herbison Peter P Moore Kate K McKinney Jessica J Morse Abraham A Pulliam Samantha S Szonyi George G Wagg Adrian A Milsom Ian I
International urogynecology journal 20170925 12
<h4>Introduction and hypothesis</h4>Standardized measures enable the comparison of outcomes across providers and treatments giving valuable information for improving care quality and efficacy. The aim of this project was to define a minimum standard set of outcome measures and case-mix factors for evaluating the care of patients with overactive bladder (OAB).<h4>Methods</h4>The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) convened an international working group (WG) of leadin ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundCore Outcome Sets (COS) are defined as the minimum sets of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all randomised controlled trials to facilitate combination and comparability of research. The aim of this review is to produce an item bank of previously reported outcome measures from published studies in amblyopia, strabismus and ocular motility disorders to initiate the development of COS.MethodsA review was conducted to identify articles reporting outcome measures for amblyopia, strabismus and ocular motility disorders. Using systematic methods according to the COMET handbook we searched key electronic bibliographic databases from 1st January 2011 to 27th September 2016 using MESH terms and alternatives indicating the different subtypes of amblyopia, strabismus and ocular motility disorders in relation to treatment outcomes and all synonyms. We included Cochrane reviews, other systematic reviews, controlled trials, non-systematic reviews and retrospective studies. Data was extracted to tabulate demographics of included studies, primary and secondary outcomes, methods of measurement and their time points.ResultsA total of 142 studies were included; 42 in amblyopia, 33 in strabismus, and 68 in ocular motility disorders (one study overlap between amblyopia and strabismus). We identified ten main outcome measure domains for amblyopia, 14 for strabismus, and ten common "visual or motility" outcome measure domains for ocular motility disorders. Within the domains, we found variable nomenclature being used and diversity in methods and timings of measurements.ConclusionThis review highlights discrepancies in outcome measure reporting within published literature for amblyopia, strabismus and ocular motility and it generated an item bank of the most commonly used and reported outcome measures for each of the three conditions from recent literature to start the process of COS development. Consensus among all stakeholders including patients and professionals is recommended to establish a useful COS.
| S-EPMC6368710 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Among the challenges in conducting clinical trials in large-vessel vasculitis (LVV), including both giant cell arteritis (GCA) and Takayasu arteritis (TA), is the lack of standardized and meaningful outcome measures. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Vasculitis Working Group initiated an international effort to develop and validate data-driven outcome tools for clinical investigation in LVV.An international Delphi exercise was completed to gather opinions from clinical experts on LVV-related domains considered important to measure in trials. Patient interviews and focus groups were completed to identify outcomes of importance to patients. The results of these activities were presented and discussed in a "Virtual Special Interest Group" using telephone- and Internet-based conferences, discussions through electronic mail, and an in-person session at the 2016 OMERACT meeting. A preliminary core set of domains common for all forms of LVV with disease-specific elements was proposed.The majority of experts agree with using common outcome measures for GCA and TA, with the option of supplementation with disease-specific items. Following interviews and focus groups, pain, fatigue, and emotional effect emerged as health-related quality of life domains important to patients. Current disease assessment tools, including the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score, were found to be inadequate to assess disease activity in GCA and standardized assessment of imaging tests were felt crucial to study LVV, especially TA.Initial data from a clinician Delphi exercise and structured patient interviews have provided themes toward an OMERACT-endorsed core set of domains and outcome measures.
| S-EPMC5712274 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionA lack of uniformity in the choice of outcome measurement in hemophilia care and research has led to studies with incomparable results. We identified a need to define core outcome measures for use in research and clinical care of persons with hemophilia.ObjectiveTo move toward a core set of outcome measures for the assessment of persons with hemophilia in research and practice.MethodsA modified nominal groups process was conducted with an international group of hemophilia experts, including persons with hemophilia as follows. Step 1: item generation for all potential outcome measures. Step 2: survey where respondents voted on the relative importance and usefulness of each item. Steps 3/4: 2-day meeting where attendees voted for items they valued, followed by open discussion and a second round of voting. Step 5: survey where respondents selected their top five items from those with >50% agreement at the meeting.ResultsThe highest ranked items for the pediatric core set (% agreement) are treatment satisfaction (92.7%), joint health (83.3%), a measure of access to treatment (82.5%), a measure of treatment adherence (72.5%), and generic performance based physical function (72.1%). The highest ranked items for the adult core set (% agreement) are total bleeding events (88.1%), EuroQol five dimensions (85.4%), treatment adherence (82.1%), joint health (79.1%), and number/location of bleeds per unit time (78.6%).ConclusionThis process generated a list of preferred outcome measures to consider for assessment in persons with hemophilia. This information now requires refinement to define optimal core sets for use in different clinical/research contexts.
| S-EPMC7292657 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimPatient-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.MethodAll 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.ResultsFifty-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.ConclusionThere 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.
| S-EPMC4744711 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5689835 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveThe objectives of the study were to (1) map questions in epilepsy-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of children's health-related quality of life (HRQoL) to a proposed core outcome set (COS) for childhood epilepsy research and (2) gain insight into the acceptability of two leading candidate PROMs.MethodWe identified 11 epilepsy-specific PROMs of children's HRQoL (17 questionnaire versions) in a previous systematic review. Each item from the PROMs was mapped to 38 discrete outcomes across 10 domains of the COS: seizures, sleep, social functioning, mental health, cognition, physical functioning, behavior, adverse events, family life, and global quality of life. We consulted with three children with epilepsy and six parents of children with epilepsy in Patient Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) work to gain an understanding of the acceptability of the two leading PROMs from our review of measurement properties: Quality of Life in Childhood Epilepsy (QOLCE-55) and Health-Related Quality of Life Measure for Children with Epilepsy (CHEQOL).ResultsSocial Functioning is covered by all PROMs except DISABKIDS and G-QOLCE and Mental Health is covered by all PROMs except G-QOLCE and Hague Restrictions in Childhood Epilepsy Scale (HARCES). Only two PROMs (Epilepsy and Learning Disability Quality of Life (ELDQOL) and Glasgow Epilepsy Outcome Scale (GEOS-YP)) have items that cover the Seizure domain. The QOLCE-55 includes items that cover the domains of Physical Functioning, Social Functioning, Behavior, Mental Health, and Cognition. The CHEQOL parent and child versions cover the same domains as QOLCE-55 except for Physical Functioning and Behavior, and the child version has one item that covers the discrete outcome of Overall Quality of Life and one item that covers the discrete outcome of Relationship with parents and siblings. The QOLCE-55 parent version was acceptable to the parents we consulted with, and CHEQOL parent and child versions were described as acceptable to our child and parent advisory panel members.SignificanceMapping items from existing epilepsy-specific PROMs for children is an important step in operationalizing our COS for childhood epilepsy research, alongside evaluation of their measurement properties. Two leading PROMS, QOLCE-55 and CHEQOL, cover a wide range of domains from our COS and would likely be used in conjunction with assessment tools selected for specific study objectives. The PPIE work provided practical insights into the administration and acceptability of candidate PROMs in appropriate context. We promote our COS as a framework for selecting outcomes and PROMs for future childhood epilepsy evaluative research.
| S-EPMC7689576 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionLimb fractures in children are common yet there are few trials that compare treatments for these injuries. There is significant heterogeneity in the outcomes reported in the paediatric orthopaedic literature, which limits the ability to compare study results and draw firm conclusions. The aim of the CORE-Kids Study is to develop a core outcome set for use in research studies of childhood limb fractures. A core outcome set will provide a minimum set of outcomes to be measured in all trials to minimise the heterogeneity of outcomes reported and minimise reporting bias. A core outcome set ensures that outcomes are reported that are relevant to families as well as clinicians. The core outcome set will include additional upper and lower limb modules.MethodsThe development of the core outcome set will require four phases to evaluate:What are the outcomes that are relevant to professionals?What are the outcomes that are relevant to families?What are the most important of these outcomes?Which outcomes should be included in the core outcome set?This will be completed through a systematic review of trials to identify the outcomes domains that are relevant to trialists. A series of semi-structured interviews will be completed with families to identify the outcome domains that are relevant to families. These outcome domains will be used in a three-round Delphi Study to analyse the importance of these outcome domains to a range of stakeholders including parents, clinicians and researchers. Following this, the core outcome set will be decided at a consensus meeting.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been awarded HRA/REC IRAS number 262503. Date of approval 06/08/2019. Dissemination will be through scientific literature and international societies.Trial registrationCore Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative, registration number: 1274. Date of registration 13/12/2018.Prospero registration numberCRD42018106605.
| S-EPMC7050303 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveMenopause is the natural cessation of menstruation and may be accompanied by troublesome symptoms including hot flushes and night sweats (vasomotor symptoms) and genitourinary symptoms. Randomized trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of interventions for these symptoms have reported a wide range of outcomes and used inconsistent measures. This variation precludes comparing and combining data from different trials. To overcome this limitation, we will develop a Core Outcome Set for Menopausal Symptoms.MethodsWe will systematically review the literature to identify the outcomes reported in the interventional trials for vasomotor and genitourinary symptoms. This list will be entered into a two-round modified Delphi survey to be completed by clinicians, researchers, and consumers (women who have experienced menopause). Participants will score outcomes on a nine-point scale from "not important" to "critically important." Representatives from each stakeholder group will then meet to discuss the results and finalize the Core Outcome Set. Ethics approval was not required as this was considered service evaluation and development. The study is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative (http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/917).ResultsAn agreed upon set of minimum outcomes and outcome measures will facilitate combining and comparing findings from future trials of treatments for menopausal symptoms.ConclusionsThis Core Outcome Set will better enable women and clinicians to select effective treatments, improve the quality of trial reporting, reduce research wastage, and improve care for women with troublesome menopausal symptoms. VIDEO SUMMARY:: http://links.lww.com/MENO/A633.
| S-EPMC7709924 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Diabetes prevention intervention studies in women with previous gestational diabetes have increased, but no consensus exists on core outcomes to support comparisons and synthesis of findings. We aimed to systematically catalogue outcomes in diabetes after pregnancy prevention interventions with the goal of developing a core outcome set. Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trials Register, and CINAHL were searched from inception to October 2017. Post-partum lifestyle and diabetes screening intervention studies in women with previous gestational diabetes and/or their families were eligible. No limits were placed on intervention type, duration, or location. Two authors independently screened and performed data extraction on outcomes, measurement tools, and relevant study characteristics. We analysed data from 38 studies (29 randomised controlled trials and 9 pre-post intervention evaluations) comprising 12,509 participants. Most publications (80%) occurred between the years 2012 and 2017. Among 172 outcomes, we identified 36 outcome groups and classified them under three domains: health status (body weight, body composition, diabetes risk, cardiometabolic risk, diabetes development, mental health, pregnancy outcomes, and fitness), health behaviours (dietary, physical activity, diabetes screening, behaviour change, and breastfeeding), and intervention processes (implementation). The health status domain contained the most commonly reported outcomes, but measurement tools were very heterogeneous. Despite the recent explosion in diabetes after pregnancy prevention studies, large variation in outcomes and measurement methods exists. Research is needed to define a core outcome set to standardise diabetes after pregnancy prevention interventions. The core outcome set should engage a wide group of stakeholders to identify impactful indicators for future trials.
| S-EPMC7296791 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction: Outcome measures are key to tailor rehabilitation goals to the stroke patient's individual needs and to monitor poststroke recovery. The large number of available outcome measures leads to high variability in clinical use. Currently, an internationally agreed core set of motor outcome measures for clinical application is lacking. Therefore, the goal was to develop such a set to serve as a quality standard in clinical motor rehabilitation poststroke. Methods: Outcome measures for the upper and lower extremities, and activities of daily living (ADL)/stroke-specific outcomes were identified and presented to stroke rehabilitation experts in an electronic Delphi study. In round 1, clinical feasibility and relevance of the outcome measures were rated on a 7-point Likert scale. In round 2, those rated at least as "relevant" and "feasible" were ranked within the body functions, activities, and participation domains of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). Furthermore, measurement time points poststroke were indicated. In round 3, answers were reviewed in reference to overall results to reach final consensus. Results: In total, 119 outcome measures were presented to 33 experts from 18 countries. The recommended core set includes the Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment and Action Research Arm Test for the upper extremity section; the Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment, 10-m Walk Test, Timed-Up-and-Go, and Berg Balance Scale for the lower extremity section; and the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, and Barthel Index or Functional Independence Measure for the ADL/stroke-specific section. The Stroke Impact Scale was recommended spanning all ICF domains. Recommended measurement time points are days 2 ± 1 and 7; weeks 2, 4, and 12; 6 months poststroke and every following 6th month. Discussion and Conclusion: Agreement was found upon a set of nine outcome measures for application in clinical motor rehabilitation poststroke, with seven measurement time points following the stages of poststroke recovery. This core set was specifically developed for clinical practice and distinguishes itself from initiatives for stroke rehabilitation research. The next challenge is to implement this clinical core set across the full stroke care continuum with the aim to improve the transparency, comparability, and quality of stroke rehabilitation at a regional, national, and international level.
| S-EPMC7496361 | biostudies-literature