Dataset Information

Which outcome measures are reported by clinical trials investigating OME treatment? A case for standardised reporting.

ABSTRACT: Many different OME treatment trials have been published using different outcomes measures to evaluate the success of particular interventions. We set out to identify the variation in reporting of outcome measures in OME trials that exists at present. This has been achieved by reviewing published trials to determine which outcome measures have been reported.The literature review was carried out using PUBMED database (1980 to 2013). Data were collected on the treatment outcomes reported, with particular focus on the methods of assessment and the number of treatment outcomes used in each study.The 171 studies identified used 12 broad treatment outcome measures. The most common outcome measure was OME resolution (48%) followed by hearing level (36%). Only 95 studies used a single outcome measure, with 76 studies using between 2 and 4 outcome measures. The method of assessment varied between studies that used the same treatment outcome measures.OME treatment trials report a wide range of measures and comparison across studies is thus difficult. Establishing a core set of outcome measures to be reported by all trials in the future could be useful, and would allow comprehensive comparison of different studies and minimise potential for reporting bias.

SUBMITTER: Chessman R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5734610 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Which outcome measures are reported by clinical trials investigating OME treatment? A case for standardised reporting.

Chessman Robert R Kamani Tawakir T Birchall John P JP Barry Johanna G JG Daniel Matija M

International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology 20160427

<h4>Introduction</h4>Many different OME treatment trials have been published using different outcomes measures to evaluate the success of particular interventions. We set out to identify the variation in reporting of outcome measures in OME trials that exists at present. This has been achieved by reviewing published trials to determine which outcome measures have been reported.<h4>Method</h4>The literature review was carried out using PUBMED database (1980 to 2013). Data were collected on the tr ...[more]

PMID: 27260589

Similar Datasets

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).

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the feasibility of a digital and continuous collection and reporting of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) for chronic heart failure (CHF).DesignA single-site pilot study was settled for evaluating the feasibility of the intervention, both using qualitative and quantitative data (ie, workshop, surveys).SettingThe pilot has been implemented in a Tuscan specialised hospital (Italy).Participants162 patients were involved. Inclusion criteria were: a previous diagnosis of HF, age ≥18 years, absence of cognitive impairment or active tumours, ability to provide informed consent to study participation.InterventionThe continuous collection and reporting of PROMs and PREMs has been designed and implemented in 2018. PREMs questionnaires for patients were developed, while Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 was used for assessing PROMs. Questionnaires are administered at specific time points: discharge; 30 days, 7 and 12 months after the discharge. Enrolment of patients, administration and real-time reporting of questionnaires are carried on through a digital platform.Outcome measuresEnrolment, response and drop-out rates were considered to assess the feasibility of the intervention. Qualitative data were collected during meetings and workshops with health workers. The representativeness of the recruited sample with respect to the population characteristics was also evaluated.ResultsThe system has been successfully implemented during 2018. Response rates have been consistently above 50%, demonstrating patients' transversal willingness to participate. All the involved stakeholders acknowledged the feasibility of the design. The recruited sample is significantly different in terms of age and educational level compared with the overall population characteristics.ConclusionIt is possible to run a web-based systematic collection and reporting system for CHF patient-reported data. Systematic collection and reporting of PROMs and PREMs data allows professionals to increasingly assume CHF patient perspective in their daily work. Limitations will be used to improve the system.

Project description:BackgroundPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) are captured within cancer trials to help future patients and their clinicians make more informed treatment decisions. However, variability in standards of PRO trial design and reporting threaten the validity of these endpoints for application in clinical practice.MethodsWe systematically investigated a cohort of randomized controlled cancer trials that included a primary or secondary PRO. For each trial, an evaluation of protocol and reporting quality was undertaken using standard checklists. General patterns of reporting where also explored.ResultsProtocols (101 sourced, 44.3%) included a mean (SD) of 10 (4) of 33 (range = 2-19) PRO protocol checklist items. Recommended items frequently omitted included the rationale and objectives underpinning PRO collection and approaches to minimize/address missing PRO data. Of 160 trials with published results, 61 (38.1%, 95% confidence interval = 30.6% to 45.7%) failed to include their PRO findings in any publication (mean 6.43-year follow-up); these trials included 49 568 participants. Although two-thirds of included trials published PRO findings, reporting standards were often inadequate according to international guidelines (mean [SD] inclusion of 3 [3] of 14 [range = 0-11]) CONSORT PRO Extension checklist items). More than one-half of trials publishing PRO results in a secondary publication (12 of 22, 54.5%) took 4 or more years to do so following trial closure, with eight (36.4%) taking 5-8 years and one trial publishing after 14 years.ConclusionsPRO protocol content is frequently inadequate, and nonreporting of PRO findings is widespread, meaning patient-important information may not be available to benefit patients, clinicians, and regulators. Even where PRO data are published, there is often considerable delay and reporting quality is suboptimal. This study presents key recommendations to enhance the likelihood of successful delivery of PROs in the future.

Dataset Information

Which outcome measures are reported by clinical trials investigating OME treatment? A case for standardised reporting.

Publications

Which outcome measures are reported by clinical trials investigating OME treatment? A case for standardised reporting.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets