Choosing Core Outcomes for Use in Clinical Trials in Ophthalmology: Perspectives from Three Ophthalmology Outcomes Working Groups.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Saldanha IJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6474247 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Choosing Core Outcomes for Use in Clinical Trials in Ophthalmology: Perspectives from Three Ophthalmology Outcomes Working Groups.
Saldanha Ian J IJ Le Jimmy T JT Solomon Sharon D SD Repka Michael X MX Akpek Esen K EK Li Tianjing T
Ophthalmology 20190101 1
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:In response to calls for an increased focus on pretransplant outcomes and other patient-centered metrics in public reports of center outcomes, a mixed methods study evaluated how the content and presentation style of new information influences decision-making. The mixed methods design utilized qualitative and quantitative phases where the strengths of one method help address limitations of the other, and multiple methods facilitate comparing results. METHODS:First, a series of organ-specific focus groups of kidney, liver, heart, and lung patients helped to develop and refine potential displays of center outcomes and understand patient perceptions. A subsequent randomized survey included adult internet users who viewed a single, randomly-selected variation of 6 potential online information displays. Multinomial regression evaluated the effects of graphical presentations of information on decision-making. RESULTS:One hundred twenty-seven candidates and recipients joined 23 focus groups. Survey responses were analyzed from 975 adults. Qualitative feedback identified patient perceptions of uncertainty in outcome metrics, in particular pretransplant metrics, and suggested a need for clear guidance to interpret the most important metric for organ-specific patient mortality. In the randomized survey, only respondents who viewed a note indicating that transplant rate had the largest impact on survival chose the hospital with the best transplant rate over the hospital with the best posttransplant outcomes (marginal relative risk and 95% confidence interval, 1.161.501.95). CONCLUSIONS:The presentation of public reports influenced decision-making behavior. The combination of qualitative and quantitative research helped to guide and enhance understanding of the impacts of proposed changes in reported metrics.
| S-EPMC7282482 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To inform public health and medical decision makers concerning vaccination interventions, a methodology for merging and analyzing detailed activity data and health outcomes is presented. The objective is to investigate relationships between individual's activity choices and their decision to receive an influenza vaccination. Data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) are used to predict vaccination rates in the American Time Use Survey (ATUS) data between 2003 and 2013 by using combined socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. The correlations between the extensive (do or not do) and intensive (how much) decisions to perform activities and influenza vaccination are further explored. Significant positive and negative correlations were found between several activities and vaccination. For some activities, the sign of the correlation flips when considering either the intensive or the extensive decision. This flip occurs with highly studied activities, like smoking. Correlations between activities and vaccination can provide an additional metric for targeting those least likely to vaccinate. The methodology outlined in this paper can be replicated to explore correlation among actions and other health outcomes.
| S-EPMC5976524 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are situated at the top of hierarchy of evidence-based medicine, where its number and quality are important in the assessment of quality of evidence in a medical field. In this study, we aim to assess the status of RCTs in Ophthalmology. Methods: On 15 th of May 2019, we performed a PubMed search for randomized controlled trials published in the field of ophthalmology using relevant filters and search terms. We categorized the results into specific topics in ophthalmology according to Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) database classification system. We used Altmetric explorer to identify journals and articles with the highest number of RCTs and highest citations. Results: We found a total of 540,427 publications in the field of ophthalmology, of which only 11,634 (2.15%) of them were RCTs. 'Retinal diseases' was the topic with the highest number of RCTs, followed by 'glaucoma' and 'conjunctival diseases'. The trial with highest number of citations was on retinal diseases. Only around 18% of all ophthalmology RCTs are published in the top 10 ophthalmology journals, with a maximum percentage of RCTs was (5.53%) published in Ophthalmology. Conclusion: RCTs in ophthalmology primarily concern the retina, glaucoma, and a few other sub-topics, with little focus on sclera, orbit, and the eyelids. Most of the high impact RCTs are published in non-ophthalmology journals.
| S-EPMC7156022 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSober living houses (SLHs) offer abstinence-based housing for people in recovery. Studies have shown that these supportive environments are associated with positive outcomes, yet little is known about why residents choose SLHs and their relationship to recovery outcomes.MethodsLongitudinal data were collected from SLH residents who completed an interview six months after baseline (N = 462). Participants rated the importance of eight reasons for choosing SLHs. Multilevel models assessed whether reasons for choosing were associated with outcomes abstinence on the Timeline Followback, psychiatric distress via the Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire (PDSQ), employment problems severity on Addiction Severity Index (ASI), and length of stay (LOS).ResultsThe most frequently cited reasons residents chose SLHs were affordability (74.4 %) and wanting to live with others in recovery (63.2 %). Reasons for choosing were not associated with neither LOS nor abstinence, except for not wanting to live with others in recovery predicting abstinence from all drugs except marijuana. Choosing SLHs due to affordability was associated with less psychiatric distress; no other place to live was associated with increased psychiatric distress (Ps < 0.05). Severity of employment problems was associated with choosing SLHs based on location, transportation, and someone else paying fees (Ps < 0.01).ConclusionResidents seek entry into SLHs to live affordably with others in recovery. Those who had no other option had greater psychiatric distress, thus supporting findings of housing instability being related to mental health. Reasons for choosing related to employment problems severity may reflect how concerns about employment impact housing choices.
| S-EPMC11252607 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe VACCELERATE Pan-European Scientific network aims to strengthen the foundation of vaccine trial research across Europe by following the principles of equity, inclusion, and diversity. The VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry network provides access to vaccine trial sites across the European region and supports a sustainable volunteer platform for identifying potential participants for forthcoming vaccine clinical research.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to approach members of patient advocacy groups (PAGs) across Europe to assess their willingness to register for the VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry and their perspectives related to participating in vaccine trials.MethodsIn an effort to understand how to increase recruitment for the VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry, a standardized survey was developed in English and translated into 8 different languages (Dutch, English, French, German, Greek, Italian, Spanish, and Swedish) by the respective National Coordinator team. The online, anonymous survey was circulated, from March 2022 to May 2022, to PAGs across 10 European countries (Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Spain, and Sweden) to share with their members. The questionnaire constituted of multiple choice and open-ended questions evaluating information regarding participants' perceptions on participating in vaccine trials and their willingness to become involved in the VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry.ResultsIn total, 520 responses were collected and analyzed. The PAG members reported that the principal criteria influencing their decision to participate in clinical trials overall are (1) the risks involved, (2) the benefits that will be gained from their potential participation, and (3) the quality and quantity of information provided regarding the trial. The survey revealed that, out of the 520 respondents, 133 individuals across all age groups were "positive" toward registering in the VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry, with an additional 47 individuals reporting being "very positive." Respondents from Northern European countries were 1.725 (95% CI 1.206-2.468) times more likely to be willing to participate in the VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry than respondents from Southern European countries.ConclusionsFactors discouraging participants from joining vaccine trial registries or clinical trials primarily include concerns of the safety of novel vaccines and a lack of trust in those involved in vaccine development. These outcomes aid in identifying issues and setbacks in present registries, providing the VACCELERATE network with feedback on how to potentially increase participation and enrollment in trials across Europe. Development of European health communication strategies among diverse public communities, especially via PAGs, is the key for increasing patients' willingness to participate in clinical studies.
| S-EPMC10996911 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose This article evaluates the relevance of social media to ophthalmology residency applicants in the setting of virtual interviews, the types of information sought by applicants, and the impact of rebranding of an institutional and departmental social media account. Design Cross-sectional survey. Participants Ophthalmology residency applicants from the 2020 to 2021 cycle. Methods A voluntary survey was emailed to 481 applicants to the University of Louisville Department of Ophthalmology residency during the 2020 to 2021 application cycle to gauge the impact of social media on their perspectives of residency programs, especially with regards to a new departmental social media account. Main Outcome Measures Applicants' use of social media platforms and specific components of departmental social media accounts found most useful. Results The 13-question survey was completed by 84/481 applicants (17.5% response rate). Social media was used by 93% of respondents. Of those respondents reporting social media use, the most common platforms utilized included Instagram (85%), Facebook (83%), Twitter (41%), and LinkedIn (29%). Sixty-nine percent of respondents specifically used Instagram to learn more about residency programs. With regards to the rebranded Instagram account at the University of Louisville, 58% of respondents reported being influenced, with all asserting that the account positively encouraged them to apply to the program. The most informative elements of the account related to current resident profiles, resident life, and living in Louisville. Conclusion A majority of responding ophthalmology residency applicants utilized social media to search for program information. A newly developed social media profile at a single institution positively influenced applicant impressions of the program, with the most importance assigned to information provided about current residents and typical resident life. These findings suggest key areas where programs should continue to dedicate online resources with targeted information to better recruit applicants.
| S-EPMC9927977 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesBiologic therapies are emerging as an option to treat a subset of patients with severe asthma, however no direct comparison between these agents has been conducted. Furthermore, heterogeneity of outcomes in clinical trials makes it difficult to compare these agents and traditional therapies. The extent to which this heterogeneity exists has major implications for evidence-based decisions and is yet to be fully reported. We conducted a literature search to examine outcomes currently being used in clinical trials for asthma.Data sourcesThe Cochrane Library and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for clinical trials of asthma interventions.Study selectionsWe limited our search to phase 2 through 4 clinical trials in adults, as early-phase trials tend to have pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic endpoints as primary outcomes. Interventions for acute exacerbations were excluded.ResultsWe identified 117 studies and subsequently identified 111 outcomes. The most prevalent outcomes were asthma control and symptom severity, FEV1, and change in ACQ scale. Twenty patient-reported outcomes instruments were identified and de-facto standard asthma outcomes and PROs were under-reported in examined literature. Existing quality of life tools did not capture the day-to-day experience or the unique treatment burden from oral corticosteroids for patient with severe asthma. Compounding the absence of trials directly comparing therapies, the significant variation we identified in outcome definitions and measurement create hurdles to effectively compare traditional and biologic therapies.ConclusionWith the growing number of clinical trials evaluating advanced therapies such as biologics, a wide range of primary and secondary outcomes are evaluated. A core outcome set created by relevant stakeholders is needed to collectively evaluate pooled outcomes in order to allow more meaningful comparisons of asthma therapies and to incorporate the patient experience.
| S-EPMC7961946 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of late phase clinical trials is to generate evidence of sufficient validity and generalisability to be translated into practice and policy to improve health outcomes. It is therefore crucial that the chosen endpoints are meaningful to the clinicians, patients and policymakers that are the end-users of evidence generated by these trials. The choice of endpoints may be improved by understanding their characteristics and properties. This narrative review describes the evolution, range and relative strengths and weaknesses of endpoints used in late phase trials. It is intended to serve as a reference to assist those designing trials when choosing primary endpoint(s), and for the end-users charged with interpreting these trials to inform practice and policy.
| S-EPMC6881606 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:A systematic review of core outcome sets (COS) for research is updated annually to populate an online database. It is a resource intensive review to do annually but automation techniques have potential to aid the process. The production of guidance and standards in COS development means that there is now an expectation that COS are being developed and reported to a higher standard. This is the fifth update to the systematic review and will explore these issues. METHODS:Searches were carried out to identify studies published or indexed in 2018. Automated screening methods were used to rank the citations in order of relevance. The cut-off for screening was set to the top 25% in ranked priority order, following development and validation of the algorithm. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported the development of a COS, regardless of any restrictions by age, health condition or setting. COS were assessed against each of the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD). RESULTS:Thirty studies describing the development of 44 COS were included in this update. Six COS (20%) were deemed to have met all 12 criteria representing the 11 minimum standards for COS development (range = 4 to 12 criteria, median = 10 criteria). All 30 COS studies met all four minimum standards for scope. Twenty-one (70%) COS met all three minimum standards for stakeholders. Twenty-three studies (77%) included patients with the condition or their representatives. The number of countries involved in the development of COS ranged from 1 to 39 (median = 10). Six studies (20%) met all four minimum standards [five criteria] for the consensus process. CONCLUSION:Automated ranking was successfully used to assist the screening process and reduce the workload of this systematic review update. With the provision of guidelines, COS are better reported and being developed to a higher standard.
| S-EPMC6907830 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database is a publically available, searchable repository of published and ongoing core outcome set (COS) studies. An annual systematic review update is carried out to maintain the currency of database content.MethodsThe methods used in the fourth update of the systematic review followed the same approach used in the original review and previous updates. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported the development of a COS, regardless of any restrictions by age, health condition or setting. Searches were carried out in March 2018 to identify studies that had been published or indexed between January 2017 and the end of December 2017.ResultsForty-eight new studies, describing the development of 56 COS, were included. There has been an increase in the number of studies clearly specifying the scope of the COS in terms of the population (n = 43, 90%) and intervention (n = 48, 100%) characteristics. Public participation has continued to rise with over half (n = 27, 56%) of studies in the current review including input from members of the public. The rate of inclusion of all stakeholder groups has increased, in particular participation from non-clinical research experts has risen from 32% (mean average in previous reviews) to 62% (n = 29). Input from participants located in Australasia (n = 17; 41%), Asia (n = 18; 44%), South America (n = 13; 32%) and Africa (n = 7; 17%) have all increased since the previous reviews.ConclusionThis update included a pronounced increase in the number of new COS identified compared to the previous three updates. There was an improvement in the reporting of the scope, stakeholder participants and methods used. Furthermore, there has been an increase in participation from Australasia, Asia, South America and Africa. These advancements are reflective of the efforts made in recent years to raise awareness about the need for COS development and uptake, as well as developments in COS methodology.
| S-EPMC6310275 | biostudies-literature