Developing a core outcome set for future infertility research: an international consensus development study† ‡.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Duffy JMN
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7744160 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7744157 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo develop a core outcome set for international burn research.DesignDevelopment and international consensus, from April 2017 to November 2019.MethodsCandidate outcomes were identified from systematic reviews and stakeholder interviews. Through a Delphi survey, international clinicians, researchers, and UK patients prioritised outcomes. Anonymised feedback aimed to achieve consensus. Pre-defined criteria for retaining outcomes were agreed. A consensus meeting with voting was held to finalise the core outcome set.ResultsData source examination identified 1021 unique outcomes grouped into 88 candidate outcomes. Stakeholders in round 1 of the survey, included 668 health professionals from 77 countries (18% from low or low middle income countries) and 126 UK patients or carers. After round 1, one outcome was discarded, and 13 new outcomes added. After round 2, 69 items were discarded, leaving 31 outcomes for the consensus meeting. Outcome merging and voting, in two rounds, with prespecified thresholds agreed seven core outcomes: death, specified complications, ability to do daily tasks, wound healing, neuropathic pain and itch, psychological wellbeing, and return to school or work.ConclusionsThis core outcome set caters for global burn research, and future trials are recommended to include measures of these outcomes.
| S-EPMC9978679 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7744161 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAntimicrobial resistance is both a global public health and patient safety problem driven by overprescribing of antibiotic and other antimicrobial drugs. To conserve the effectiveness of antibiotics for future generations, antibiotic stewardship approaches to using them only where appropriate and necessary are advocated. Dentistry accounts for about 10% of antibiotic prescriptions across global healthcare, with 80% not in accordance with guidance in some countries. Core outcome sets enable the results of studies to be compared in order to maximise the value which can be derived from them. The aim of this study is to develop an international consensus on a core outcome set for dental antibiotic stewardship.MethodsConsensus on outcomes which are critical for inclusion in the core outcome set for dental antibiotic stewardship will be sought through two rounds of a Delphi survey (using the DelphiManager online system) followed by a final online consensus meeting. Thirty participants will be recruited to the Delphi Panel from across three stakeholder groups: ten dentists, ten academics and ten adults experienced with dental antibiotics as either a patient or parent/carer of a patient who has been prescribed them. Consensus will be achieved if more than 70% of the panel agree that an outcome is critical, with at least one from each stakeholder group in agreement. A long-list of candidate core outcomes has been developed from previously published studies with additions recommended by the steering group. The steering group will oversee development of the core outcome set and includes people from around the world with experience of dental antibiotics: clinicians, researchers and people with experience of being prescribed dental antibiotics and/or surviving an antibiotic resistant infection.DiscussionTo date, few studies of dental antibiotic stewardship have been published. Internationally, dental antibiotic guidelines and patterns of use vary widely, so a core outcome set is particularly important to facilitate meaningful comparisons between studies. This core outcome set will encompass antibiotic prescribing for both therapeutic indications, such as for people with acute infections, and for prophylactic indications, such as the prevention of distant site infections (like infective endocarditis) following dental procedures.
| S-EPMC8817512 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Cauda Equina Syndrome (CES) is an emergency condition that requires acute intervention and can lead to permanent neurological deficit in working age adults. A Core Outcome Set (COS) is the minimum set of outcomes that should be reported by a research study within a specific disease area. There is significant heterogeneity in outcome reporting for CES, which does not allow data synthesis between studies. The hypothesis is that a COS for CES can be developed for future research studies using patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) as key stakeholders. METHODS AND FINDINGS:Qualitative semi-structured interviews with CES patients were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using NVivo to identify the outcomes of importance. These were combined with the outcomes obtained from a published systematic literature review of CES patients. The outcomes were grouped into a list of 37, for rating through two rounds of an international Delphi survey according to pre-set criteria. The Delphi survey had an overall response rate of 63% and included 172 participants (104 patients, 68 HCPs) from 14 countries who completed both rounds. Thirteen outcomes reached consensus at the end of the Delphi survey and there was no attrition bias detected. The results were discussed at an international consensus meeting attended by 34 key stakeholders (16 patients and 18 HCPs) from 8 countries. A further three outcomes were agreed to be included. There was no selection bias detected at the consensus meeting. There are 16 outcomes in total in the CESCOS. DISCUSSION:This is the first study in the literature that has determined the core outcomes in CES using a transparent international consensus process involving healthcare professionals and CES patients as key stakeholders. This COS is recommended as the most important outcomes to be reported in any research study investigating CES outcomes and will allow evidence synthesis in CES.
| S-EPMC6953762 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7684826 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Health consequences that persist beyond the acute infection phase of COVID-19, termed post-COVID-19 condition (also commonly known as long COVID), vary widely and represent a growing global health challenge. Research on post-COVID-19 condition is expanding but, at present, no agreement exists on the health outcomes that should be measured in people living with the condition. To address this gap, we conducted an international consensus study, which included a comprehensive literature review and classification of outcomes for post-COVID-19 condition that informed a two-round online modified Delphi process followed by an online consensus meeting to finalise the core outcome set (COS). 1535 participants from 71 countries were involved, with 1148 individuals participating in both Delphi rounds. Eleven outcomes achieved consensus for inclusion in the final COS: fatigue; pain; post-exertion symptoms; work or occupational and study changes; survival; and functioning, symptoms, and conditions for each of cardiovascular, respiratory, nervous system, cognitive, mental health, and physical outcomes. Recovery was included a priori because it was a relevant outcome that was part of a previously published COS on COVID-19. The next step in this COS development exercise will be to establish the instruments that are most appropriate to measure these core outcomes. This international consensus-based COS should provide a framework for standardised assessment of adults with post-COVID-19 condition, aimed at facilitating clinical care and research worldwide.
| S-EPMC9197249 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is no agreement which outcomes should be measured when investigating interventions for periodontal diseases. It is difficult to compare or combine studies with different outcomes; resulting in research wastage and uncertainty for patients and healthcare professionals.ObjectiveDevelop a core outcome set (COS) relevant to key stakeholders for use in effectiveness trials investigating prevention and management of periodontal diseases.MethodsMixed method study involving literature review; online Delphi Study; and face-to-face consensus meeting.ParticipantsKey stakeholders: patients, dentists, hygienist/therapists, periodontists, researchers.ResultsThe literature review identified 37 unique outcomes. Delphi round 1: 20 patients and 51 dental professional and researchers prioritised 25 and suggested an additional 11 outcomes. Delphi round 2: from the resulting 36 outcomes, 13 patients and 39 dental professionals and researchers prioritised 22 outcomes. A face-to-face consensus meeting was hosted in Dundee, Scotland by an independent chair. Eight patients and six dental professional and researchers participated. The final COS contains: Probing depths, Quality of life, Quantified levels of gingivitis, Quantified levels of plaque, Tooth loss.ConclusionsImplementation of this COS will ensure the results of future effectiveness trials for periodontal diseases are more relevant to patients and dental professionals, reducing research wastage. This could reduce uncertainty for patients and dental professionals by ensuring the evidence used to inform their choices is meaningful to them. It could also strengthen the quality and certainty of the evidence about the relative effectiveness of interventions.RegistrationCOMET Database: http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/265?result=true.
| S-EPMC8297801 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSurgery is the primary treatment that can offer potential cure for gastric cancer, but is associated with significant risks. Identifying optimal surgical approaches should be based on comparing outcomes from well designed trials. Currently, trials report different outcomes, making synthesis of evidence difficult. To address this, the aim of this study was to develop a core outcome set (COS)-a standardized group of outcomes important to key international stakeholders-that should be reported by future trials in this field.MethodsStage 1 of the study involved identifying potentially important outcomes from previous trials and a series of patient interviews. Stage 2 involved patients and healthcare professionals prioritizing outcomes using a multilanguage international Delphi survey that informed an international consensus meeting at which the COS was finalized.ResultsSome 498 outcomes were identified from previously reported trials and patient interviews, and rationalized into 56 items presented in the Delphi survey. A total of 952 patients, surgeons, and nurses enrolled in round 1 of the survey, and 662 (70 per cent) completed round 2. Following the consensus meeting, eight outcomes were included in the COS: disease-free survival, disease-specific survival, surgery-related death, recurrence, completeness of tumour removal, overall quality of life, nutritional effects, and 'serious' adverse events.ConclusionA COS for surgical trials in gastric cancer has been developed with international patients and healthcare professionals. This is a minimum set of outcomes that is recommended to be used in all future trials in this field to improve trial design and synthesis of evidence.
| S-EPMC10364901 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimExtrahepatic biliary atresia is a rare disorder. This creates challenges in the quality and quantity of research conducted. This issue is exacerbated by the potential heterogeneity in the reported outcomes in research examining the management of biliary atresia. A core outcome set is required to standardise reporting on the management of biliary atresia in research, facilitate systematic reviews that include outcomes of greatest importance to patients and clinicians, and to evaluate the quality of the existing evidence base on the management of biliary atresia.MethodsA list of all potential outcomes will be developed through a systematic review of the literature. This list will be refined through a three-stage Delphi approach, involving key stakeholders in the management of biliary atresia. This will include patients and their parents, clinicians, nurses and allied health professionals. In this way, outcomes will be prioritised into a set of consensus core outcomes.ConclusionThe development of a core outcome set in biliary atresia management is needed to guide future research and assist in evaluating the quality of existing research.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted by the Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC), Ref: HREC/20/QCHQ/62448. Results of the study will be published in an open access format.
| S-EPMC8362727 | biostudies-literature