Dataset Information

Response (minimum clinically relevant change) in ASD symptoms after an intervention according to CARS-2: consensus from an expert elicitation procedure.

ABSTRACT: The lack of consensual measures to monitor core change in Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) or response to interventions leads to difficulty to prove intervention efficacy on ASD core symptoms. There are no universally accepted outcome measures developed for measuring changes in core symptoms. However, the CARS (Childhood Autism Rating Scale) is one of the outcomes recommended in the EMA Guideline on the clinical development of medicinal products for the treatment of ASD. Unfortunately, there is currently no consensus on the response definition for CARS among individuals with ASD. The aim of this elicitation process was to determine an appropriate definition of a response on the CARS2 scale for interventions in patients with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). An elicitation process was conducted following the Sheffield Elicitation Framework (SHELF). Five experts in the field of ASD and two experts in expert knowledge elicitation participated in an 1-day elicitation workshop. Experts in ASD were previously trained in the SHELF elicitation process and received a dossier of scientific evidence concerning the topic. The response definition was set as the mean clinically relevant improvement averaged over all patients, levels of functioning, age groups and clinicians. Based on the scientific evidence and expert judgment, a normal probability distribution was agreed to represent the state of knowledge of this response with expected value 4.03 and standard deviation 0.664. Considering the remaining uncertainty of the estimation and the available literature, a CARS-2 improvement of 4.5 points has been defined as a threshold to conclude to a response after an intervention. A CARS-2 improvement of 4.5 points could be used to evaluate interventions' meaningfulness in indivudals. This initial finding represents an important new benchmark and may aid decision makers in evaluating the efficacy of interventions in ASD.

SUBMITTER: Jurek L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8024930 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe EU 6th Framework Program (FP)-funded Health and Environment Network (HENVINET) aimed to support informed policy making by facilitating the availability of relevant knowledge on different environmental health issues. An approach was developed by which scientific agreement, disagreement, and knowledge gaps could be efficiently identified, and expert advice prepared in a way that is usable for policy makers. There were two aims of the project: 1) to apply the tool to a relevant issue; the potential health impacts of the widely used plasticizers, phthalates, and 2) to evaluate the method and the tool by asking both scientific experts and the target audience, namely policy makers and stakeholders, for their opinions.MethodsThe tool consisted of an expert consultation in several steps on the issue of phthalates in environmental health. A diagram depicting the cause-effect chain, from the production and use of phthalates to potential health impacts, was prepared based on existing reviews. This was used as a basis for an online questionnaire, through which experts in the field were consulted. The results of this first round of consultation laid the foundation for a new questionnaire answered by an expert panel that, subsequently, also discussed approaches and results in a workshop. One major task of the expert panel was to pinpoint priorities from the cause-effect chain according to their impact on the extent of potential health risks and their relevance for reducing uncertainty. The results were condensed into a policy brief that was sent to policy makers and stakeholders for their evaluation.ResultsThe experts agreed about the substantial knowledge gaps within the field of phthalates. The top three priorities for further research and policy action were: 1) intrauterine exposure, 2) reproductive toxicology, and 3) exposure from medical devices. Although not all relevant information from the cause-effect chain is known for phthalates, most experts thought that there are enough indications to justify a precautionary approach and to restrict their general use. Although some of the experts expressed some scepticism about such a tool, most felt that important issues were highlighted.ConclusionsThe approach used was an efficient way at summarising priority knowledge gaps as a starting point for health risk assessment of compounds, based on their relevance for the risk assessment outcome. We conclude that this approach is useful for supporting policy makers with state-of-the-art scientific knowledge weighed by experts. The method can assist future evidence-based policy making.

Project description:An American Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (AHPBA)-sponsored consensus meeting of expert panellists met on 15 January 2014 to review current evidence on the management of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) in order to establish practice guidelines and to agree on consensus statements. The treatment of ICC requires a coordinated, multidisciplinary approach to optimize survival. Biopsy is not necessary if the surgeon suspects ICC and is planning curative resection, although biopsy should be obtained before systemic or locoregional therapies are initiated. Assessment of resectability is best accomplished using cross-sectional imaging [computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)], but the role of positron emission tomography (PET) is unclear. Resectability in ICC is defined by the ability to completely remove the disease while leaving an adequate liver remnant. Extrahepatic disease, multiple bilobar or multicentric tumours, and lymph node metastases beyond the primary echelon are contraindications to resection. Regional lymphadenectomy should be considered a standard part of surgical therapy. In patients with high-risk features, the routine use of diagnostic laparoscopy is recommended. The preoperative diagnosis of combined hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CC) by imaging studies is extremely difficult. Surgical resection remains the mainstay of treatment, but survival is worse than in HCC alone. There are no adequately powered, randomized Phase III trials that can provide definitive recommendations for adjuvant therapy for ICC. Patients with high-risk features (lymphovascular invasion, multicentricity or satellitosis, large tumours) should be encouraged to enrol in clinical trials and to consider adjuvant therapy. Cisplatin plus gemcitabine represents the standard-of-care, front-line systemic therapy for metastatic ICC. Genomic analyses of biliary cancers support the development of targeted therapeutic interventions.

Dataset Information

Response (minimum clinically relevant change) in ASD symptoms after an intervention according to CARS-2: consensus from an expert elicitation procedure.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets