Dataset Information

Study protocol to develop a core outcome set for thyroid dysfunction to bridge the unmet needs of patient-centred care.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Thyroid dysfunctions (TD) are common medical conditions affecting all global populations. Improved healthcare leading to increasing survival rates and delayed diagnosis rendered significant burden of the disease in the increasing number of patients with TD with comorbid illnesses. Therefore, reducing the burden of TD and improving the quality of care are crucial. Existing poor-quality data that guide evidence-based decisions only provide a fragmented picture of clinical care. The different outcomes across studies assessing the effectiveness of treatments impede our ability to synthesise results for determining the most efficient treatments. This project aims to produce a core outcome set (COS), which embeds the multiple complex dimensions of routine clinical care for the effectiveness studies and clinical care of adult patients with TD.

Methods and analysis

This mixed-method project has two phases. In phase 1, we will identify a list of patient-reported and clinical outcomes through qualitative research and systematic reviews. In phase 2, we will categorise the identified outcomes using the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials taxonomy of core domains and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. We will develop questionnaires from the list of outcomes identified from each domain for the two-round online Delphi exercise, aiming to reach a consensus on the COS. The Delphi process will include patients, carers, researchers and healthcare participants. We will hold an online consensus meeting involving representatives of all key stakeholders to establish the final COS.

Ethics and dissemination

The study has been reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects, Universiti Putra Malaysia and the Research Ethics Committee, National University of Malaysia. This proposed COS in TD will improve the value of data, facilitate high-quality evidence synthesis and evidence-based decision-making. Furthermore, we will present the results to participants, in peer-reviewed academic journals and conferences.

Registration details

Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative database registration: http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1371.

SUBMITTER: Ooi CP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8319993 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe incidence of anal squamous cell carcinoma (ASCC) has increased threefold in the last 30 years. Initial treatment is chemoradiotherapy, associated with short-term and long-term side effects. Future therapy innovations aim to reduce morbidity in treatment of early tumours while maintaining treatment efficacy, and to escalate treatment intensity in locally advanced tumours with acceptable quality of life (QoL). However, all phase III randomised controlled trials to-date have utilised different primary outcomes, which hinders evidence synthesis and presents challenges to the selection of optimal outcomes in future trials. No trial comprehensively assessed long-term side effects and QoL, suggesting outcomes reflecting issues important to patients are under-represented. This project aims to determine the priority outcomes for all stakeholders and reach agreement on a standardised core set of outcomes to be measured and reported on in all future ASCC trials.Methods and analysisA systematic review will identify all outcomes reported in trials and observational studies of chemoradiotherapy as primary treatment for ASCC. Outcomes of importance to patients will be identified through patient interviews. The long list of outcomes generated from the systematic review and interviews will be used to create a two-round Delphi process, including key stakeholders (patients and healthcare professionals). The results of the Delphi will be discussed at a face-to-face consensus meeting. Discussion will focus on outcomes that did not achieve consensus through the Delphi process and conclude with anonymous voting to ratify the final core outcome set (COS).Ethics and disseminationThe final COS will feed directly into the PersonaLising Anal cancer radioTherapy dOse (PLATO) national anal cancer trials and the Association of coloproctologists of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) supported national anal cancer database. Utilisation of the COS will increase the relevance of research output to all stakeholders and increase the capacity for data synthesis between trials. This study has ethical approval and is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative.Trial registration numberPROSPERO registration ID: CRD42016036540.

Project description:BackgroundWhen planning clinical trials, it is a key element to choose appropriate outcomes that ensure the comparability of effects of interventions in ways that minimise bias. We hypothesise that outcome measures in cardiothoracic surgical trials are inconsistent and without standard. Therefore, comparing the relative effectiveness of interventions across studies is problematic. We surmise that cardiothoracic research has focused habitually on the identification of risk factors and on the reduction of adverse outcomes with less consideration of factors that contribute to well being and positive health outcomes (salutogenesis).Methods and findingsWe conducted a systematic review of reviews to determine both the type and number of outcomes reported in current cardiothoracic surgery interventional research, in order to identify a list of potential outcomes for a minimum core outcome set (COS). Special focus was placed on outcomes that emphasise salutogenesis. We interpreted salutogenic outcomes as those relating to optimum and/or positive health and well being. We searched Issue 7 (July 2014) of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Systematic reviews of randomised trials on non-minimal-invasive off- or on-pump cardiothoracic surgery (elective and emergency, excluding transplants) investigating pre-, intra- or postsurgical interventions related to the outcome of the procedure were eligible for inclusion. We excluded protocols and withdrawn systematic reviews. Two review authors extracted outcome data independently. Unique lists of salutogenically and non-salutogenically focused outcomes were established. 15 systematic reviews involving 371 randomized trials and 58,253 patients were included in this review. Applied definitions of single and composite endpoints varied significantly, and patient-centred, salutogenically focused outcomes were seldom reported. One third of included reviews did not assess patient-centred outcomes at all; all other reviews were unable to perform meta-analyses due to an absence of data or heterogeneity in outcome measures. This compares to 36 non-salutogenically focused outcome domains representing 121 individual non-salutogenically focused outcomes, whereof 50% were assessed only once. Measures of mortality, cerebrovascular complications and hospitalisation were reported most frequently. Two reviews chose a composite endpoint as primary outcome. Pooled analysis of composite endpoints was not possible, as the required data was not reported per patient in all components.ConclusionIn cardiothoracic surgical trials, choice and definition of non-salutogenically focused single and composite outcomes are inconsistent. There is an absence of patient centred, salutogenically focused outcome parameters in cardiac trials. We recommend the development of a core outcome set of salutogenically focused and non-salutogenically focused outcomes for cardiothoracic surgical research.

Project description:IntroductionVelopharyngeal dysfunction (VPD) is present in up to 40% of patients following cleft palate repair. Children with VPD display hypernasal speech, nasal air emission and are at a high risk for developing articulation disorders. The overall result is decreased intelligibility and acceptability of speech, as well as significant functional and social impairments. Although there are several surgical approaches for the management of children with VPD, standard treatment protocols have not been well defined. There is a need for a core outcome set (COS) to reduce outcome reporting bias and heterogeneity across studies of VPD. The COS-VPD Initiative is an international effort to establish a COS for the reporting of studies of the management of VPD.Methods and analysisThe study has been developed according to the Core Outcome Set-STAandards for Development standards for the design of a COS study and will be carried out according to the guidance of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative. A long list of clinical and patient-reported outcomes will be identified from a systematic review of the literature. A two-stage Delphi consensus process will be used to refine this list into a COS. An international panel of key stakeholders including patients, parents and multidisciplinary clinical and academic experts will be invited to participate in this process. Consensus criteria will be specified a priori and the steering group will ratify the final COS.Ethics and disseminationThe study has ethical approval through Children's Health Ireland at Crumlin Research and Ethics Committee, Ref: GEN/683/18. The study is registered with the COMET Initiative (http://www.cometinitiative.org/studies/details/1146?result=true). The COS will be disseminated by publication in the peer-reviewed literature, presentation at international research meetings and distribution to patient-representative organisations. This will facilitate the application of the COS in future studies of the management of VPD.

Project description:ObjectivesMore children are surviving critical illness but are at risk of residual or new health conditions. An evidence-informed and stakeholder-recommended core outcome set is lacking for pediatric critical care outcomes. Our objective was to create a multinational, multistakeholder-recommended pediatric critical care core outcome set for inclusion in clinical and research programs.DesignA two-round modified Delphi electronic survey was conducted with 333 invited research, clinical, and family/advocate stakeholders. Stakeholders completing the first round were invited to participate in the second. Outcomes scoring greater than 69% "critical" and less than 15% "not important" advanced to round 2 with write-in outcomes considered. The Steering Committee held a virtual consensus conference to determine the final components.SettingMultinational survey.PatientsStakeholder participants from six continents representing clinicians, researchers, and family/advocates.Measurements and main resultsOverall response rates were 75% and 82% for each round. Participants voted on seven Global Domains and 45 Specific Outcomes in round 1, and six Global Domains and 30 Specific Outcomes in round 2. Using overall (three stakeholder groups combined) results, consensus was defined as outcomes scoring greater than 90% "critical" and less than 15% "not important" and were included in the final PICU core outcome set: four Global Domains (Cognitive, Emotional, Physical, and Overall Health) and four Specific Outcomes (Child Health-Related Quality of Life, Pain, Survival, and Communication). Families (n = 21) suggested additional critically important outcomes that did not meet consensus, which were included in the PICU core outcome set-extended.ConclusionsThe PICU core outcome set and PICU core outcome set-extended are multistakeholder-recommended resources for clinical and research programs that seek to improve outcomes for children with critical illness and their families.

Project description:BackgroundThis study sought to utilise participatory research methods to identify the perspectives of people with diabetes regarding which diabetes outcomes were most important to them. These findings were then used to support an expert working group representing multiple health sectors and healthcare disciplines and people with diabetes to establish a core set of patient-important outcome constructs for use in routine diabetes care.Methods26 people with diabetes and family members were recruited through purposive sampling to participate in interviews, focus groups, voting and plenary activities in order to be part of identifying outcome constructs. Content and qualitative analysis methods were used with literature reviews to inform a national multi-stakeholder consensus process for a core set of person-centred diabetes outcome constructs to be used in routine diabetes care across health care settings.Results21 people with diabetes and 5 family members representing type 1 and 2 diabetes and a range of age groups, treatment regimens and disease burden identified the following patient-reported outcome constructs as an important supplement to clinical indicators for outcome assessment in routine diabetes care: self-rated health, psychological well-being, diabetes related emotional distress and quality of life, symptom distress, treatment burden, blood sugar regulation and hypoglycemia burden, confidence in self-management and confidence in access to person-centred care and support. Consensus was reached by a national multi-stakeholder expert group to adopt measures of these constructs as a national core diabetes outcome set for use in routine value-based diabetes care.ConclusionsWe found that patient-reported outcome (PRO) constructs and clinical indicators are needed in core diabetes outcome sets to evaluate outcomes of diabetes care which reflect key needs and priorities of people with diabetes. The incorporation of patient-reported outcome constructs should be considered complementary to clinical indicators in multi-stakeholder value-based health care strategies. We found participatory research methods were useful in facilitating the identification of a core prioritised set of diabetes outcome constructs for routine value-based diabetes care. The use of our method for involving patients may be useful for similar efforts in other disease areas aimed at defining suitable outcomes of person-centred value-based care. Future research should focus on developing acceptable and psychometrically valid measurement instruments to evaluate these outcome constructs as part of routine diabetes care.

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.