Dataset Information

Outcome selection, measurement and reporting for new surgical procedures and devices: a systematic review of IDEAL/IDEAL-D studies to inform development of a core outcome set.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Outcome selection, measurement and reporting for the evaluation of new surgical procedures and devices is inconsistent and lacks standardization. A core outcome set may promote the safe and transparent evaluation of surgical innovations. This systematic review examined outcome selection, measurement and reporting in studies conducted within the IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment and Long-term monitoring) framework to examine current practice and inform the development of a core outcome set for early-phase studies of surgical procedures/devices.

Methods

Web of Science and Scopus citation searches were performed to identify author-reported IDEAL/IDEAL-D studies for any surgical procedure/device. Outcomes were extracted verbatim, including contextual information regarding outcome selection and measurement. Outcomes were categorized to inform a conceptual framework of outcome domains relevant to evaluating innovation.

Results

Some 48 studies were identified. Outcome selection, measurement and reporting varied widely across studies in different IDEAL stages. From 1737 outcomes extracted, 22 domains specific to evaluating innovation were conceptualized under seven broad categories: procedure completion success/failure; modifications; unanticipated events; surgeons' experiences; patients' experiences; resource use specific to the innovative procedure/device; and other innovation-specific outcomes. Most innovation-specific outcomes were measured and reported in only a small number of studies.

Conclusion

This review highlighted the need for guidance and standardization in outcome selection and reporting in the evaluation of new surgical procedures/devices. Novel outcome domains specific to innovation have been identified to establish a core outcome set for future evaluations of surgical innovations.

SUBMITTER: Macefield RC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8444278 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionRigorous evaluation of innovative invasive procedures and medical devices is uncommon and lacks reporting standardisation. Devices may therefore enter routine practice without thorough evaluation, resulting in patient harm. Detailed guidance on how to select and report outcomes at each stage of evaluation is lacking. Development of reporting guidance and core outcome sets (COS) is one strategy to promote safe and transparent evaluation.Methods and analysisA COS, comprising outcome domains applicable to all phases of evaluation of procedure/device introduction and modification and, if necessary, supplementary domains relevant to specific phases or types of innovation (procedure or device), will be developed according to principles outlined by Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) and Core Outcome Set-Standards for Development (COS-STAD) guidelines. Reporting guidance will be developed concurrently. The study will have the following three phases:1. Generation of a list of relevant outcome domains and reporting items identified from (a) published studies, (b) hospital policy documentation, (c) regulatory body documentation and (d) stakeholder qualitative interviews. Identified items/domains will be categorised using a conceptual framework and formatted into Delphi consensus survey questionnaire items.2. Key stakeholders, including 50 patients and 150 professionals (surgeons, researchers, device manufacturers, regulatory representatives, journal editors) sampled from multinational sources, will complete a Delphi survey to score the importance of each reporting item and outcome.3. A consensus meeting with key stakeholders will discuss and agree the final content of the reporting guidance and COS(s).Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted by North East-Newcastle and North Tyneside 1 Health Research Authority Research Ethics Committee (18/NE/0378). Dissemination strategies include scientific meeting presentations, peer-reviewed journal publications, development of plain English summaries/materials, patient engagement events, development of a social media identity, workshops and other events.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Gastric cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Whilst surgery is the mainstay of curative treatment, it is associated with significant risks. Surgical strategies for treating gastric cancer should be based on evidence from systematic reviews of well-designed randomised controlled trials. However, inconsistencies in the reporting of outcomes from these trials makes evidence synthesis unreliable. We present a protocol for an international consensus study to develop a standardised set of outcomes and measurement tools - a 'core outcome set' (COS) - to be used by all future trials examining therapeutic surgical interventions for gastric cancer. The GASTROS study aims to standardise the reporting of outcomes in gastric cancer surgery trials through an international consensus process of key stakeholders including health care professionals and patients. METHODS:The first of three stages in the study will identify a 'long-list' of potentially important outcomes to be prioritised. These will be extracted from a systematic review of relevant academic literature and patient interviews. Stage 2 will comprise an eDelphi survey which will consider the views of patients, nurse specialists and surgeons to prioritise the most important outcomes. A meeting of stakeholder representatives will ratify the COS. Stage 3 will focus on identifying appropriate instruments to measure the prioritised outcomes by means of quality assessment of available measurement instruments and stakeholder consultation. DISCUSSION:This study aims to standardise the reporting of outcomes in future trials examining therapeutic surgical interventions for gastric cancer. It is anticipated that standardisation of outcome reporting in these surgical effectiveness trials will enhance the evidence base for clinical practice. Highlighting outcomes of greatest importance to patients will ensure that their perspectives are central to research in this field.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the measurement properties of outcome measures currently used in the assessment of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) for clinical research.DesignSystematic review DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through 4 August 2020.Eligibility criteriaPrimary clinical research published in English and whose primary purpose was to evaluate the measurement properties or clinically important differences of instruments used in DCM.Data extraction and synthesisPsychometric properties and clinically important differences were both extracted from each study, assessed for risk of bias and presented in accordance with the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments criteria.ResultsTwenty-nine outcome instruments were identified from 52 studies published between 1999 and 2020. They measured neuromuscular function (16 instruments), life impact (five instruments), pain (five instruments) and radiological scoring (five instruments). No instrument had evaluations for all 10 measurement properties and <50% had assessments for all three domains (ie, reliability, validity and responsiveness). There was a paucity of high-quality evidence. Notably, there were no studies that reported on structural validity and no high-quality evidence that discussed content validity. In this context, we identified nine instruments that are interpretable by clinicians: the arm and neck pain scores; the 12-item and 36-item short form health surveys; the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, modified JOA and JOA Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire; the neck disability index; and the visual analogue scale for pain. These include six scores with barriers to application and one score with insufficient criterion and construct validity.ConclusionsThis review aggregates studies evaluating outcome measures used to assess patients with DCM. Overall, there is a need for a set of agreed tools to measure outcomes in DCM. These findings will be used to inform the development of a core measurement set as part of AO Spine RECODE-DCM.

Project description:BackgroundBronchiectasis is a chronic respiratory disease characterised by airways widening and recurrent infections, resulting in episodes of chronic cough, sputum expectoration, and dyspnoea. This leads to deterioration in daily function, repeated hospital admissions and poor quality of life. The prevalence and mortality related to bronchiectasis is increasing worldwide with growing economic burden on healthcare systems. Physiotherapy for bronchiectasis aims to decrease accumulation of sputum, dyspnoea, and improve exercise capacity and daily function. A robust evidence base to support physiotherapy in bronchiectasis is currently lacking. This is partly because of inconsistency and poor reporting of outcomes in available studies. A core outcome set is the minimum acceptable group of outcomes that should be used in clinical trials for a specific condition. This decreases research waste by improving consistency and reporting of key outcomes and facilitates the synthesis of study outcomes in systematic reviews and guidelines. The aim of the study is therefore to develop a core outcome set and outcome measurement set for physiotherapy research in adults with bronchiectasis. This will ensure outcomes important to key stakeholders are consistently used and reported in future research.Methods and analysisThis project will use the COMET Initiative and COSMIN guidelines of core outcome set development and will include three phases. In the first phase, a comprehensive list of outcomes will be developed using systematic review of reported outcomes and qualitative interviews with patients and physiotherapists. Then consensus on key outcomes will be established in phase two using a Delphi survey and a consensus meeting. Finally, in phase three, we will identify appropriate instruments to measure the core outcomes by evaluating the psychometric properties of available instruments and a stakeholders' meeting to establish consensus.EthicsThe study was reviewed and has received ethical approval from the health-related Research Ethics Committee- Edge Hill University (ETH2021-0217).RegistrationThis study is registered with the COMET database. https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1931. The full systematic review protocol is registered in PROSPERO under the number CRD42021266247.