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:IntroductionHyperlipidemia is an underlying process behind cardiovascular disease. Chinese medicine (CM) may be effective in treating hyperlipidemia, but there is a lack of studies with high methodological quality. A major reason for this is heterogeneity in outcome reporting. Therefore, this study explores the degree of outcome reporting variation in CM trials for hyperlipidemia. It then generates a list of potentially important outcomes for developing a core outcome set (COS).MethodsA systematic review of literature focusing on studies of CM for hyperlipidemia was conducted. Outcomes were listed verbatim and grouped into 8 domains. Outcome frequency and definition uniformity were analyzed.Results3,702 studies and 452 individual outcomes were identified. These outcomes were reported 27,328 times, of which 1.6% were reported as primary outcomes, and 13.3% were defined. The most frequent outcome was total triglyceride, represented in 86.7% of the studies, followed by total cholesterol (86.0%), total effective rate (75.1%), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (73.2%), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (60.5%). However, 43.6% of outcomes were reported only once. The largest outcome domain was "pathological or pathophysiological outcomes," which included 67.0% of outcomes. Of the "response rate related outcomes" domain, total effective rate was the most frequently reported outcome (n = 2,780), and 95.3% of the studies gave a clear definition. However, these definitions were often contradictory. Only 10 papers reported cardiovascular events, 3 of which referred to them as primary outcomes. Moreover, ten patient-reported outcomes were reported in the retrieved literature 19 times in total. The majority of the outcomes did not report measurement instruments (MIs) (269/453, 59.4%). MIs of the surrogate outcomes were reported more frequently.ConclusionOutcome reporting in CM trials for hyperlipidemia is inconsistent and ill-defined, creating barriers to data synthesis and comparison. Thus, we propose and are developing a COS for CM trials for hyperlipidemia.