Outcome reporting in therapeutic mammaplasty: a systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Therapeutic mammaplasty (TM) is an oncological procedure which combines tumour resection with breast reduction and mastopexy techniques. Previous systematic reviews have demonstrated the oncological safety of TM but reporting of critically important outcomes, such as quality of life, aesthetic and functional outcomes, are limited, piecemeal or inconsistent. This systematic review aimed to identify all outcomes reported in clinical studies of TM to facilitate development of a core outcome set.Methods
Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science were searched from inception to 5 August 2020. Included studies reported clinical outcomes following TM for adult women. Two authors screened articles independently for eligibility. Data were extracted regarding the outcome definition and classification type (for example, oncological, quality of life, etc.), time of outcome reporting and measurement tools.Results
Of 5709 de-duplicated records, 148 were included in the narrative synthesis. The majority of studies (n = 102, 68.9 per cent) reported measures of survival and/or recurrence; approximately three-quarters (n = 75, 73.5 per cent) had less than 5 years follow-up. Aesthetic outcome was reported in half of studies (n = 75, 50.7 per cent) using mainly subjective, non-validated measurement tools. The time point at which aesthetic assessment was conducted was highly variable, and only defined in 48 (64.0 per cent) studies and none included a preoperative baseline for comparison. Few studies reported quality of life (n = 30, 20.3 per cent), functional outcomes (n = 5, 3.4 per cent) or resource use (n = 28, 18.9 per cent).Conclusion
Given the oncological equivalence of TM and mastectomy, treatment decisions are often driven by aesthetic and functional outcomes, which are infrequently and inconsistently reported with non-validated measurement tools.
SUBMITTER: Lee A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8665419 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionTherapeutic mammaplasty (TM) is an oncological procedure which combines tumour resection with breast reduction and mastopexy techniques. Previous systematic reviews have demonstrated oncological safety of TM, but poor and inconsistent reporting of quality-of-life, aesthetic and functional outcomes, often with non-validated measurement tools. Moreover, there is a paucity of patient-reported outcome measures. Standardisation of outcome reporting is required to enable study results to be compared and combined, for example, through core outcome set (COS) development. This systematic review aims to comprehensively describe the outcomes reported in clinical studies of TM, their respective outcome measures and the time points at which they were evaluated. The overall objective is to facilitate the development of a COS for TM.Methods and analysisA systematic review of clinical studies evaluating outcomes following TM will be completed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The following electronic databases have been searched from inception to 5 August 2020: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science. Primary outcomes will include the number of reported outcomes of various types (clinical, aesthetic, functional, quality-of-life and cost-effectiveness), whether these are patient-reported or clinician-reported, how outcomes are defined and the outcome measurement tool(s) used. The time point(s) at which outcomes were measured will be a secondary outcome. No studies will be excluded on the basis of methodological quality in order to generate a comprehensive list of reported outcomes and outcome measures; hence, risk of bias assessment is not required. The data will be described narratively. This protocol has been reported in line with PRISMA-Protocols.Ethics and disseminationThis study does not involve human or animal participants, hence ethical approval is not required. The findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences.Prospero registration numberCRD42020200365.
| S-EPMC8211071 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTotal knee arthroplasty (TKA) is one of the most effective ways to treat end-stage painful conditions of the knee. However, non-standardized reporting patterns can make quantitative analysis of patient outcomes difficult.MethodsA systematic review of the literature was performed using keywords "total knee arthroplasty" and "total knee replacement." Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) meeting the inclusion criteria were sorted and reviewed. Type of study, outcome measures used to report their results, and the actual results were recorded. Quantitative analysis was performed.ResultsA total of 233 RCTs were included. There was significant variability in the reporting of short term and long term outcomes in total knee arthroplasty. The most common treatment domains in order of decreasing frequency were objective knee function, subjective knee function, perioperative complications, and pain. Range of motion was the most common outcome metric reported in all the RCTs and also was the most common metric used to assess objective knee function. The most common patient reported outcome measure used to assess postoperative function was the Knee Society Score followed by Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. The Visual Analog Scale was the most common measurement tool used to assess postoperative pain. Most studies assessed patient outcomes in three treatment domains. None reported outcomes in all seven domains.ConclusionThere is significant variability in outcome reporting patterns in TKA literature. Most studies do not track outcomes comprehensively, with a significant minority of the RCTs tracking outcomes in only one treatment domain.
| S-EPMC7394795 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:There is currently no accepted standard for reporting outcomes following cardiac surgery. The objective of this paper was to systematically review the literature to evaluate the current use and definition of perioperative outcomes reported in cardiac surgery trials. METHODS AND RESULTS:We reviewed 5 prominent medical and surgical journals on Medline from January 1, 2010, to June 30, 2014, for randomized controlled trials involving coronary artery bypass grafting and/or valve surgery. We identified 34 trials meeting inclusion criteria. Sample sizes ranged from 57 to 4752 participants (median 351). Composite end points were used as a primary outcome in 56% (n=19) of the randomized controlled trials and as a secondary outcome in 12% (n=4). There were 14 different composite end points. Mortality at any time (all-cause and/or cardiovascular) was reported as an individual end point or as part of a combined end point in 82% (n=28), myocardial infarction was reported in 68% (n=23), and bleeding was reported in 24% (n=8). Patient-centered outcomes, such as quality of life and functional classification, were reported in 29% (n=10). Definition of clinical events such as myocardial infarction, stroke, renal failure, and bleeding varied considerably among trials, particularly for postoperative myocardial infarction and bleeding, for which 8 different definitions were used for each. CONCLUSIONS:Outcome reporting in the cardiac surgery literature is heterogeneous, and efforts should be made to standardize the outcomes reported and the definitions used to ascertain them. The development of standardizing outcome reporting is an essential step toward strengthening the process of evidence-based care in cardiac surgery.
| S-EPMC4599473 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction There is a lack of consensus on what the critical outcomes in replantation are and how best to measure them. This review aims to identify all reported outcomes and respective outcome measures used in digital replantation. Materials and Methods Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and single-arm observational studies of adults undergoing replantation with at least one well-described outcome or outcome measure were identified. Primary outcomes were classified into six domains, and outcome measures were classified into eight domains. The clinimetric properties were identified and reported. A total of 56 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. Results In total, 29 continuous and 29 categorical outcomes were identified, and 87 scales and instruments were identified. The most frequently used outcomes were survival of replanted digit, sensation, and time in hospital. Outcomes and measures were most variable in domains of viability, quality of life, and motor function. Only eight measures used across these domains were validated and proven reliable. Conclusion Lack of consensus creates an obstacle to reporting, understanding, and comparing the effectiveness of various replantation strategies.
| S-EPMC7735551 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Heterogeneity in outcome reporting limits identification of gold-standard treatments for Hirschsprung's Disease(HD) and gastroschisis. This review aimed to identify which outcomes are currently investigated in HD and gastroschisis research so as to counter this heterogeneity through informing development of a core outcome set(COS). Two systematic reviews were conducted. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they compared surgical interventions for primary treatment of HD in review one, and gastroschisis in review two. Studies available only as abstracts were excluded from analysis of reporting transparency. Thirty-five HD studies were eligible for inclusion in the review, and 74 unique outcomes were investigated. The most commonly investigated was faecal incontinence (32 studies, 91%). Seven of the 28 assessed studies (25%) met all criteria for transparent outcome reporting. Thirty gastroschisis studies were eligible for inclusion in the review, and 62 unique outcomes were investigated. The most commonly investigated was length of stay (24 studies, 80%). None of the assessed studies met all criteria for transparent outcome reporting. This review demonstrates that heterogeneity in outcome reporting and a significant risk of reporting bias exist in HD and gastroschisis research. Development of a COS could counter these problems, and the outcome lists developed from this review could be used in that process.
| S-EPMC5150519 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimStandardizing evaluative outcomes and their assessment facilitates comparisons between clinical studies and provides a basis for comparing direct effects of different treatment options. The aim of this study was to systematically review types of outcomes and measurement instruments used in studies regarding treatment options for slow-transit constipation (STC) in adults.MethodsIn this systematic review of the literature, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO from inception through February 2018, for papers assessing any STC treatment in adult patients. Outcomes were systematically extracted and categorized in domains using the conceptual framework of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology filter 2.0. Outcome reporting was stratified by decade of publication, intervention, and study type.ResultsForty-seven studies were included in this systematic review. Fifty-nine different types of outcomes were identified. The outcomes were structured in three core areas and 18 domains. The most commonly reported domains were defecation functions (94%), gastrointestinal transit (53%), and health-care service use (51%). The most frequently reported outcomes were defecation frequency (83%), health-related quality of life (43%), and adverse events and complications (43%). In 62% of the studies, no primary outcome was defined, whereas in two studies, more than one primary outcomes were selected. A wide diversity of measurement instruments was used to assess the reported outcomes.ConclusionOutcomes reported in studies on STC in adults are heterogeneous. A lack of standardization complicates comparisons between studies. Developing a core outcome set for STC in adults could contribute to standardization of outcome reporting in (future) studies.
| S-EPMC7027471 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSystematic reviews collate trial data to provide evidence to support clinical decision-making. For effective synthesis, there must be consistency in outcome reporting. There is no agreed set of outcomes for reporting the effect of burn care interventions. Issues with outcome reporting have been identified, although not systematically investigated. This study gathers empirical evidence on any variation in outcome reporting and assesses the need for a core outcome set for burn care research.MethodsElectronic searches of four search engines were undertaken from January 2012 to December 2016 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), using medical subject headings and free text terms including 'burn', 'scald' 'thermal injury' and 'RCT'. Two authors independently screened papers, extracted outcomes verbatim and recorded the timing of outcome measurement. Duplicate outcomes (exact wording ± different?spelling), similar outcomes (albumin in blood, serum albumin) and identical outcomes measured at different times were removed. Variation in outcome reporting was determined by assessing the number of unique outcomes reported across all included trials. Outcomes were classified into domains. Bias was reduced using five researchers and a patient working independently and together.Results147 trials were included, of which 127 (86.4%) were RCTs, 13 (8.8%) pilot studies and 7 (4.8%) RCT protocols. 1494 verbatim clinical outcomes were reported; 955 were unique. 76.8% of outcomes were measured within 6?months of injury. Commonly reported outcomes were defined differently. Numbers of unique outcomes per trial varied from one to 37 (median 9; IQR 5,13). No single outcome was reported across all studies demonstrating inconsistency of reporting. Outcomes were classified into 54 domains. Numbers of outcomes per domain ranged from 1 to 166 (median 11; IQR 3,24).ConclusionsThis review has demonstrated heterogeneity in outcome reporting in burn care research which will hinder amalgamation of study data. We recommend the development of a Core Outcome Set.Prospero registration numberCRD42017060908.
| S-EPMC6398699 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study questionWhich outcomes and outcome measures are reported in interventional trials evaluating the treatment of adenomyosis?Summary answerWe identified 38 studies, reporting on 203 outcomes using 133 outcome measures.What is known alreadyHeterogeneity in outcome evaluation and reporting has been demonstrated for several gynaecological conditions and in fertility studies. In adenomyosis, previous systematic reviews have failed to perform a quantitative analysis for central outcomes, due to variations in outcome reporting and measuring.Study design size durationA systematic search of Embase, Medline and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) was performed with a timeframe from 1950 until February 2021, following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA).Participants/materials setting methodsStudies reporting on any uterus-sparing intervention to treat adenomyosis, both prospective and retrospective, were eligible for inclusion. Inclusion criteria were a clear definition of diagnostic criteria for adenomyosis and the modality used to make the diagnosis, a clear description of the intervention, a follow-up time of ≥6 months, a study population of n ≥ 20, a follow-up rate of at least 80%, and English language. The population included premenopausal women with adenomyosis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Evidence Project risk of bias tool.Main results and the role of chanceWe included 38 studies (6 randomized controlled trials and 32 cohort studies), including 5175 participants with adenomyosis. The studies described 10 interventions and reported on 203 outcomes, including 43 classified as harms, in 29 predefined domains. Dysmenorrhoea (reported in 82%), heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) (in 79%) and uterine volume (in 71%) were the most common outcomes. Fourteen different outcome measures were used for dysmenorrhoea and 17 for HMB. Quality of life was reported in 9 (24%) studies, patient satisfaction with treatment in 1 (3%). A clear primary outcome was stated in only 18%.Limitations reasons for cautionThis review includes studies with a high risk of bias.Wider implications of the findingsShortcomings in the definition and choice of outcomes and outcome measures limit the value of the conducted research. The development and implementation of a core outcome set (COS) for interventional studies in adenomyosis could improve research quality. This review suggests a lack of patient-centred research in adenomyosis and people with adenomyosis should be involved in the development and implementation of the COS.Study funding/competing interestsNo funds specifically for this work were received. T.T. receives fees from General Electrics for lectures on ultrasound independently of this project.Trial registration numberThis review is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number CRD42020177466) and the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative (registration number 1649).
| S-EPMC8398753 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Selective outcome reporting is a significant methodological concern. Comparisons between the outcomes reported in clinical trial registrations and those later published allow investigators to understand the extent of selection bias among trialists. We examined the possibility of selective outcome reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in neurology journals.We searched PubMed for randomized controlled trials from Jan 1, 2010 -Dec 31, 2015 published in the top 3 impact factor neurology journals. These articles were screened according to specific inclusion criteria. Each author individually extracted data from trials following a standardized protocol. A second author verified each extracted element and discrepancies were resolved. Consistency between registered and published outcomes was evaluated and correlations between discrepancies and funding, journal, and temporal trends were examined.180 trials were included for analysis. 10 (6%) primary outcomes were demoted, 38 (21%) primary outcomes were omitted from the publication, and 61 (34%) unregistered primary outcomes were added to the published report. There were 18 (10%) cases of secondary outcomes being upgraded to primary outcomes in the publication, and there were 53 (29%) changes in timing of assessment. Of 82 (46%) major discrepancies with reported p-values, 54 (66.0%) favored publication of statistically significant results.Across trials, we found 180 major discrepancies. 66% of major discrepancies with a reported p-value (n = 82) favored statistically significant results. These results suggest a need within neurology to provide more consistent and timely registration of outcomes.
| S-EPMC5519049 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Neonatal withdrawal secondary to in utero opioid exposure is a growing global concern stressing the psychosocial well-being of affected families and scarce hospital resources. In the ongoing search for the most effective treatment, randomized controlled trials are indispensable. Consistent outcome selection and measurement across randomized controlled trials enables synthesis of results, fostering the translation of research into practice. Currently, there is no core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, definition and reporting. This study identifies the outcomes currently reported in the literature for neonates experiencing withdrawal following opioid exposure during pregnancy. METHODS:A comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central was conducted to identify all primary research studies (randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, case-controlled studies, uncontrolled trials, observational cohort studies, clinical practice guidelines and case reports) reporting outcomes for interventions used to manage neonatal abstinence syndrome between July 2007 and July 2017. All "primary" and "secondary" neonatal outcomes were extracted by two independent reviewers and were assigned to one of OMERACT's core areas of "pathophysiological manifestation", "life impact", "resource use", "adverse events", or "death". RESULTS:Forty-seven primary research articles reporting 107 "primary" and 127 "secondary" outcomes were included. The most frequently reported outcomes were "duration of pharmacotherapy" (68% of studies, N?=?32), "duration of hospital stay" (66% of studies, N?=?31) and "withdrawal symptoms" (51% of studies, N?=?24). The discrepancy between the number of times an outcome was reported and the number of articles was secondary to the use of composite outcomes. Frequently reported outcomes had heterogeneous definitions or were not defined by the study and were measured at different times. Outcomes reported in the literature to date were mainly assigned to the core areas "pathophysiologic manifestations" or "resource use". No articles reported included parent or former patient involvement in outcome selections. CONCLUSIONS:Inconsistent selection and definition of primary and secondary outcomes exists in the present literature of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions for managing opioid withdrawal in neonates. No studies involved parents in the process of outcome selection. These findings hinder evidence synthesis to generate clinically meaningful practice guidelines. The development of a specific core outcome set is imperative.
| S-EPMC7069160 | biostudies-literature