Dataset Information

Systematic review of outcome domains and instruments used in clinical trials of tinnitus treatments in adults.

ABSTRACT: There is no evidence-based guidance to facilitate design decisions for confirmatory trials or systematic reviews investigating treatment efficacy for adults with tinnitus. This systematic review therefore seeks to ascertain the current status of trial designs by identifying and evaluating the reporting of outcome domains and instruments in the treatment of adults with tinnitus.Records were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE CINAHL, EBSCO, and CENTRAL clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, ICTRP) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Eligible records were those published from 1 July 2006 to 12 March 2015. Included studies were those reporting adults aged 18 years or older who reported tinnitus as a primary complaint, and who were enrolled into a randomised controlled trial, a before and after study, a non-randomised controlled trial, a case-controlled study or a cohort study, and written in English. Studies with fewer than 20 participants were excluded.Two hundred and twenty-eight studies were included. Thirty-five different primary outcome domains were identified spanning seven categories (tinnitus percept, impact of tinnitus, co-occurring complaints, quality of life, body structures and function, treatment-related outcomes and unclear or not specified). Over half the studies (55 %) did not clearly define the complaint of interest. Tinnitus loudness was the domain most often reported (14 %), followed by tinnitus distress (7 %). Seventy-eight different primary outcome instruments were identified. Instruments assessing multiple attributes of the impact of tinnitus were most common (34 %). Overall, 24 different patient-reported tools were used, predominantly the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (15 %). Loudness was measured in diverse ways including a numerical rating scale (8 %), loudness matching (4 %), minimum masking level (1 %) and loudness discomfort level (1 %). Ten percent of studies did not clearly report the instrument used.Our findings indicate poor appreciation of the basic principles of good trial design, particularly the importance of specifying what aspect of therapeutic benefit is the main outcome. No single outcome was reported in all studies and there was a broad diversity of outcome instruments.The systematic review protocol is registered on PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews): CRD42015017525 . Registered on 12 March 2015 revised on 15 March 2016.

SUBMITTER: Hall DA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4888312 | biostudies-other | 2016 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Systematic review of outcome domains and instruments used in clinical trials of tinnitus treatments in adults.

Hall Deborah A DA Haider Haula H Szczepek Agnieszka J AJ Lau Pia P Rabau Sarah S Jones-Diette Julie J Londero Alain A Edvall Niklas K NK Cederroth Christopher R CR Mielczarek Marzena M Fuller Thomas T Batuecas-Caletrio Angel A Brueggemen Petra P Thompson Dean M DM Norena Arnaud A Cima Rilana F F RF Mehta Rajnikant L RL Mazurek Birgit B

Trials 20160601 1

<h4>Background</h4>There is no evidence-based guidance to facilitate design decisions for confirmatory trials or systematic reviews investigating treatment efficacy for adults with tinnitus. This systematic review therefore seeks to ascertain the current status of trial designs by identifying and evaluating the reporting of outcome domains and instruments in the treatment of adults with tinnitus.<h4>Methods</h4>Records were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE CINAHL, EBSCO, and CENTRAL clinic ...[more]

PMID: 27250987

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThis systematic review aimed to identify, compare and contrast outcome domains and outcome instruments reported in studies investigating interventions that seek to restore bilateral (two-sided) and/or binaural (both ears) hearing in adults with single-sided deafness (SSD). Findings can inform the development of evidence-based guidance to facilitate design decisions for confirmatory trials.MethodsRecords were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, CENTRAL, WHO ICTRP and the NIHR UK clinical trials gateway. The search included records published from 1946 to March 2020. Included studies were those as follows: (a) recruiting adults aged 18 years or older diagnosed with SSD of average threshold severity worse than 70 dB HL in the worse-hearing ear and normal (or near-normal) hearing in the better-hearing ear, (b) evaluating interventions to restore bilateral and/or binaural hearing and (c) enrolling those adults in a controlled trial, before-and-after study or cross-over study. Studies that fell just short of the participant eligibility criteria were included in a separate sensitivity analysis.ResultsNinety-six studies were included (72 full inclusion, 24 sensitivity analysis). For fully included studies, 37 exclusively evaluated interventions to re-establish bilateral hearing and 29 exclusively evaluated interventions to restore binaural hearing. Overall, 520 outcome domains were identified (350 primary and 170 secondary). Speech-related outcome domains were the most common (74% of studies), followed by spatial-related domains (60% of studies). A total of 344 unique outcome instruments were reported. Speech-related outcome domains were measured by 73 different instruments and spatial-related domains by 43 different instruments. There was considerable variability in duration of follow-up, ranging from acute (baseline) testing to 10 years after the intervention. The sensitivity analysis identified no additional outcome domains.ConclusionsThis review identified large variability in the reporting of outcome domains and instruments in studies evaluating the therapeutic benefits and harms of SSD interventions. Reports frequently omitted information on what domains the study intended to assess, and on what instruments were used to measure which domains.Trial registrationThe systematic review protocol is registered on PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews): Registration Number CRD42018084274 . Registered on 13 March 2018, last revised on 7th of May 2019.

Project description:ObjectivesAssessing outcomes after pediatric critical illness is imperative to evaluate practice and improve recovery of patients and their families. We conducted a scoping review of the literature to identify domains and instruments previously used to evaluate these outcomes.DesignScoping review.SettingWe queried PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials Registry for studies evaluating pediatric critical care survivors or their families published between 1970 and 2017. We identified articles using key words related to pediatric critical illness and outcome domains. We excluded articles if the majority of patients were greater than 18 years old or less than 1 month old, mortality was the sole outcome, or only instrument psychometrics or procedural outcomes were reported. We used dual review for article selection and data extraction and categorized outcomes by domain (overall health, emotional, physical, cognitive, health-related quality of life, social, family).SubjectsManuscripts evaluating outcomes after pediatric critical illness.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsOf 60,349 citations, 407 articles met inclusion criteria; 87% were published after 2000. Study designs included observational (85%), interventional (7%), qualitative (5%), and mixed methods (3%). Populations most frequently evaluated were traumatic brain injury (n = 96), general pediatric critical illness (n = 87), and congenital heart disease (n = 72). Family members were evaluated in 74 studies (18%). Studies used a median of 2 instruments (interquartile range 1-4 instruments) and evaluated a median of 2 domains (interquartile range 2-3 domains). Social (n = 223), cognitive (n = 183), and overall health (n = 161) domains were most frequently studied. Across studies, 366 unique instruments were used, most frequently the Wechsler and Glasgow Outcome Scales. Individual domains were evaluated using a median of 77 instruments (interquartile range 39-87 instruments).ConclusionsA comprehensive, generalizable understanding of outcomes after pediatric critical illness is limited by heterogeneity in methodology, populations, domains, and instruments. Developing assessment standards may improve understanding of postdischarge outcomes and support development of interventions after pediatric critical illness.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Acute severe haemorrhage is a common complication of injury, childbirth, surgery, gastrointestinal pathologies and other medical conditions. Bleeding is a major cause of death, but patients also die from non-bleeding causes, the frequency of which varies by the site of haemorrhage and between populations. Because patients can bleed to death within hours, established interventions inevitably take priority over randomisation into a trial. These circumstances raise challenges in selecting appropriate outcome measures for clinical trials of haemostatic interventions. MAIN BODY:We use data from three large randomised controlled trials in acute severe haemorrhage (CRASH-2, WOMAN and HALT-IT) to explore the strengths and limitations of outcome measures commonly used in trials of haemostatic treatments, including all-cause and cause-specific mortality, blood transfusion and surgical interventions. Many deaths following acute severe haemorrhage are due to patient comorbidities or complications rather than bleeding. If non-bleeding deaths are unaffected by a haemostatic intervention, even large trials will have low power to detect an effect on all-cause mortality. Due to the dilution from deaths unaffected or reduced by the trial treatment, all-cause mortality can also obscure important harmful effects. Additionally, because the relative contributions of different causes of death vary within and between patient populations, all-cause mortality is not generalisable. Different causes of death occur at different time intervals from bleeding onset, with bleeding deaths generally occurring early. Time-specific mortality can therefore be used as a proxy for cause in un-blinded trials where bias is a concern or in situations where cause of death cannot be assessed. Urgent treatment is critical, and so post-randomisation blood transfusion and surgery are often planned before or at the time of randomisation and therefore cannot be influenced by the trial treatment. CONCLUSIONS:All-cause mortality has low power, lacks generalisability and can obscure harmful effects. Cause-specific mortality, such as death due to bleeding or thrombosis, avoids these drawbacks. In certain scenarios, time-specific mortality can be used as a proxy for cause-specific mortality. Blood transfusion and surgical procedures have limited utility as outcome measures in trials of haemostatic treatments.

Project description:IntroductionOver the past 10 years, research into methods that promote the uptake, implementation and sustainability of evidence-based interventions has gathered pace. However, implementation outcomes are defined in different ways and assessed by different measures; the extent to which these measures are valid and reliable is unknown. The aim of this systematic review is to identify and appraise studies that assess the measurement properties of quantitative implementation outcome instruments used in physical healthcare settings, to advance the use of precise and accurate measures.Methods and analysisThe following databases will be searched from inception to March 2017: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library. Grey literature will be sought via HMIC, OpenGrey, ProQuest for theses and Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science. Reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews will be hand searched. Three search strings will be combined to identify eligible studies: (1) implementation literature, (2) implementation outcomes and (3) measurement properties. Screening of titles, abstracts and full papers will be assessed for eligibility by two reviewers independently and any discrepancies resolved via consensus with the wider team. The methodological quality of the studies will be assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments checklist. A set of bespoke criteria to determine the quality of the instruments will be used, and the relationship between instrument usability and quality will be explored.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not necessary for systematic review protocols. Researchers and healthcare professionals can use the findings of this systematic review to guide the selection of implementation outcomes instruments, based on their psychometric quality, to assess the impact of their implementation efforts. The findings will also provide a useful guide for reviewers of papers and grants to determine the psychometric quality of the measures used in implementation research.Trial registration numberInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42017065348.

Dataset Information

Systematic review of outcome domains and instruments used in clinical trials of tinnitus treatments in adults.

Publications

Systematic review of outcome domains and instruments used in clinical trials of tinnitus treatments in adults.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets