scholarly journals Protocol for the development of core set of domains of the core outcome set for patients with congenital melanocytic naevi (OCOMEN project)

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 267-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Oei ◽  
A.C. Fledderus ◽  
I. Korfage ◽  
C.A.M. Eggen ◽  
C.M.A.M. Horst ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
The Core ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Core Set ◽  
Melanocytic Naevi

scholarly journals Development of a Core Set of Patient-Reported Outcomes for Population-Based Cancer Survivorship Research: Protocol for an Australian Consensus Study

10.2196/14544 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. e14544 ◽  
Author(s):  
Imogen Ramsey ◽  
Nadia Corsini ◽  
Amanda D Hutchinson ◽  
Julie Marker ◽  
Marion Eckert
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Cancer Survivorship ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
The Core ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Core Set

Background Core outcome sets seek to improve the consistency and quality of research by providing agreed-upon recommendations regarding what outcomes should be measured as a minimum for a population and setting. The problems arising from a lack of outcome standardization in population-based cancer survivorship research indicate the need for agreement on a core set of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to enhance data quality, consistency, and comparability. Objective This study aims to identify a core set of PROs, representing the most important issues impacting on cancer survivors' long-term health, functioning and quality of life, to inform population-based research on cancer survivorship. Methods In Phase I, a list of all potentially important outcomes will be generated through focus group discussions with cancer survivors and a review of measures for assessing quality of life in cancer survivorship. The consolidated list will be advanced to Phase II, where a stakeholder consensus process will be conducted with national experts in cancer survivorship to refine and prioritize the outcomes into a core outcome set. The process will consist of a two-round Delphi survey and a consensus meeting. Cancer survivors, oncology health care professionals, and potential end users of the core outcome set with expertise in cancer survivorship research or policy will be invited to participate. In Phase III, recommended measures for assessment of the core outcome set will be selected with advice from experts on the assessment, analysis, and interpretation of PROs. Results As of April 2019, data collection for Phase I is complete and data analysis is underway. These data will inform the list of outcomes to be advanced into Phase II. Recruitment for Phase II will commence in June 2019, and it is anticipated that it will take 6 months to complete the three-step consensus process and identify a provisional core outcome set. The study results are expected to be published in early 2020. Conclusions Expert consensus-driven recommendations on outcome measurement will facilitate the inclusion of survivorship outcomes considered important by cancer survivors and health professionals in future research. Adoption of the core outcome set will enable comparison and synthesis of evidence across studies and enhance the quality of PRO data collected in cancer survivorship research, particularly when applied to address macro-level questions. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/14544

scholarly journals Development of a core outcome set for disease modification trials in mild to moderate dementia: a systematic review, patient and public consultation and consensus recommendations

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (26) ◽  
pp. 1-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucy Webster ◽  
Derek Groskreutz ◽  
Anna Grinbergs-Saull ◽  
Rob Howard ◽  
John T O’Brien ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Disease Modification ◽  
The Core ◽  
Moderate Dementia ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Core Set ◽  
And Biological Markers

BackgroundThere is currently no disease-modifying treatment available to halt or delay the progression of the disease pathology in dementia. An agreed core set of the best-available and most appropriate outcomes for disease modification would facilitate the design of trials and ensure consistency across disease modification trials, as well as making results comparable and meta-analysable in future trials.ObjectivesTo agree a set of core outcomes for disease modification trials for mild to moderate dementia with the UK dementia research community and patient and public involvement (PPI).Data sourcesWe included disease modification trials with quantitative outcomes of efficacy from (1) references from related systematic reviews in workstream 1; (2) searches of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group study register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature and PsycINFO on 11 December 2015, and clinical trial registries [International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) and clinicaltrials.gov] on 22 and 29 January 2016; and (3) hand-searches of reference lists of relevant systematic reviews from database searches.Review methodsThe project consisted of four workstreams. (1) We obtained related core outcome sets and work from co-applicants. (2) We systematically reviewed published and ongoing disease modification trials to identify the outcomes used in different domains. We extracted outcomes used in each trial, recording how many used each outcome and with how many participants. We divided outcomes into the domains measured and searched for validation data. (3) We consulted with PPI participants about recommended outcomes. (4) We presented all the synthesised information at a conference attended by the wider body of National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) dementia researchers to reach consensus on a core set of outcomes.ResultsWe included 149 papers from the 22,918 papers screened, referring to 125 individual trials. Eighty-one outcomes were used across trials, including 72 scales [31 cognitive, 12 activities of daily living (ADLs), 10 global, 16 neuropsychiatric and three quality of life] and nine biological techniques. We consulted with 18 people for PPI. The conference decided that only cognition and biological markers are core measures of disease modification. Cognition should be measured by the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) or the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale – Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog), and brain changes through structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a subset of participants. All other domains are important but not core. We recommend using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory for neuropsychiatric symptoms: the Disability Assessment for Dementia for ADLs, the Dementia Quality of Life Measure for quality of life and the Clinical Dementia Rating scale to measure dementia globally.LimitationsMost of the trials included participants with Alzheimer’s disease, so recommendations may not apply to other types of dementia. We did not conduct economic analyses. The PPI consultation was limited to members of the Alzheimer’s Society Research Network.ConclusionsCognitive outcomes and biological markers form the core outcome set for future disease modification trials, measured by the MMSE or ADAS-Cog, and structural MRI in a subset of participants.Future workWe envisage that the core set may be superseded in the future, particularly for other types of dementia. There is a need to develop an algorithm to compare scores on the MMSE and ADAS-Cog.Study registrationThe project was registered with Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials [www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/819?result=true(accessed 7 April 2016)]. The systematic review protocol is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015027346.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

scholarly journals Development of a Core Set of Patient-Reported Outcomes for Population-Based Cancer Survivorship Research: Protocol for an Australian Consensus Study (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Imogen Ramsey ◽  
Nadia Corsini ◽  
Amanda D Hutchinson ◽  
Julie Marker ◽  
Marion Eckert
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Cancer Survivorship ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
The Core ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Core Set

BACKGROUND Core outcome sets seek to improve the consistency and quality of research by providing agreed-upon recommendations regarding what outcomes should be measured as a minimum for a population and setting. The problems arising from a lack of outcome standardization in population-based cancer survivorship research indicate the need for agreement on a core set of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to enhance data quality, consistency, and comparability. OBJECTIVE This study aims to identify a core set of PROs, representing the most important issues impacting on cancer survivors' long-term health, functioning and quality of life, to inform population-based research on cancer survivorship. METHODS In Phase I, a list of all potentially important outcomes will be generated through focus group discussions with cancer survivors and a review of measures for assessing quality of life in cancer survivorship. The consolidated list will be advanced to Phase II, where a stakeholder consensus process will be conducted with national experts in cancer survivorship to refine and prioritize the outcomes into a core outcome set. The process will consist of a two-round Delphi survey and a consensus meeting. Cancer survivors, oncology health care professionals, and potential end users of the core outcome set with expertise in cancer survivorship research or policy will be invited to participate. In Phase III, recommended measures for assessment of the core outcome set will be selected with advice from experts on the assessment, analysis, and interpretation of PROs. RESULTS As of April 2019, data collection for Phase I is complete and data analysis is underway. These data will inform the list of outcomes to be advanced into Phase II. Recruitment for Phase II will commence in June 2019, and it is anticipated that it will take 6 months to complete the three-step consensus process and identify a provisional core outcome set. The study results are expected to be published in early 2020. CONCLUSIONS Expert consensus-driven recommendations on outcome measurement will facilitate the inclusion of survivorship outcomes considered important by cancer survivors and health professionals in future research. Adoption of the core outcome set will enable comparison and synthesis of evidence across studies and enhance the quality of PRO data collected in cancer survivorship research, particularly when applied to address macro-level questions. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/14544

scholarly journals Development of the CORE-Kids core set of outcome domains for studies of childhood limb fractures

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Ben A. Marson ◽  
Joseph C. Manning ◽  
Marilyn James ◽  
Simon Craxford ◽  
Sandeep R. Deshmukh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Lower Limb ◽  
Policy Development ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Delphi Survey ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
The Core ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Core Set ◽  
Limb Fractures

Aims The aim of this study is to develop a core set of outcome domains that should be considered and reported in all future trials of childhood limb fractures. Methods A four-phase study was conducted to agree a set of core outcome domains. Identification of candidate outcome domains were identified through systematic review of trials, and outcome domains relevant to families were identified through semi-structured interviews with 20 families (parent-child pairing or group). Outcome domains were prioritized using an international three-round Delphi survey with 205 panellists and then condensed into a core outcome set through a consensus workshop with 30 stakeholders. Results The systematic review and interviews identified 85 outcome domains as relevant to professionals or families. The Delphi survey prioritized 30 upper and 29 lower limb outcome domains at first round, an additional 17 upper and 18 lower limb outcomes at second round, and four additional outcomes for upper and lower limb at the third round as important domains. At the consensus workshop, the core outcome domains were agreed as: 1) pain and discomfort; 2) return to physical and recreational activities; 3) emotional and psychosocial wellbeing; 4) complications from the injury and treatment; 5) rturn to baseline activities daily living; 6) participation in learning; 7) appearance and deformity; and 8) time to union. In addition, 9a) recovery of mobility and 9b) recovery of manual dexterity was recommended as a core outcome for lower and upper limb fractures, respectively. Conclusion This set of core outcome domains is recommended as a minimum set of outcomes to be reported in all trials. It is not an exhaustive set and further work is required to identify what outcome tools should be used to measure each of these outcomes. Adoption of this outcome set will improve the consistency of research for these children that can be combined for more meaningful meta-analyses and policy development.

scholarly journals The Core Outcome DEvelopment for Carrier Screening (CODECS) study: protocol for development of a core outcome set

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ebony Richardson ◽  
Alison McEwen ◽  
Toby Newton-John ◽  
Karine Manera ◽  
Chris Jacobs
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Carrier Screening ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
The Core ◽  
Key Stakeholders ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Methods Of Measurement ◽  
Genetic Carrier Screening

Abstract Background Reproductive genetic carrier screening is a type of genetic testing available to those planning a pregnancy, or during their first trimester, to understand their risk of having a child with a severe genetic condition. There is a lack of consensus for ‘what to measure’ in studies on this intervention, leading to heterogeneity in choice of outcomes and methods of measurement. Such outcome heterogeneity has implications for the quality and comparability of these studies and has led to a lack of robust research evidence in the literature to inform policy and decision-making around the offer of this screening. As reproductive genetic carrier screening becomes increasingly accessible within the general population, it is timely to investigate the outcomes of this intervention. Objectives The development of a core outcome set is an established methodology to address issues with outcome heterogeneity in research. We aim to develop a core outcome set for reproductive genetic carrier screening to clarify and standardise outcomes for research and practice. Methods In accordance with guidance from the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative, this study will consist of five steps: (i) a systematic review of quantitative studies, using narrative synthesis to identify previously reported outcomes, their definitions, and methods of measurement; (ii) a systematic review of qualitative studies using content analysis to identify excerpts related to patient experience and perspectives that can be interpreted as outcomes; (iii) semi-structured focus groups and interviews with patients who have undertaken reproductive genetic carrier screening to identify outcomes of importance to them; (iv) Delphi survey of key stakeholders, including patients, clinicians, and researchers, to refine and prioritise the list of outcomes generated from the previous steps; and (v) a virtual consensus meeting with a purposive sample of key stakeholders to finalise the core outcome set for reporting. Discussion This protocol outlines the core outcome set development process and its novel application in the setting of genetic testing. This core outcome set will support the standardisation of outcome reporting in reproductive carrier screening research and contribute to an evolving literature on outcomes to evaluate genetic testing and genetic counselling as health interventions. COMET core outcome set registration http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1381.

scholarly journals Co-producing a multi-stakeholder Core Outcome Set for distal Tibia and Ankle fractures (COSTA): a study protocol

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan A. Pearson ◽  
Elizabeth Tutton ◽  
Alexander Joeris ◽  
Stephen Gwilym ◽  
Richard Grant ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Distal Tibia ◽  
Ankle Fractures ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Core Domain ◽  
Outcome Reporting ◽  
The Core ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Multi Stakeholder ◽  
Core Domain Set

Abstract Background Ankle fracture is a common injury with a strong evidence base focused on effectiveness of treatments. However, there are no reporting guidelines on distal tibia and ankle fractures. This has led to heterogeneity in outcome reporting and consequently, restricted the contribution of evidence syntheses. Over the past decade, core outcome sets have been developed to address this issue and are available for several common fractures, including those of the hip, distal radius, and open tibial fractures. This protocol describes the process to co-produce—with patient partners and other key stakeholders—a multi-stakeholder derived Core Outcome Set for distal Tibia and Ankle fractures (COSTA). The scope of COSTA will be for clinical trials. Methods The study will have five-stages which will include the following: (i) systematic reviews of existing qualitative studies and outcome reporting in randomised controlled trial studies to inform a developing list of potential outcome domains; (ii) qualitative interviews (including secondary data) and focus groups with patients and healthcare professionals to explore the impact of ankle fracture and the outcomes that really matter; (iii) generation of meaningful outcome statements with the study team, international advisory group and patient partners; (iv) a multi-round, international e-Delphi study to achieve consensus on the core domain set; and (v) an evidence-based consensus on a core measurement set will be achieved through a structured group consensus meeting, recommending best assessment approaches for each of the domains in the core domain set. Discussion Development of COSTA will provide internationally endorsed outcome assessment guidance for clinical trials for distal tibia and ankle fractures. This will enhance comparative reviews of interventions, potentially reducing reporting bias and research waste.

scholarly journals CORE-Kids: a protocol for the development of a core outcome set for childhood fractures

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. e036224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Arthur Marson ◽  
Joseph C Manning ◽  
Marilyn James ◽  
Simon Craxford ◽  
Sandeep R Deshmukh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
List Type ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
The Core ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Orthopaedic Literature ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Limb Fractures

IntroductionLimb fractures in children are common yet there are few trials that compare treatments for these injuries. There is significant heterogeneity in the outcomes reported in the paediatric orthopaedic literature, which limits the ability to compare study results and draw firm conclusions. The aim of the CORE-Kids Study is to develop a core outcome set for use in research studies of childhood limb fractures. A core outcome set will provide a minimum set of outcomes to be measured in all trials to minimise the heterogeneity of outcomes reported and minimise reporting bias. A core outcome set ensures that outcomes are reported that are relevant to families as well as clinicians. The core outcome set will include additional upper and lower limb modules.MethodsThe development of the core outcome set will require four phases to evaluate:What are the outcomes that are relevant to professionals?What are the outcomes that are relevant to families?What are the most important of these outcomes?Which outcomes should be included in the core outcome set?This will be completed through a systematic review of trials to identify the outcomes domains that are relevant to trialists. A series of semi-structured interviews will be completed with families to identify the outcome domains that are relevant to families. These outcome domains will be used in a three-round Delphi Study to analyse the importance of these outcome domains to a range of stakeholders including parents, clinicians and researchers. Following this, the core outcome set will be decided at a consensus meeting.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been awarded HRA/REC IRAS number 262503. Date of approval 06/08/2019. Dissemination will be through scientific literature and international societies.Trial registrationCore Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative, registration number: 1274. Date of registration 13/12/2018.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018106605.

scholarly journals Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for cauda equina syndrome: systematic literature review, qualitative interviews, Delphi survey and consensus meeting

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. e024002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nisaharan Srikandarajah ◽  
Adam J Noble ◽  
Martin Wilby ◽  
Simon Clark ◽  
Paula R Williamson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Cauda Equina Syndrome ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Cauda Equina ◽  
Consensus Meeting ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
The Core ◽  
Outcome Set

IntroductionCauda equina syndrome (CES) is a serious neurological condition most commonly due to compression of the lumbosacral nerve roots, which can result in significant disability. The evidence for acute intervention in CES is mainly from retrospective studies. There is heterogeneity in the outcomes chosen for analysis in these studies, which makes it difficult to synthesise the data across studies. This study will develop a core outcome set for use in future studies of CES, engaging with key stakeholders and using transparent methodology. This will help ensure that relevant outcomes are used in future and will facilitate attempts to summarise data across studies in systematic reviews.Methods and analysisA systematic literature review will document all the outcomes for CES after surgery mentioned in the literature. The qualitative interviews with patients with CES will be semistructured, audio recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed with the use of NVivo V.10 to identify outcomes and determine the themes described. The outcomes from the literature review and patient interviews will be combined and prioritised to determine what the most important outcomes are in CES research studies to patients and healthcare professionals. The prioritisation will be done through a two-round iterative Delphi survey and a consensus meeting. This process will decide the core outcome set for patients with CES.Ethics and disseminationREC and HRA approval was obtained on the 6/12/16 for the qualitative interviews from South Central—Hampshire A REC. REC reference 16/SC/0587. REC and HRA approval was obtained on 26/3/18 for the Delphi process and consensus meeting from North West—Greater Manchester Central REC. REC reference was 18/NW/0022. The final core outcome set will be published and freely available.Trial registration numberThis study is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials database as study 824.

CONSIDER - Core Outcome Set in IAD Research: study protocol for establishing a core set of outcomes and measurements in incontinence-associated dermatitis research

2016 ◽  
Vol 73 (10) ◽  
pp. 2473-2483 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Van den Bussche ◽  
Dorien De Meyer ◽  
Nele Van Damme ◽  
Jan Kottner ◽  
Dimitri Beeckman
Keyword(s):  
Study Protocol ◽  
Research Study ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Core Set
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document