Proposal for a Core Outcome Set of Measurement Instruments to Assess Quality of Voice in Adductor Spasmodic Dysphonia Based on a Literature Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juliëtta H.C. Schuering ◽  
Kira S. van Hof ◽  
Bas J. Heijnen ◽  
Peter Paul G. van Benthem ◽  
Elisabeth V. Sjögren ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Spasmodic Dysphonia ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Adductor Spasmodic Dysphonia ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Quality Of Voice ◽  
Assess Quality

scholarly journals Establishing a core outcome set for mucopolysaccharidoses (MPS) in children: study protocol for a rapid literature review, candidate outcomes survey, and Delphi surveys

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison H. Howie ◽  
Kylie Tingley ◽  
Michal Inbar-Feigenberg ◽  
John J. Mitchell ◽  
Nancy J. Butcher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Metabolic Diseases ◽  
Outcome Measurement ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Two Phase ◽  
Outcome Set

Abstract Background Mucopolysaccharidoses (MPS) are a group of inherited metabolic diseases characterized by chronic, progressive multi-system manifestations with varying degrees of severity. Disease-modifying therapies exist to treat some types of MPS; however, they are not curative, underscoring the need to identify and evaluate co-interventions that optimize functioning, participation in preferred activities, and quality of life. A Canadian pediatric MPS registry is under development and may serve as a platform to launch randomized controlled trials to evaluate such interventions. To promote the standardized collection of patient/family-reported and clinical outcomes considered important to patients/families, health care providers (HCPs), and policymakers, the choice of outcomes to include in the registry will be informed by a core outcome set (COS). We aim to establish a patient-oriented COS for pediatric MPS using a multi-stakeholder approach. Methods In step 1 of the six-step process to develop the COS, we will identify relevant outcomes through a rapid literature review and candidate outcomes survey. A two-phase screening approach will be implemented to identify eligible publications, followed by extraction of outcomes and other pre-specified data elements. Simultaneously, we will conduct a candidate outcomes survey with children with MPS and their families to identify outcomes most important to them. In step 2, HCPs experienced in treating patients with MPS will be invited to review the list of outcomes generated in step 1 and identify additional clinically relevant outcomes. We will then ask patients/families, HCPs, and policymakers to rate the outcomes in a set of Delphi Surveys (step 3), and to participate in a subsequent consensus meeting to finalize the COS (step 4). Step 5 involves establishing a set of outcome measurement instruments for the COS. Finally, we will disseminate the COS to knowledge users (step 6). Discussion The proposed COS will inform the choice of outcomes to include in the MPS registry and, more broadly, promote the standardized collection of patient-oriented outcomes for pediatric MPS research. By involving patients/families from the earliest stage of the research, we will ensure that the COS will be relevant to those who will ultimately benefit from the research. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42021267531, COMET

scholarly journals Outcomes and outcomes measurements used in intervention studies of pelvic girdle pain and lumbopelvic pain: a systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesca Wuytack ◽  
Maggie O’Donovan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Intervention Studies ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Pelvic Girdle ◽  
Pelvic Girdle Pain ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Pregnancy And Postpartum

Abstract Background Pelvic girdle pain is a common problem during pregnancy and postpartum with significant personal and societal impact and costs. Studies examining the effectiveness of interventions for pelvic girdle pain measure different outcomes, making it difficult to pool data in meta-analysis in a meaningful and interpretable way to increase the certainty of effect measures. A consensus-based core outcome set for pelvic girdle pain can address this issue. As a first step in developing a core outcome set, it is essential to systematically examine the outcomes measured in existing studies. Objective The objective of this systematic review was to identify, examine and compare what outcomes are measured and reported, and how outcomes are measured, in intervention studies and systematic reviews of interventions for pelvic girdle pain and for lumbopelvic pain (which includes pelvic girdle pain). Methods We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, PEDro and Embase from inception to the 11th May 2018. Two reviewers independently selected studies by title/abstract and by full text screening. Disagreement was resolved through discussion. Outcomes reported and their outcome measurement instruments were extracted and recorded by two reviewers independently. We assessed the quality of reporting with two independent reviewers. The outcomes were grouped into core domains using the OMERACT filter 2.0 framework. Results A total of 107 studies were included, including 33 studies on pelvic girdle pain and 74 studies on lumbopelvic pain. Forty-six outcomes were reported across all studies, with the highest amount (26/46) in the ‘life impact’ domain. ‘Pain’ was the most commonly reported outcome in both pelvic girdle pain and lumbopelvic pain studies. Studies used different instruments to measure the same outcomes, particularly for the outcomes pain, function, disability and quality of life. Conclusions A wide variety of outcomes and outcome measurements are used in studies on pelvic girdle pain and lumbopelvic pain. The findings of this review will be included in a Delphi survey to reach consensus on a pelvic girdle pain - core outcome set. This core outcome set will allow for more effective comparison between future studies on pelvic girdle pain, allowing for more effective translation of findings to clinical practice.

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.

scholarly journals Development of a Core Outcome Set for Effectiveness Studies of Breech Birth at Term (Breech-COS)- An International Multi-Stakeholder Delphi Study: Study Protocol

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shawn Walker ◽  
Tisha Dasgupta ◽  
Andrew Shennan ◽  
Jane Sandall ◽  
Catey Bunce ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Delphi Survey ◽  
Neonatal Outcomes ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Breech Birth ◽  
Effectiveness Studies

Abstract Background: Women pregnant with a breech-presenting foetus at term are at increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. The most common intervention used to improve neonatal outcomes is planned delivery by caesarean section. But this is not always possible, and some women prefer to plan a vaginal birth. A number of providers have proposed alternative interventions, such as delivery protocols or specialist teams, but heterogeneity in reported outcomes and their measurements prevents meaningful comparisons. The aim of this paper is to present a protocol for a study to develop a Breech Core Outcome Set (Breech-COS) for studies evaluating the effectiveness of interventions to improve outcomes associated with term breech birth.Methods: The development of a Breech-COS includes three phases. First, a systematic literature review will be conducted to identify outcomes previously used in effectiveness studies of breech birth at term. A focus group discussion will be conducted with the study’s pre-established Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) group, to enable service user perspectives on the results of literature review to influence the design of Delphi survey instrument. Second, an international Delphi survey will be conducted to prioritize outcomes for inclusion in the Breech-COS from the point of view of key stakeholders, including perinatal care providers and families who have experienced a term breech pregnancy. Finally, a consensus meeting will be held with stakeholders to ratify the Breech-COS and disseminate findings for application in future effectiveness studies.Discussion: The expectation is that the Breech-COS will always be collected in all clinical trials, audits of practice and other forms of observation research that concern breech birth at term, along with other outcomes of interest. This will facilitate comparing, contrasting and combining studies with the ultimate goal of improved maternal and neonatal outcomes. Trial registration: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET): #1749; Core Outcomes in Women’s and Newborn Health (CROWN) Initiative.

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 evaluative research into paediatric cerebral visual impairment (CVI), in the UK and Eire

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. e051014
Author(s):  
Anna Pease ◽  
Trudy Goodenough ◽  
Cath Borwick ◽  
Rose Watanabe ◽  
Christopher Morris ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Visual Impairment ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Consensus Meeting ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Cerebral Visual Impairment

ObjectivesCerebral visual impairment (CVI) comprises a heterogeneous group of brain-related vision problems. A core outcome set (COS) represents the most important condition-specific outcomes according to patients, carers, professionals and researchers. We aimed to produce a COS for studies evaluating interventions for children with CVI, to increase the relevance of research for families and professionals and thereby to improve outcomes for affected children.DesignWe used methods recommended by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative. These included a proportionate literature review of outcomes used in previous studies; qualitative interviews with children and families; a two-round Delphi survey involving parents, children and professionals and a consensus meeting to ratify the most important outcomes.SettingTelephone interviews and online Delphi surveys of participants who all lived in UK or Eire.ParticipantsEighteen parents and six young people were interviewed. Delphi participants (n=80 did both rounds) included professionals working with children who have CVI (teachers, orthoptists, ophthalmologists, optometrists, qualified teachers for visually impaired, family members (parents and siblings) and affected children.ResultsThe literature review included 13 studies yielding 37 outcomes. Qualitative interviews provided 22 outcomes. After combining and refining similar items, the first round contained 23 outcomes and the second 46. At the consensus meeting, 5 attendees recommended 27 outcomes for inclusion in the CVI COS, of which 15 were ratified as most important, including 4 related to vision; 1 to family well-being; 1 to adults around the child being informed about CVI and the rest to the child’s abilities to engage with people and surroundings.ConclusionsGood engagement from participants led to the development of a COS. Future research will be useful to identify the best ways to measure COS items and potentially to update this COS as more interventions for CVI are developed.Trial registration numberISRCTN13762177.

scholarly journals Treatment of Chronic Pulmonary Heart Disease with Traditional Chinese Medicine: A Protocol for the Development of a Core Outcome Set (COS-TCM-CPHD)

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Bohan Niu ◽  
Mingyan Zhang ◽  
Hui Zi Chua ◽  
Kai Li ◽  
Junhua Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Heart Disease ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Stakeholder Groups ◽  
Pulmonary Heart Disease ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Chronic Pulmonary Heart Disease

Background. Treatment of chronic pulmonary heart disease (CPHD), a common disease, has over recent years been studied using traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) due to many high-profile benefits. These can be evaluated by the measurement and analysis of related outcomes. Because of selective reporting bias and the heterogeneity of study outcomes, it is not possible to combine similar studies in a meta-analysis. Consequently, not only does the low quality of original studies fails to support evidence-based decision-making, but also the value of those clinical studies cannot be evaluated. To solve these problems, the development of a core outcome set for traditional Chinese medicines for the treatment of chronic pulmonary heart disease (COS-TCM-CPHD) is required. Methods. The development is conducted in five steps: (1) a library of outcomes through systematic review, the retrieval of libraries from two clinical trials registries, and semistructured interviews is established; (2) following data extraction and analysis of the library of outcomes, each outcome can be classified into seven outcome domains, including TCM disease, symptoms/signs, physical and chemical testing, quality of life, long-term prognosis, economic evaluation, and adverse events to form a preliminary list of outcomes; (3) stakeholder groups for participation are selected; (4) stakeholder groups are invited to participate in two rounds of Delphi surveys to score outcomes and provide additional outcomes; (5) a consensus meeting is organized to produce the final COS-TCM-CPHD. Discussion. The protocol is consistent with the guidelines defined by the Core Outcome Set-STAndardised Protocol (COS-STAP) statement and formulated with reference to Core Outcome Set-STAndards for development (COS-STAD). The COS-TCM-CPHD will improve the consistency of study reports and reduce publication bias, thereby improving the quality of TCM clinical trials and decision-making for evidence-based medicine. The study has been registered on the COMET website (http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1677).

scholarly journals A Core Outcome Set for Nonpharmacological Community-Based Interventions for People Living With Dementia at Home: A Systematic Review of Outcome Measurement Instruments

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J E Harding ◽  
Hazel Morbey ◽  
Faraz Ahmed ◽  
Carol Opdebeeck ◽  
Ruth Elvish ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measurement ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Face Validity ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Community Based Interventions ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Key Stakeholders ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Dementia Research

Abstract Background and Objectives It is questionable whether existing outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) in dementia research reflect what key stakeholders’ value. We attained consensus from more than 300 key stakeholders, including people living with dementia, and identified 13 core outcome items for use in nonpharmacological and community-based interventions for people with dementia living at home. In this systematic review, we review OMIs that have previously been used in dementia care research to determine how, or even if, the 13 core outcome items can be measured. Research Design and Methods We extracted self-reported OMIs from trials, reviews, and reports of instrument development. Searches were undertaken in the ALOIS database, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, SocINDEX, and COSMIN databases. We aimed to assess the psychometric properties of OMI items for face validity with the core outcome items, content validity, internal consistency, and responsiveness. We held a coresearch workshop involving people living with dementia and care partners in order to ratify the findings. Results In total 347 OMIs were located from 354 sources. Of these, 76 OMIs met the inclusion criteria. No OMIs were deemed to have sufficient face validity for the core outcome set (COS) items, and no OMIs proceeded to further assessment. The “best” available OMI is the Engagement and Independence in Dementia Questionnaire. Discussion and Implications This study provides a practical resource for those designing dementia research trials. Being able to measure the COS items would herald a paradigm shift for dementia research, be responsive to what key stakeholders value and enhance the ability to make comparisons.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document