Search

Abstract Autologous stem‐cell transplantation (ASCT) is standard therapy for relapsed/refractory large B‐cell lymphoma (R/R LBCL), but many patients are either ineligible or unable to receive it. This retrospective study characterized outcomes in R/R LBCL, delineated by eligibility for, and receipt of, ASCT. Median progression‐free survival (PFS) and event‐free survival (EFS) for patients undergoing ASCT were 35.2 and 31.6 months (overall survival [OS] not reached). Median PFS, EFS, and OS were 4.3, 4.3, and 6.9 months for ineligible patients, and 2.7, 2.6, and 9.4 months for those eligible for but unable to receive ASCT. This highlights an unmet need for alternative therapies in patients unable to receive ASCT.

Understanding and modeling the trajectories of change in broad level interactions in food-energy-water systems is incomplete when it is undertaken by researchers in isolation from those who live and work in the systems. For models and outcomes to have validity they need to be subjected to sustained development and iteration with stakeholders. This requires a paradigm shift in our thinking of stakeholder engagement from viewing such engagement as an isolated activity or part of the data collection methods to thinking of engagement as a process of knowledge generation. That process hinges on building relationships and building trust, and also sustaining these as long-term relationships through multiple elements of research design and execution. Using the case-study of a mid-size river basin we demonstrate a co-production of knowledge process for food-energy-water systems. The findings highlight the multiple and different ways in which knowledge co-production can be transacted in food-energy-water systems while also generating solutions to the use and re-use of water, energy, and nutrients at the landscape level.

Finding effective and practical solutions to climate change challenges in food-energy-water systems requires the integration of experts in local/regional social and biophysical systems, and these are commonly local community members. In the Magic Valley, Idaho we investigated the tensions between water used for energy and to irrigate cropland for food production, as well as, strategies for protecting water quantity and quality. Incorporating stakeholders with long-standing expertise allows the development of solutions to these challenges that are locally and regionally practical and consistent with the values of the social system into which they are incorporated. We describe a stakeholder-driven process used in a case study in the Magic Valley that incorporated local experts to develop plausible future scenarios, identify drivers of change, vet impact and hydrological modeling and map areas of change. The process described allowed stakeholders to envision alternative futures in their region, leading to development of enhanced context and place-based solutions and an anticipated time line for adoption of those solutions. The solutions developed by the stakeholders have been applied across many geographic areas. The described process can also be applied across a broad range of geographic levels. Most importantly, stakeholders should be involved in anticipating solutions and solution timing to the differing challenges posed by each scenario.

Background The concept of core outcome sets (COS) has been introduced in China for about 10 years. In recent years, some Chinese researchers also committed to developing COS, though the majority of COS are ongoing. However, there were more than 500 published COS for research in the COMET database by 2020. The extent of availability of COS for the top 25 diseases with the highest burden in China is unknown. In addition, the uptake of COS in clinical trials for these diseases is unknown, along with the knowledge, perceptions, and views of the clinical trialist community in China on the use of COS in relation to choosing outcomes for their research. Methods The main burden of disease in China will be identified. Then we will search the COMET database to identify if there are ongoing or completed relevant COS research A COS published since 2012 would be preferred to one published before 2012 for the analysis of COS uptake if one meets the eligibility criteria. We will extract scopes of published eligible COS, including condition, population, interventions, and core outcomes. Then we will search the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry using disease names for each disease that has a published COS. We will assess the overlap in scope between clinical trials and COS. Then we will conduct an online survey and semi-structured interviews to identify the knowledge and perceptions of COS among primary investigators of included clinical trials. Discussion This research will fill in gaps between COS and the burden of disease in China. Understanding clinical trialists’knowledge and perceptions of COS may help dissemination and application of COS in the future. Trial registration This research is registered in Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness: https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2563.

Abstract Background Healthcare system data (HSD) are increasingly used in clinical trials, augmenting or replacing traditional methods of collecting outcome data. This study, PRIMORANT, set out to identify, in the UK context, issues to be considered before the decision to use HSD for outcome data in a clinical trial is finalised, a methodological question prioritised by the clinical trials community. Methods The PRIMORANT study had three phases. First, an initial workshop was held to scope the issues faced by trialists when considering whether to use HSDs for trial outcomes. Second, a consultation exercise was undertaken with clinical trials unit (CTU) staff, trialists, methodologists, clinicians, funding panels and data providers. Third, a final discussion workshop was held, at which the results of the consultation were fed back, case studies presented, and issues considered in small breakout groups. Results Key topics included in the consultation process were the validity of outcome data, timeliness of data capture, internal pilots, data-sharing, practical issues, and decision-making. A majority of consultation respondents (n = 78, 95%) considered the development of guidance for trialists to be feasible. Guidance was developed following the discussion workshop, for the five broad areas of terminology, feasibility, internal pilots, onward data sharing, and data archiving. Conclusions We provide guidance to inform decisions about whether or not to use HSDs for outcomes, and if so, to assist trialists in working with registries and other HSD providers to improve the design and delivery of trials.

Abstract Background Development and use of core outcome set(s) (COS) in research can reduce research wastage by ensuring that a minimum set of outcomes are always reported on. Neonatal morbidity and mortality are a big burden in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Research is continuously being undertaken to reduce this burden. Currently, there is no COS for neonatal research in LMICs but there exists one for neonatal research in high-income countries (HICs). Objectives To determine outcomes that are useful for neonatal care in Kenya to inform whether an existing COS should be adopted or adapted. To assess the feasibility of a routine data collection system to collect data of the agreed-on COS. Methods A review of existing literature on neonatal research in LMICs followed by a qualitative study of key stakeholders in neonatal care. To explore whether to adapt or adopt, in two hospitals, two focus group discussions with 6–8 parents/caregivers will be undertaken (one each in two hospitals). Key informant interviews will also be conducted with 6 health care providers in each of the hospitals. At the policy-making level, we will conduct 10 key informant interviews. Qualitative data will be analyzed thematically. A consensus meeting will be undertaken with key stakeholders, who will be presented with an overview of the COS developed for HICs, key findings from the literature, and the qualitative study to determine context-appropriate COS. The agreed-on outcomes will be counterchecked against the case records in the two hospitals. The feasibility of collecting the outcomes on a routine electronic research database, the Clinical Information Network that collects standardized data at admission and discharge, will be explored. The congruence (or not) of the outcomes will be documented and be used to enrich the discussion and provide a snapshot of the feasibility of the health information system to collect routine data on the COS. Conclusions A COS for use in neonatal care in Kenya will help enhance outcome measurements and reporting not just in research but also in routine practice. This will enhance the comparability of interventions in trials and routine settings leading to reduced research wastage and likely improved quality of care. Additionally, the methodology used for this work can be adopted in other settings as a means of adopting or adapting an existing COS.

Background The concept of core outcome sets (COS) has been introduced in China for about 10 years. In recent years, some Chinese researchers also committed to developing COS, though the majority of COS are ongoing. However, there were more than 500 published COS for research in the COMET database by 2020. The extent of availability of COS for the top 25 diseases with the highest burden in China is unknown. In addition, the uptake of COS in clinical trials for these diseases is unknown, along with the knowledge, perceptions, and views of the clinical trialist community in China on the use of COS in relation to choosing outcomes for their research. Methods The main burden of disease in China will be identified. Then we will search the COMET database to identify if there are ongoing or completed relevant COS research A COS published since 2012 would be preferred to one published before 2012 for the analysis of COS uptake if one meets the eligibility criteria. We will extract scopes of published eligible COS, including condition, population, interventions, and core outcomes. Then we will search the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry using disease names for each disease that has a published COS. We will assess the overlap in scope between clinical trials and COS. Then we will conduct an online survey and semi-structured interviews to identify the knowledge and perceptions of COS among primary investigators of included clinical trials. Discussion This research will fill in gaps between COS and the burden of disease in China. Understanding clinical trialists’knowledge and perceptions of COS may help dissemination and application of COS in the future. Trial registration This research is registered in Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness: https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2563.

Core outcome set (COS) development and use enhances comparability of research findings. It may also enhance the translation of research into practice and reduce research waste. However, there is limited involvement of stakeholders from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in COS development and use. In this study, we explored the experiences of researchers in COS development projects who included stakeholders from LMICs. Online survey conducted in English of 70 COS developers from HICs who had included LMIC stakeholders in the process of developing a COS, published before the end of 2019. Respondents were identified from the COMET database and sent a link to the survey via a personalised email. Quantitative data were analysed using simple descriptive statistics. Qualitative data analysis was based on qualitative content analysis. There were 37 respondents yielding a 53% overall response rate. Analysis was limited to the responses related to 29 COS developed in the years 2015 to 2019, to reduce the potential for recall bias for earlier COS. Most respondents 20/29 (69%) were researchers. Determining 'what to measure' was reported as the most common stage of inclusion of LMIC stakeholders. Respondents cited (24/29, 83%) their ongoing collaborations with LMIC stakeholders such as clinicians or researchers as their main rationale for including LMICs stakeholders and reported that translation of the Delphi into languages other than English may be useful to enhance wider stakeholder participation. Involvement of LMIC stakeholders only in the later stages of COS development, lack of adequate resources to support their involvement, and lack of networks and contacts were thought to limit fuller participation of stakeholders from LMICs. To improve the involvement of LMIC stakeholders in COS development and use, COS developers need to raise awareness on the utility of COS. The need for and feasibility of translation into multiple languages warrants further discussion.

Objectives The Bronchiolitis Endotracheal Surfactant Study (BESS) is a randomised controlled trial to determine the efficacy of endo-tracheal surfactant therapy for critically ill infants with bronchiolitis. To explore acceptability of BESS, including approach to consent within a limited time frame, we explored parent and staff experiences of trial involvement in the first two bronchiolitis seasons to inform subsequent trial conduct.Design A mixed-method embedded study involving a site staff survey, questionnaires and interviews with parents approached about BESS.Setting Fourteen UK paediatric intensive care units.Participants Of the 179 parents of children approached to take part in BESS, 75 parents (of 69 children) took part in the embedded study. Of these, 55/69 (78%) completed a questionnaire, and 15/69 (21%) were interviewed. Thirty-eight staff completed a questionnaire.Results Parents and staff found the trial acceptable. All constructs of the Adapted Theoretical Framework of Acceptability were met. Parents viewed surfactant as being low risk and hoped their child’s participation would help others in the future. Although parents supported research without prior consent in studies of time critical interventions, they believed there was sufficient time to consider this trial. Parents recommended that prospective informed consent should continue to be sought for BESS. Many felt that the time between the consent process and intervention being administered took too long and should be ‘streamlined’ to avoid delays in administration of trial interventions. Staff described how the training and trial processes worked well, yet patients were missed due to lack of staff to deliver the intervention, particularly at weekends.Conclusion Parents and staff supported BESS trial and highlighted aspects of the protocol, which should be refined, including a streamlined informed consent process. Findings will be useful to inform proportionate approaches to consent in future paediatric trials where there is a short timeframe for consent discussions.Trial registration number ISRCTN11746266.

Introduction The Core Outcome Measures for Improving Care (COM-IC) project aims to deliver practical recommendations on the selection and implementation of a suite of core outcomes to measure the effectiveness of interventions for dementia care.Methods and analysis COM-IC embeds a participatory action approach to using the Alignment–Harmonisation–Results framework for measuring dementia care in Australia. Using this framework, suitable core outcome measures will be identified, analysed, implemented and audited. The methods for analysing each stage will be codesigned with stakeholders, through the conduit of a Stakeholder Reference Group including people living with dementia, formal and informal carers, aged care industry representatives, researchers, clinicians and policy actors. The codesigned evaluation methods consider two key factors: feasibility and acceptability. These considerations will be tested during a 6-month feasibility study embedded in aged care industry partner organisations.Ethics and dissemination COM-IC has received ethical approval from The University of Queensland (HREC 2021/HE001932). Results will be disseminated through networks established over the project, and in accordance with both the publication schedule and requests from the Stakeholder Reference Group. Full access to publications and reports will be made available through UQ eSpace (https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/), an open access repository hosted by The University of Queensland.

Background Core outcome sets (COS) represent agreed-upon sets of outcomes, which are the minimum that should be measured and reported in all trials in specific health areas. Use of COS can reduce outcome heterogeneity, selective outcome reporting, and research waste, and can facilitate evidence syntheses. Despite benefits of using COS, current use of COS in trials is low. COS use can be understood as a behaviour, in that it is something trialists do, or not do, adequately. The aim of this study is to identify strategies, informed by behaviour change theory, to increase COS use in trials. Methods The project will be conducted in two stages, informed by the behaviour change wheel (BCW). The BCW is a theoretically based framework that can be used to classify, identify, and develop behaviour change strategies. In Stage 1, barriers and enablers to COS use will be extracted from published studies that examined trialist’s use of COS. Barriers and facilitators will be mapped to the components of COM-B model (capability, opportunity, and motivation), which forms part of the BCW framework. Stage 2 will build on Stage 1 findings to identify and select intervention functions and behaviour change techniques to enhance COS use in trials. Discussion The findings of this study will provide an understanding of the behavioural factors that influence COS use in trials and what strategies might be used to target these factors to increase COS use in trials.

Background Systematic annual screening for sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy is established in several countries but is resource intensive. Personalised (individualised) medicine offers the opportunity to extend screening intervals for people at low risk of progression and to target high-risk groups. However, significant concern exists among all stakeholders around the safety of changing programmes. Evidence to guide decisions is limited, with, to the best of our knowledge, no randomised controlled trials to date. Objectives To develop an individualised approach to screening for sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy and test its acceptability, safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness. To estimate the changing incidence of patient-centred outcomes. Design A risk calculation engine; a randomised controlled trial, including a within-trial cost-effectiveness study; a qualitative acceptability study; and an observational epidemiological cohort study were developed. A patient and public group was involved in design and interpretation. Setting A screening programme in an English health district of around 450,000 people. Participants People with diabetes aged ≥ 12 years registered with primary care practices in Liverpool. Interventions The risk calculation engine estimated each participant’s risk at each visit of progression to screen-positive diabetic retinopathy (individualised intervention group) and allocated their next appointment at 6, 12 or 24 months (high, medium or low risk, respectively). Main outcome measures The randomised controlled trial primary outcome was attendance at first follow-up assessing the safety of individualised compared with usual screening. Secondary outcomes were overall attendance, rates of screen-positive and sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy, and measures of visual impairment. Cost-effectiveness outcomes were cost/quality-adjusted life year and incremental cost savings. Cohort study outcomes were rates of screen-positive diabetic retinopathy and sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy. Data sources Local screening programme (retinopathy), primary care (demographic, clinical) and hospital outcomes. Methods A seven-person patient and public involvement group was recruited. Data were linked into a purpose-built dynamic data warehouse. In the risk assessment, the risk calculation engine used patient-embedded covariate data, a continuous Markov model, 5-year historical local population data, and most recent individual demographic, retina and clinical data to predict risk of future progression to screen-positive. The randomised controlled trial was a masked, two-arm, parallel assignment, equivalence randomised controlled trial, with an independent trials unit and 1 : 1 allocation to individualised screening (6, 12 or 24 months, determined by risk calculation engine at each visit) or annual screening (control). Cost-effectiveness was assessed using a within-trial analysis over a 2-year time horizon, including NHS and societal perspectives and costs directly observed within the randomised controlled trial. Acceptability was assessed by purposive sampling of 60 people with diabetes and 21 healthcare professionals with semistructured interviews analysed thematically; this was a constant comparative method until saturation. The cohort was an 11-year retrospective/prospective screening population data set. Results In the randomised controlled trial, 4534 participants were randomised: 2097 out of 2265 in the individualised arm (92.6%) and 2224 out of 2269 in the control arm (98.0%) remained after withdrawals. Attendance rates at first follow-up were equivalent (individualised 83.6%, control 84.7%) (difference –1.0%, 95% confidence interval –3.2% to 1.2%). Sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy detection rates were non-inferior: individualised 1.4%, control 1.7% (difference –0.3%, 95% confidence interval –1.1% to 0.5%). In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the mean differences in complete-case quality-adjusted life years (EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, and Health Utilities Index Mark 3) did not significantly differ from zero. Incremental cost savings per person not including treatment costs were from the NHS perspective £17.34 (confidence interval £17.02 to £17.67) and the societal perspective £23.11 (confidence interval £22.73 to £23.53). In the individualised arm, 43.2% fewer screening appointments were required. In terms of acceptability, changing to variable intervals was acceptable for the majority of people with diabetes and health-care professionals. Annual screening was perceived as unsustainable and an inefficient use of resources. Many people with diabetes and healthcare professionals expressed concerns that 2-year screening intervals may detect referable eye disease too late and might have a negative effect on perceptions about the importance of attendance and diabetes care. The 6-month interval was perceived positively. Among people with dementia, there was considerable misunderstanding about eye-related appointments and care. In the cohort study, the numbers of participants (total 28,384) rose over the 11 years (2006/7, n = 6637; 2016/17, n = 14,864). Annual incidences ranged as follows: screen-positive 4.4–10.6%, due to diabetic retinopathy 2.3–4.6% and sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy 1.3–2.2%. The proportions of screen-positive fell steadily but sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy rates remained stable. Limitations Our findings apply to a single city-wide established English screening programme of mostly white people with diabetes. The cost-effectiveness analysis was over a short timeline for a long-standing disease; the study, however, was designed to test the safety and effectiveness of the screening regimen, not the cost-effectiveness of screening compared with no screening. Cohort data collection was partly retrospective: data were unavailable on people who had developed sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy or died prior to 2013. Conclusions Our randomised controlled trial can reassure stakeholders involved in diabetes care that extended intervals and personalised screening is feasible, where data linkage is possible, and can be safely introduced in established screening programmes with potential cost savings compared with annual screening. Rates of screen-positive diabetic retinopathy and sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy are low and show consistent falls over time. Involvement of patients in research is crucial to success. Future work Future work could include external validation with other programmes followed by scale-up of individualised screening outside a research setting and economic modelling beyond the 2-year time horizon. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN87561257. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 11, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Plain language summary Diabetic retinopathy remains a leading cause of vision loss for people with diabetes. Annual photographic screening allows early detection and prompt treatment in many countries. A new approach is to vary how often this is undertaken at each visit, after calculating each person’s risk of progression; we have called this ‘individualised’ screening. We tested this variable-interval risk-based approach against annual screening in a randomised controlled trial of 4534 people in Liverpool. Six-, 12- or 24-month intervals represented high, medium and low risks, respectively, of becoming screen-positive by the next appointment. With our patient and public involvement group, we designed a computer-based risk-calculation system using personal information from screening, general practitioners and hospitals. Attendance rates at the next screening appointment were similar in the individualised (84%) and annual (control) (85%) groups. Similar amounts of sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy were detected in the two arms (1.4% individualised, 1.7% control), with 43% fewer visits. In this study in a single geographical region, savings estimated to accrue to the NHS per person over 2 years were £17.34 and £23.11 for wider society, but estimates did not include treatment costs. During interviews, 60 people with diabetes and 21 healthcare professionals said that individualised screening would be acceptable because of increasing rates of diabetes and the chance to target high-risk people. Patients had anxieties about the reliability of the risk-calculation and restricting access, requesting opportunities for earlier screening if risks changed. Varying screening intervals based on a person’s own risk of progression appears feasible and safe. Low-risk people would be spared unnecessary appointments. Introducing an individualised approach could now move to wider testing and validation in other UK and international settings. The trial only ran for 2 years and was in a long-established programme with low rates of disease, so monitoring of attendance and retinopathy rates should be included as part of wider testing. Scientific summary Background Diabetic retinopathy remains the most common cause of visual impairment in working populations worldwide. Systematic annual screening to detect and treat sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR) is established in several countries including the United Kingdom (UK) and has greatly improved the detection of treatable disease. With the rapid increase in the prevalence of diabetes, new approaches to screening are required. Risk stratification, personalised (individualised) medicine, and clinical bioinformatics offer opportunities to extend the screening interval for people at low risk of progression and to target those at high risk. However there is significant concern among people with diabetes, healthcare professionals and health commissioners in the UK around the safety and acceptability of changing an established and successful programme. To ensure that health care is available for all it is imperative that it is not only efficacious but cost-efficient, that is, it delivers care at an affordable cost for commissioners. Evidence to guide these decisions is very limited and there are no randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Much of the data on prevalence and incidence of diabetic retinopathy and progression to more severe stages of disease come from the 1980s to 1990s and before the introduction of systematic screening and improvements in diabetes and blood pressure control. Data on the current progression rates in screening populations are limited and are reported variably. We conducted a programme of quantitative and qualitative research to develop and test the acceptability, safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of an individualised approach to screening for STDR. To provide data for future planning of early detection programmes and the design of future research studies we designed a longitudinal observational cohort study of the population of people with diabetes in Liverpool. We aimed to investigate the prevalence and incidence of the stages in the natural history of diabetic retinopathy, namely screen-positive, sight-threatening and treatable disease, and visual impairment, all key patient-centred outcomes in the disease. Changes to the programme and their implications A number of changes to the programme occurred in the early years. A systematic review was published at around the time of the programme start. We used these data to design aspects of the study and conducted a literature review instead. Data for the cohort study proved not to be available on people who had died prior to programme start. We adopted a mixed retrospective and prospective analysis but this added some difficulty in interpreting the findings. In 2016 resources were repurposed from the cohort study to support recruitment of the RCT, which was behind schedule. The scope of the cohort study was narrowed to focus only on the data available from the screening programme, meaning that we were unable to complete data collection on the patient-centred outcomes after sight-threatening retinopathy had been confirmed, namely treatment and visual impairment. Recruitment of non-attenders proved beyond the resources available and was abandoned. Further research is needed to address these unanswered questions. Methods The programme included the development of a bespoke data warehouse, the development of a risk-calculation engine, a RCT, a within-trial cost-effectiveness study, a qualitative study of acceptability, and an observational cohort study. We recruited and fully embedded a seven-person patient and public involvement group which was maintained throughout the programme. The setting was the screening programme of a single English health district (clinical commissioning group). All people with diabetes aged 12 years and over registered with general practices in the Liverpool city area were invited by letter to participate in the research programme. Consent was through an opt-out process. A purpose-built dynamic data warehouse was developed to support all aspects of the programme including bespoke processes addressing inconsistency in routinely collected data, multiple data platforms and lack of technical manuals. Data on eligible participants were sourced from primary care (demographic, clinical), Liverpool Diabetes Eye Screening Programme (retinopathy) and hospital outcomes (true screen-positive, STDR). Data were cross referenced against opt-out records before further use within the programme. A risk-calculation engine was developed for the assessment of individual risk of progressing to screen-positive using patient-focused covariate selection, a continuous-time Markov model, 5-year historical local population data, and the most recent individual demographic, retina and clinical data. The risk-calculation engine was linked to the data warehouse. The Patient and Public Involvement group determined the risk criterion of

Background: Core outcome sets (COS) represent agreed-upon minimum outcomes that should be reported in all studies in a given topic area. Cochrane reviews are considered among the most rigorously conducted systematic reviews (SRs). In 2019, seven of the first 100 published Cochrane SRs (7%) cited a COS in relation to choosing outcomes. A relevant COS existed but was not mentioned (or cited) for 27 of the remaining 93 SRs (29%). Among Cochrane Review Group editors surveyed in 2019, 86% felt that COS should definitely/possibly be used in Cochrane SRs. As of September 2019, the Cochrane Handbook recommends that SR teams consult resources that host relevant COS when choosing outcomes for the SR. Objectives: (1) Examine the extent to which authors are currently considering COS to inform outcome choice in Cochrane protocols and completed SRs. (2) Understand author barriers and facilitators of using COS in Cochrane protocols and completed SRs. Methods: We will examine the extent to which all Cochrane SRs published in the last 3 months of 2022 and all Cochrane protocols published in 2022: (a) cited a COS, (b) searched for COS, and (c) reported outcome inconsistency among included studies and/or noted the need for COS. One investigator will extract information from SRs and protocols; a second extractor will verify all information, discussing discrepancies to achieve consensus. Using Jisc Online Surveys®, we will conduct an online survey of authors of all the included completed SRs and protocols to assess author awareness of COS and identify barriers and facilitators of using COS to inform outcome choice. Discussion: This study will provide key information regarding uptake of COS by Cochrane SR authors and the barriers and facilitators that they experience. Our findings will inform approaches to increasing awareness and uptake of COS in future SRs, both within and beyond Cochrane.

Harmonization of outcomes to be measured in clinical trials can reduce research waste and enhance research translation. One of the ways to standardize measurement is through development and use of core outcome sets (COS). There is limited involvement of low- and middle-income country (LMIC) stakeholders in COS development and use. This study explores the level of awareness and experiences of LMIC stakeholders in the development and use of COS. We conducted an online survey of LMIC stakeholders. Three existing COS (pre-eclampsia, COVID-19, palliative care) were presented as case scenarios, and respondents asked to state (with reason(s)) if they would or would not use the COS if they were working in that area. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively while qualitative data were analyzed thematically. Of 81 respondents, 26 had COS experience, 9 of whom had been involved in COS development. Personal research interests and prevalence of disease are key drivers for initiation/participation in a given COS project. Most respondents would use the COS for pre-eclampsia (18/26) and COVID-19 (19/26) since the development process included key stakeholders. More than half of the respondents were not sure or would not use the palliative care COS as they felt stakeholder engagement was limited and it was developed for a different resource setting. Respondents reported that use of COS can be limited by (i) feasibility of measuring the outcomes in the COS, (ii) knowledge on the usefulness and availability of COS and (iii) lack of wide stakeholder engagement in the COS development process including having patients and carers in the development process. To ensure the development and use of COS in LMICs, collaborations are essential in awareness raising on COS utility, training, and COS development. The COS also needs to be made accessible in locally understandable languages and feasible to measure in LMICs.