Search

BackgroundThe most commonly used means to assess pain is by patient self-reported questionnaires. These questionnaires have traditionally been completed using paper-and-pencil, telephone, or in-person methods, which may limit the validity of the collected data. Electronic data capture methods represent a potential way to validly, reliably, and feasibly collect pain-related data from patients in both clinical and research settings. ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare electronic and conventional pain-related data collection methods with respect to pain score equivalence, data completeness, ease of use, efficiency, and acceptability between methods. MethodsWe searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from database inception until November 2019. We included all peer-reviewed studies that compared electronic (any modality) and conventional (paper-, telephone-, or in-person–based) data capture methods for patient-reported pain data on one of the following outcomes: pain score equivalence, data completeness, ease of use, efficiency, and acceptability. We used random effects models to combine score equivalence data across studies that reported correlations or measures of agreement between electronic and conventional pain assessment methods. ResultsA total of 53 unique studies were included in this systematic review, of which 21 were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the pain scores reported electronically were congruent with those reported using conventional modalities, with the majority of studies (36/44, 82%) that reported on pain scores demonstrating this relationship. The weighted summary correlation coefficient of pain score equivalence from our meta-analysis was 0.92 (95% CI 0.88-0.95). Studies on data completeness, patient- or provider-reported ease of use, and efficiency generally indicated that electronic data capture methods were equivalent or superior to conventional methods. Most (19/23, 83%) studies that directly surveyed patients reported that the electronic format was the preferred data collection method. ConclusionsElectronic pain-related data capture methods are comparable with conventional methods in terms of score equivalence, data completeness, ease, efficiency, and acceptability and, if the appropriate psychometric evaluations are in place, are a feasible means to collect pain data in clinical and research settings.

This article discusses the importance of including diverse perspectives in oral health research in Canada. It explains that excluding vulnerable populations from research planning can lead to misallocation of resources and unmet needs. The article suggests using the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships (PSPs) methodology, which involves collaboration between patients, caregivers, and clinicians to identify research priorities. Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in research projects has been found to improve patient confidence, satisfaction, and collaboration. The article highlights a UK-based oral health research project that successfully involved various stakeholders in identifying research priorities. The conclusion emphasizes the potential of PPI to shape Canadian oral health research and calls for further exploration of engaging vulnerable populations in research. [Extracted from the article]

Key Points: Question: What outcome-specific information should be included in a clinical trial protocol? Findings: Using an evidence-based and international consensus–based approach that applied methods from the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, 9 outcome-specific reporting items to be addressed in clinical trial protocols were identified. Meaning: Inclusion of these items in clinical trial protocols may enhance trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may help limit selective nonreporting of trial results. Importance: Complete information in a trial protocol regarding study outcomes is crucial for obtaining regulatory approvals, ensuring standardized trial conduct, reducing research waste, and providing transparency of methods to facilitate trial replication, critical appraisal, accurate reporting and interpretation of trial results, and knowledge synthesis. However, recommendations on what outcome-specific information should be included are diverse and inconsistent. To improve reporting practices promoting transparent and reproducible outcome selection, assessment, and analysis, a need for specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be addressed in clinical trial protocols exists. Objective: To develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for describing outcomes in clinical trial protocols through integration with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 statement. Evidence Review: Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement was developed by (1) generation and evaluation of candidate outcome reporting items via consultation with experts and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting trial outcomes (published within the 10 years prior to March 19, 2018) identified through expert solicitation, electronic database searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register, gray literature searches, and reference list searches; (2) a 3-round international Delphi voting process (November 2018-February 2019) completed by 124 panelists from 22 countries to rate and identify additional items; and (3) an in-person consensus meeting (April 9-10, 2019) attended by 25 panelists to identify essential items for outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in clinical trial protocols. Findings: The scoping review and consultation with experts identified 108 recommendations relevant to outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in trial protocols, the majority (72%) of which were not included in the SPIRIT 2013 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 56 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 19 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 9 items that elaborate on the SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the choice of primary, secondary, and other outcomes (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 12) prospectively in the trial protocol, defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups for the primary outcome used in the sample size calculations (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 14), describing the responsiveness of the study instruments used to assess the outcome and providing details on the outcome assessors (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 18a), and describing any planned methods to account for multiplicity relating to the analyses or interpretation of the results (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 20a). Conclusions and Relevance: This SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement provides 9 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all trial protocols and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results. This report, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT)–Outcomes 2022 extension, is a consensus statement on the standards for describing outcome-specific information in clinical trial protocols and contains recommendations to be integrated with the SPIRIT 2013 statement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key Points: Question: What outcome-specific information should be included in a published clinical trial report? Findings: Using an evidence-based and international consensus–based approach that applied methods from the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, 17 outcome-specific reporting items were identified. Meaning: Inclusion of these items in clinical trial reports may enhance trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may help limit selective nonreporting of trial results. Importance: Clinicians, patients, and policy makers rely on published results from clinical trials to help make evidence-informed decisions. To critically evaluate and use trial results, readers require complete and transparent information regarding what was planned, done, and found. Specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be reported in publications of clinical trials is needed to reduce deficient reporting practices that obscure issues with outcome selection, assessment, and analysis. Objective: To develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for reporting outcomes in clinical trial reports through integration with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement. Evidence Review: Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement was developed by (1) generation and evaluation of candidate outcome reporting items via consultation with experts and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting trial outcomes (published within the 10 years prior to March 19, 2018) identified through expert solicitation, electronic database searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register, gray literature searches, and reference list searches; (2) a 3-round international Delphi voting process (November 2018-February 2019) completed by 124 panelists from 22 countries to rate and identify additional items; and (3) an in-person consensus meeting (April 9-10, 2019) attended by 25 panelists to identify essential items for the reporting of outcomes in clinical trial reports. Findings: The scoping review and consultation with experts identified 128 recommendations relevant to reporting outcomes in trial reports, the majority (83%) of which were not included in the CONSORT 2010 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 64 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 30 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 17 items that elaborate on the CONSORT 2010 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the trial outcomes, including how and when they were assessed (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 6a), defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups during sample size calculations (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 7a), describing the statistical methods used to compare groups for the primary and secondary outcomes (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 12a), and describing the prespecified analyses and any outcome analyses not prespecified (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 18). Conclusions and Relevance: This CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement provides 17 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all published clinical trial reports and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results. This report, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)–Outcomes 2022 extension, is a consensus statement on the standards for reporting outcomes in clinical trial reports and contains recommendations to be integrated with the CONSORT 2010 statement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: Caregivers and clinicians of extremely preterm infants (born before 26 weeks' gestation) depend on long-term follow-up research to inform clinical decision-making. The completeness of outcome reporting in this area is unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the reporting of outcome definitions, selection, measurement and analysis in existing cohort studies that report on neurodevelopmental outcomes of children born extremely preterm.Methods: We evaluated the completeness of reporting of 'cognitive function' and 'cerebral palsy' in prospective cohort studies summarised in a meta-analysis that assessed the effect of preterm birth on school-age neurodevelopment. Outcome reporting was evaluated using a checklist of 55 items addressing outcome selection, definition, measurement, analysis, presentation and interpretation. Reporting frequencies were calculated to identify strengths and deficiencies in outcome descriptions.Results: All 14 included studies reported 'cognitive function' as an outcome; nine reported both 'cognitive function' and 'cerebral palsy' as outcomes. Studies reported between 26% and 46% of the 55 outcome reporting items assessed; results were similar for 'cognitive function' and 'cerebral palsy' (on average 34% and 33% of items reported, respectively). Key methodological concepts often omitted included the reporting of masking of outcome assessors, methods used to handle missing data and stakeholder involvement in outcome selection.Conclusions: The reporting of neurodevelopmental outcomes in cohort studies of infants born extremely preterm is variable and often incomplete. This may affect stakeholders' interpretation of study results, impair knowledge synthesis efforts and limit evidence-based decision-making for this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Introduction Patients, families and clinicians rely on published research to help inform treatment decisions. Without complete reporting of the outcomes studied, evidence-based clinical and policy decisions are limited and researchers cannot synthesise, replicate or build on existing research findings. To facilitate harmonised reporting of outcomes in published trial protocols and reports, the Instrument for reporting Planned Endpoints in Clinical Trials (InsPECT) is under development. As one of the initial steps in the development of InsPECT, a scoping review will identify and synthesise existing guidance on the reporting of trial outcomes. Methods and analysis We will apply methods based on the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methods manual. Documents that provide explicit guidance on trial outcome reporting will be searched for using: (1) an electronic bibliographic database search; (2) a grey literature search; and (3) solicitation of colleagues for guidance documents using a snowballing approach. Reference list screening will be performed for included documents. Search results will be divided between two trained reviewers who will complete title and abstract screening, full-text screening and data charting. Captured trial outcome reporting guidance will be compared with candidate InsPECT items to support, refute or refine InsPECT content and to assess the need for the development of additional items. Data analysis will explore common features of guidance and use quantitative measures (eg, frequencies) to characterise guidance and its sources. Ethics and dissemination A paper describing the review findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The results will be used to inform the InsPECT development process, helping to ensure that InsPECT provides an evidence-based tool for standardising trial outcome reporting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The need to include individuals with lived experience (ie, patients, family members, caregivers, researchers, and clinicians) in health research priority setting is becoming increasingly recognized. Social media-based methods represent a means to elicit and prioritize the research interests of such individuals, but there remains sparse methodological guidance on how best to conduct these social media efforts and assess their effectiveness.Objective: This review aims to identify social media strategies that enhance participation in priority-setting research, collate metrics assessing the effectiveness of social media campaigns, and summarize the benefits and limitations of social media-based research approaches, as well as recommendations for prospective campaigns.Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science from database inception until September 2021. Two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts, as well as full texts for studies that implemented and evaluated social media strategies aimed at engaging knowledge users in research priority setting. We subsequently conducted a thematic analysis to aggregate study data by related codes and themes.Results: A total of 23 papers reporting on 22 unique studies were included. These studies used Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, websites, video-calling platforms, emails, blogs, e-newsletters, and web-based forums to engage with health research stakeholders. Priority-setting engagement strategies included paid platform-based advertisements, email-embedded survey links, and question-and-answer forums. Dissemination techniques for priority-setting surveys included snowball sampling and the circulation of participation opportunities via internal members' and external organizations' social media platforms. Social media campaign effectiveness was directly assessed as number of clicks and impressions on posts, frequency of viewed posts, volume of comments and replies, number of times individuals searched for a campaign page, and number of times a hashtag was used. Campaign effectiveness was indirectly assessed as numbers of priority-setting survey responses and visits to external survey administration sites. Recommendations to enhance engagement included the use of social media group moderators, opportunities for peer-to-peer interaction, and the establishment of a consistent tone and brand.Conclusions: Social media may increase the speed and reach of priority-setting participation opportunities leading to the development of research agendas informed by patients, family caregivers, clinicians, and researchers. Perceived limitations of the approach include underrepresentation of certain demographic groups and addressing such limitations will enhance the inclusion of diverse research priority opinions in future research agendas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To develop a core outcome set (COS) for evaluating gastrostomy/gastrojejunostomy tube impact in children with neurological impairment.Method: Healthcare providers/researchers and caregivers rated the importance of candidate outcomes on a 5-point Likert scale. Outcomes rated 'somewhat important' or 'very important' by most (≥85%) respondents were voted on during a consensus meeting. Outcomes that reached consensus for inclusion were ratified and assigned to Outcome Measures in Rheumatology filter core areas. The COS was validated in a separate group of caregivers.Results: Twelve outcomes were selected from 120 candidate outcomes to form the COS. These included five 'Life Impact' outcomes, three 'Pathophysiological Manifestations' outcomes, two 'Resource Use' outcomes, one 'Growth and Development' outcome, and one 'Death' outcome.Interpretation: We developed an evidence-informed and consensus-based COS for use in studies of gastrostomy/gastrojejunostomy tube feeding in children with neurological impairment. Implementation of this COS will help reduce heterogeneity between studies and facilitate evidence-based decision-making.What the Paper Adds: Caregivers, healthcare providers, and researchers ranked the importance of 120 outcomes. Twelve core outcomes were identified as essential to measure in future clinical research studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]