Search

Objectives: To assess whether a core outcome set is required for studies evaluating the effectiveness of interventions for non-respiratory sleep disturbances in children with neurodisabilities., Design: Survey of outcome measures used in primary studies identified by a systematic review., Data Sources: ASSIA, CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Conference Proceedings Citation Index, CINAHL, DARE, Embase, HMIC, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index, Social Care Online, Social Policy & Practice, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the UK Clinical Trials Gateway were searched up to February 2017., Eligibility Criteria: Studies evaluating pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions for children (≤18 years old) with a neurodisability and experiencing non-respiratory sleep disturbance., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Outcome measures were listed from each study and categorised into domains., Results: Thirty-nine studies assessed five core outcome areas: child sleep, other child outcomes, parent outcomes, adverse events and process measures. There were 54 different measures of child sleep across five domains: global measures; sleep initiation; maintenance; scheduling; and other outcomes. Fifteen non-pharmacological (58%) and four pharmacological studies (31%) reported child outcomes other than sleep using 29 different measures.One pharmacological and 14 non-pharmacological (54%) studies reported parent outcomes (17 different measures). Eleven melatonin studies (85%) recorded adverse events, with variation in how data were collected and reported. One non-pharmacological study reported an explicit method of collecting on adverse events. Several process measures were reported, related to adherence, feasibility of delivery, acceptability and experiences of receiving the intervention., Conclusions: There is a lack of consistency between studies in the outcome measures used to assess the effectiveness of interventions for non-respiratory sleep disturbances in children with neurodisabilities. A minimum core outcome set, with international consensus, should be developed in consultation with parents, children and young people, and those involved in supporting families., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42016034067., Competing Interests: Competing interests: BB and MT were authors of studies included in the review, but were not involved in data extraction or quality assessment of these studies. CM is a member of the NIHR HTA & EME Editorial Board. CH is a member of HTA Commissioning Board, (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: In our study we explored the need to define a core outcome set for primary frozen shoulder., Methods: We investigated the outcomes used by studies included in a systematic review of the management of primary frozen shoulder; surveyed which primary outcome measures health care professionals considered important; and re-examined papers previously obtained for a systematic review of patients' views of interventions for frozen shoulder to investigate their views on outcomes., Results: Thirty-one studies investigated the outcomes range of movement (28 studies), pain (22), function and disability (22), adverse events (13), quality of life (7) and other outcomes (5). Many different types of pain and ranges of movement were measured. Function and disability was measured using fifteen instruments, the content of which varied considerably. Function and disability, pain and range of movement (132, 108 and 104 respondents, respectively) were most often cited by health care professionals as the primary outcome measure that should be used. Searches identified one paper that included patients' views. Outcomes of importance to patients were pain at night, general pain, reduced mobility (resulting in modification of activities) and the emotional impact of frozen shoulder., Conclusions: We identified a diverse range of outcomes that have been used or are considered to be important. The development of a core outcome set would improve the design and reporting of studies and availability of data for evidence synthesis. Methods used to develop a core outcome set should be robust, transparent and reflect the views of all stakeholders.

Background: Frozen shoulder is condition in which movement of the shoulder becomes restricted. It can be described as either primary (idiopathic) whereby the aetiology is unknown, or secondary, when it can be attributed to another cause. It is commonly a self-limiting condition, of approximately 1 to 3 years' duration, though incomplete resolution can occur., Objectives: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments for primary frozen shoulder, identify the most appropriate intervention by stage of condition and highlight any gaps in the evidence., Data Sources: A systematic review was conducted. Nineteen databases and other sources including the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Science Citation Index, BIOSIS Previews and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) were searched up to March 2010 and EMBASE and MEDLINE up to January 2011, without language restrictions. MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched in June 2010 for studies of patients' views about treatment., Review Methods: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating physical therapies, arthrographic distension, steroid injection, sodium hyaluronate injection, manipulation under anaesthesia, capsular release or watchful waiting, alone or in combination were eligible for inclusion. Patients with primary frozen shoulder (with or without diabetes) were included. Quasi-experimental studies were included in the absence of RCTs and case series for manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA) and capsular release only. Full economic evaluations meeting the intervention and population inclusion criteria of the clinical review were included. Two researchers independently screened studies for relevance based on the inclusion criteria. One reviewer extracted data and assessed study quality; this was checked by a second reviewer. The main outcomes of interest were pain, range of movement, function and disability, quality of life and adverse events. The analysis comprised a narrative synthesis and pair-wise meta-analysis. A mixed-treatment comparison (MTC) was also undertaken. An economic decision model was intended, but was found to be implausible because of a lack of available evidence. Resource use was estimated from clinical advisors and combined with quality-adjusted life-years obtained through mapping to present tentative cost-effectiveness results., Results: Thirty-one clinical effectiveness studies and one economic evaluation were included. The clinical effectiveness studies evaluated steroid injection, sodium hyaluronate, supervised neglect, physical therapy (mainly physiotherapy), acupuncture, MUA, distension and capsular release. Many of the studies identified were at high risk of bias. Because of variation in the interventions and comparators few studies could be pooled in a meta-analysis. Based on single RCTs, and for some outcomes only, short-wave diathermy may be more effective than home exercise. High-grade mobilisation may be more effective than low-grade mobilisation in a population in which most patients have already had treatment. Data from two RCTs showed that there may be benefit from adding a single intra-articular steroid injection to home exercise in patients with frozen shoulder of < 6 months' duration. The same two trials showed that there may be benefit from adding physiotherapy (including mobilisation) to a single steroid injection. Based on a network of nine studies the MTC found that steroid combined with physiotherapy was the only treatment showing a statistically and clinically significant beneficial treatment effect compared with placebo for short-term pain (standardised mean difference -1.58, 95% credible interval -2.96 to -0.42). This analysis was based on only a subset of the evidence, which may explain why the findings are only partly supportive of the main analysis. No studies of patients' views about the treatments were identified. Average costs ranged from £36.16 for unguided steroid injections to £2204 for capsular release. The findings of the mapping suggest a positive relationship between outcome and European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) score: a decreasing visual analogue scale score (less pain) was accompanied by an increasing (better) EQ-5D score. The one published economic evaluation suggested that low-grade mobilisation may be more cost-effective than high-grade mobilisation. Our tentative cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that steroid alone may be more cost-effective than steroid plus physiotherapy or physiotherapy alone. These results are very uncertain., Limitations: The key limitation was the lack of data available. It was not possible to undertake the planned synthesis exploring the influence of stage of frozen shoulder or the presence of diabetes on treatment effect. As a result of study diversity and poor reporting of outcome data there were few instances where the planned quantitative synthesis was possible or appropriate. Most of the included studies had a small number of participants and may have been underpowered. The lack of available data made the development of a decision-analytic model implausible. We found little evidence on treatment related to stage of condition, treatment pathways, the impact on quality of life, associated resource use and no information on utilities. Without making a number of questionable assumptions modelling was not possible., Conclusions: There was limited clinical evidence on the effectiveness of treatments for primary frozen shoulder. The economic evidence was so limited that no conclusions can be made about the cost-effectiveness of the different treatments. High-quality primary research is required.

Objectives: To assess the clinical effectiveness of treatments for childhood retinoblastoma., Data Sources: Electronic databases were searched from inception to April 2004., Review Methods: Studies of participants diagnosed with childhood retinoblastoma, any interventions and all clinical outcomes were eligible for inclusion. Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials and cohort studies with clear comparisons between treatment groups were included. Methodological quality was assessed. A narrative synthesis was conducted. Where possible, studies assessing common interventions were grouped together, with prospective and retrospective studies grouped separately. Emphasis was placed on prospective studies., Results: Thirty-one individual studies, from 42 publications, were included in the review. Apart from one non-randomised controlled trial, only comparative studies of observational design were available for any of the treatments. Four of the included studies were prospective and the remaining 27 were retrospective. Most of the studies were of radiotherapy or chemotherapy, with few studies available on enucleation or focal treatments such as brachytherapy, photocoagulation, cryotherapy and thermotherapy. The methodological quality was generally poor, with a high risk of bias in all included studies. The main problems were in relation to how treatment was allocated and lack of consideration of potentially confounding factors, such as initial disease severity, in the study design and data analysis. The evidence base for effectiveness of treatments for childhood retinoblastoma is extremely limited. Owing to the considerable limitations of the evidence identified, it was not possible to make meaningful and robust conclusions about the relative effectiveness of different treatment approaches for childhood retinoblastoma., Conclusions: In the authors' opinion, the evidence base for the effectiveness of treatments for childhood retinoblastoma is not sufficiently robust to provide clear guidance for clinical practice. Ideally, good-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of different treatment options for childhood retinoblastoma are required. Research is required on all the treatments currently used for this condition. Where RCTs are not feasible, for ethical or practical reasons, only high-quality, prospective, non-randomised studies should be given consideration, owing to the generally higher risk of bias in retrospective studies. To reduce the risk of confounding due to allocation by clinical indication, studies should compare patients with similar disease severity rather than compare patients of mixed disease severities. Standardised outcomes should be agreed for use in studies assessing the effectiveness of treatment. These outcomes should encompass potential important adverse effects of treatment such as loss of visual acuity and cosmetic outcome, as well as beneficial effects.