Search

Chronic pain is a common, profoundly disabling and complex condition whose effects on identity may explain the distress experienced by those affected by it. This paper concerns a study exploring how the relationship with pain and sense of self evolved following participation in a pain management program (PMP). Participants were interviewed at three timepoints: before attending a PMP, 1 month after the PMP and 6 months after the PMP. To facilitate a deep experiential description of pain and its effects, interviews were guided by participant-generated drawings of pain and Self. Interviews and drawings were analyzed longitudinally using interpretative phenomenological analysis. The evolving experience of participants was outlined through different trajectory types. Here we describe the upward and positive trajectory of three female participants who were able to regain control over their lives. From a state of psychological stress where pain was represented as an aggressive and oppressive presence, participants' drawings, their narratives and indeed their lives, changed for the best. Pain stopped being the main feature, they were able to integrate it into their lives, make important changes and find a new balance. The results demonstrate the idiosyncratic nature of chronic pain and offer a nuanced account of its links to the lifeworld of those living with it.

Background Neonatal encephalopathy (NE) is a multi-organ condition potentially leading to death or long-term neurodisability. Therapeutic hypothermia is the standard treatment for NE; however, long-term impairments remain common. Studies of new treatments for NE often measure and report different outcomes. Core outcome sets (COSs), a minimum set of outcomes to be measured and reported in all studies for a condition, address this problem. This paper aimed to identify outcomes reported (primary, secondary, adverse events and other reported outcomes) in (1) randomised trials and (2) systematic reviews of randomised trials of interventions for the treatment of NE in the process of developing a COS for interventions for the treatment of NE.Methods We completed a systematic search for outcomes used to evaluate treatments for NE using MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Two reviewers screened all included articles independently. Outcomes were extracted verbatim, similar outcomes were grouped and outcome domains were developed.Results 386 outcomes were reported in 116 papers, from 85 studies. Outcomes were categorised into 18 domains. No outcome was reported by all studies, a single study reported 11 outcomes and it was not explicitly stated that outcomes had input from parents.Discussion Heterogeneity in reported outcomes means that synthesis of studies evaluating new treatments for NE remains difficult. A COS, that includes parental/family input, is needed to ensure consistency in measuring and reporting outcomes, and to enable comparison of randomised trials.

Introduction Selective fetal growth restriction (sFGR) in monochorionic twin pregnancy, defined as an estimated fetal weight (EFW) of one twin

Introduction Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. It is now apparent that some published RCTs contain false data and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs that have been conducted on a given topic. While it is usual to assess methodological features of the RCTs in the process of undertaking a systematic review, it is not usual to consider whether the RCTs contain false data. Studies containing false data therefore go unnoticed and contribute to systematic review conclusions. The INveStigating ProblEmatic Clinical Trials in Systematic Reviews (INSPECT-SR) project will develop a tool to assess the trustworthiness of RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare-related interventions.Methods and analysis The INSPECT-SR tool will be developed using expert consensus in combination with empirical evidence, over five stages: (1) a survey of experts to assemble a comprehensive list of checks for detecting problematic RCTs, (2) an evaluation of the feasibility and impact of applying the checks to systematic reviews, (3) a Delphi survey to determine which of the checks are supported by expert consensus, culminating in, (4) a consensus meeting to select checks to be included in a draft tool and to determine its format and (5) prospective testing of the draft tool in the production of new health systematic reviews, to allow refinement based on user feedback. We anticipate that the INSPECT-SR tool will help researchers to identify problematic studies and will help patients by protecting them from the influence of false data on their healthcare.Ethics and dissemination The University of Manchester ethics decision tool was used, and this returned the result that ethical approval was not required for this project (30 September 2022), which incorporates secondary research and surveys of professionals about subjects relating to their expertise. Informed consent will be obtained from all survey participants. All results will be published as open-access articles. The final tool will be made freely available.

Introduction Core outcome sets (COSs) are agreed outcomes (domains (subdomains) and instruments) that should be measured as a minimum in clinical trials or practice in certain diseases or clinical fields. Worldwide, the number of COSs is increasing and there might be conceptual overlaps of domains (subdomains) and instruments within disciplines. The aim of this scoping review is to map and to classify all outcomes identified with COS projects relating to skin diseases.Methods and analysis We will conduct a scoping review of outcomes of skin disease-related COS initiatives to identify all concepts and their definitions. We will search PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library. The search dates will be 1 January 2010 (the point at which Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) was established) to 1 January 2024. We will also review the COMET database and C3 website to identify parts of COSs (domains and/or instruments) that are being developed and published. This review will be supplemented by querying relevant stakeholders from COS organisations, dermatology organisations and patient organisations for additional COSs that were developed. The resulting long lists of outcomes will then be mapped into conceptually similar concepts.Ethics and dissemination This study was supported by departmental research funds from the Department of Dermatology at Northwestern University. An ethics committee review was waived since this protocol was done by staff researchers with no involvement of patient care. Conflicts of interests, if any, will be addressed by replacing participants with relevant conflicts or reassigning them. The results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals, social media posts and promotion by COS organisations.

Neonatal sepsis is a serious public health problem; however, there is substantial heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and reported in research evaluating the effectiveness of the treatments. Therefore, we aim to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for studies evaluating the effectiveness of treatments for neonatal sepsis. Since a systematic review of key outcomes from randomised trials of therapeutic interventions in neonatal sepsis was published recently, we will complement this with a qualitative systematic review of the key outcomes of neonatal sepsis identified by parents, other family members, parent representatives, healthcare providers, policymakers, and researchers. We will interpret the outcomes of both studies using a previously established framework. Stakeholders across three different groups i.e., (1) researchers, (2) healthcare providers, and (3) patients' parents/family members and parent representatives will rate the importance of the outcomes in an online Real-Time Delphi Survey. Afterwards, consensus meetings will be held to agree on the final COS through online discussions with key stakeholders. This COS is expected to minimize outcome heterogeneity in measurements and publications, improve comparability and synthesis, and decrease research waste.

Objective To compare the outcomes in published core outcome sets with the outcomes recommended in corresponding guidance documents from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), matched by health condition.Design Cross sectional analysis.Setting US and Europe.Population Sample of core outcome sets related to drugs, devices, and gene therapy that involved patients in the consensus process, published between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2019; and corresponding EMA and FDA guidance documents.Main outcome measures The extent of matches between outcomes included within core outcome sets and those recommended in corresponding EMA and FDA guidance documents were assessed. Matches were considered to be general (ie, non-specific) or specific (ie, exact). General matches were assessed to determine whether the core outcome set or guidance document outcome was narrower.Results Relevant guidance documents were found for for 38 (39%) of 98 eligible published core outcome sets. Among outcomes in core outcome sets, medians of 70% (interquartile range 48-86%) and 52% (33-77%) were matches with outcomes recommended in EMA and FDA documents, respectively. Medians of 46% (27-68%) and 26% (18-46%) were specific matches with outcomes in EMA and FDA documents, respectively. When outcomes were generally matched, the outcomes from core outcome sets were more frequently narrower than the regulatory outcomes (83% and 75% for EMA and FDA, respectively).Conclusion Greater adoption of, and reference to, core outcome sets in regulatory guidance documents can encourage clinical trialists, especially those in industry, to measure and report consistent and agreed outcomes and improve the quality of guidance. Given the overlap between outcomes in core outcome sets and regulatory guidance, and given that most core outcome sets now involve patients in the consensus process, these sets could serve as a useful resource for regulators when recommending outcomes for studies evaluating regulated products. Developers are encouraged to appraise recommended outcomes in salient regulatory documents when planning a core outcome set.

Abstract Background Problems continue to exist with the reporting quality and risk of bias in search methods and strategies in systematic reviews and related review types. Peer reviewers who are not familiar with what is required to transparently and fully report a search may not be prepared to review the search components of systematic reviews, nor may they know what is likely to introduce bias into a search. Librarians and information specialists, who have expertise in searching, may offer specialized knowledge that would help improve systematic review search reporting and lessen risk of bias, but they are underutilized as methodological peer reviewers. Methods This study will evaluate the effect of adding librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers on the quality of search reporting and risk of bias in systematic review searches. The study will be a pragmatic randomized controlled trial using 150 systematic review manuscripts submitted to BMJ and BMJ Open as the unit of randomization. Manuscripts that report on completed systematic reviews and related review types and have been sent for peer review are eligible. For each manuscript randomized to the intervention, a librarian/information specialist will be invited as an additional peer reviewer using standard practices for each journal. First revision manuscripts will be assessed in duplicate for reporting quality and risk of bias, using adherence to 4 items from PRISMA-S and assessors’ judgements on 4 signaling questions from ROBIS Domain 2, respectively. Identifying information from the manuscripts will be removed prior to assessment. Discussion The primary outcomes for this study are quality of reporting as indicated by differences in the proportion of adequately reported searches in first revision manuscripts between intervention and control groups and risk of bias as indicated by differences in the proportions of first revision manuscripts with high, low, and unclear bias. If the intervention demonstrates an effect on search reporting or bias, this may indicate a need for journal editors to work with librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers. Trial registration Open Science Framework. Registered on June 17, 2021, at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/W4CK2 .

Objectives Reporting of research for stroke-related visual impairment is inconsistent. The aim of this study was to define three core outcome sets (COS) and related core outcome measurements (COM) for central visual impairment, visual field loss and ocular motility disorders in stroke research.Design The consensus process consisted of an online three-round Delphi survey followed by a consensus meeting of key stakeholders.Setting UK-wide survey.Participants Stakeholders included orthoptists, occupational therapists, ophthalmologists, stroke survivors and COS users such as researchers, journal editors and guideline developers.Outcome measures For COS development, a list of potentially relevant visual outcomes was created after review of the literature and further grouped into outcome domains. For COM development, a list of potential instruments was created after review of the literature and quality appraised for reliability and validity.Results COS—119 potential outcomes extracted from published literature. Similar assessment outcomes were grouped into 24 outcome domains. Delphi process included 123 participants in round 1, 65 round 2, 51 round 3. Twelve participants attended the consensus meeting with recommended outcome domains for central visual impairment (visual acuity, functional vision, quality of life), visual field loss (visual fields, functional vision, quality of life) and ocular motility disorders (eye alignment, eye movements, functional vision, quality of life). COM—52 test options extracted from the COS outcomes and grouped into 16 domains. Thirteen participants attended the COM consensus meeting. Recommended instruments for measurement of these outcomes include; Logarithm of the Minimal Angle of Resolution visual acuity, cover test, cardinal position eye movement assessments, peripheral visual field perimetry, Visual Function Questionnaire-25.Conclusions COS and COM are defined for vision research for stroke survivors. Their use has potential to reduce heterogeneity in routine clinical practice and improve standardisation and accuracy of vision assessment. Future research is required to evaluate the use of these COS and COM.

Objective To compare results reporting and the presence of spin in COVID-19 study preprints with their finalised journal publications.Design Cross-sectional study.Setting International medical literature.Participants Preprints and final journal publications of 67 interventional and observational studies of COVID-19 treatment or prevention from the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register published between 1 March 2020 and 30 October 2020.Main outcome measures Study characteristics and discrepancies in (1) results reporting (number of outcomes, outcome descriptor, measure, metric, assessment time point, data reported, reported statistical significance of result, type of statistical analysis, subgroup analyses (if any), whether outcome was identified as primary or secondary) and (2) spin (reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results so they are viewed more favourably).Results Of 67 included studies, 23 (34%) had no discrepancies in results reporting between preprints and journal publications. Fifteen (22%) studies had at least one outcome that was included in the journal publication, but not the preprint; eight (12%) had at least one outcome that was reported in the preprint only. For outcomes that were reported in both preprints and journals, common discrepancies were differences in numerical values and statistical significance, additional statistical tests and subgroup analyses and longer follow-up times for outcome assessment in journal publications.At least one instance of spin occurred in both preprints and journals in 23/67 (34%) studies, the preprint only in 5 (7%), and the journal publications only in 2 (3%). Spin was removed between the preprint and journal publication in 5/67 (7%) studies; but added in 1/67 (1%) study.Conclusions The COVID-19 preprints and their subsequent journal publications were largely similar in reporting of study characteristics, outcomes and spin. All COVID-19 studies published as preprints and journal publications should be critically evaluated for discrepancies and spin.

Abstract Background Several hundred core outcome set (COS) projects have been systematically identified to date which, if adopted, ensure that researchers measure and report those outcomes that are most likely to be relevant to users of their research. The uptake of a COS by COS users will depend in part on the transparency and robustness of the methods used in the COS development study, which would be increased by the use of a standardised protocol. This article describes the development of the COS-STAP (Core Outcome Set-STAndardised Protocol Items) Statement for the content of a COS development study protocol. Methods The COS-STAP Statement was developed following the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency Of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network’s methodological framework for guideline development. This included an initial item generation stage, a two-round Delphi survey involving more than 150 participants representing three stakeholder groups (COS developers, journal editors and patient and public involvement researchers interested in COS development), followed by a consensus meeting with eight voting participants. Results The COS-STAP Statement consists of a checklist of 13 items considered essential documentation in a protocol, outlining the scope of the COS, stakeholder involvement, COS development plans and consensus processes. Conclusions Journal editors and peer reviewers can use the guidance to assess the completeness of a COS development study protocol submitted for publication. By providing guidance for key content, the COS-STAP Statement will enhance the drafting of high-quality protocols and determine how the COS development study will be carried out.

Objectives Amblyopia, strabismus and ocular motility disorders are common conditions with significant impact on visual function, appearance and quality of life. We aimed to establish a core set of outcomes for each of the three conditions for use in clinical trials and routine clinical practice.Design A comprehensive databank of outcomes was developed from a systematic review of the literature and a series of focus groups with healthcare professionals, researchers, patients and carers. The databank of outcomes was scored in a two-round Delphi Survey completed by two stakeholder groups: healthcare professionals/researchers and patients/carers. Results of the online Delphi were discussed at a face-to-face consensus meeting where the core outcome sets were finalised.Setting UK-wide consultation.Participants Researchers, clinicians, patients and carers.Outcome measures Core outcome sets.Results For amblyopia, strabismus and ocular motility, 40/42/33 participants contributed to both rounds of the Delphi; six/nine/seven members attended consensus meetings, respectively. Consensus was reached on ten core outcomes for both amblyopia and ocular motility and nine for strabismus. All three conditions shared the core outcomes: adverse events, cost, vision-related quality of life and ocular alignment. The strabismus and ocular motility disorder core sets included, in addition, measuring the deviation, binocular vision, ocular movement, patient satisfaction and symptoms. The amblyopia set, distinct from the sets for the other two conditions, included best corrected distance and near visual acuity, spherical and cylindrical refraction, compliance and treatment-related and functionality/long-term impacts.Conclusions The study used robust consensus methods to develop a core outcome set for three ophthalmic conditions. Implementation of these core outcome sets in clinical trials and routine clinical practice will ensure that the outcomes being measured and reported are relevant to all stakeholders. This will enhance the relevance of study findings and enable comparison of results from different studies.

Background: Improving the completeness of reporting of biomedical research is essential for improving its usability. For this reason, hundreds of reporting guidelines have been created in the last few decades but adherence to these remains suboptimal. This survey aims to inform future evaluations of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines. In particular, it gathers editors’ perceptions of a range of interventions at various stages in the editorial process. Methods: We surveyed biomedical journal editors that were knowledgeable about this topic. The questionnaire included open and closed questions that explored (i) the current practice of their journals, (ii) their perceptions of the ease of implementation of different interventions and the potential effectiveness of these at improving adherence to reporting guidelines, (iii) the barriers and facilitators associated with these interventions, and (iv) suggestions for future interventions and incentives. Results: Of the 99 editors invited, 24 (24%) completed the survey. Involving trained editors or administrative staff was deemed the potentially most effective intervention but, at the same time, it was considered moderately difficult to implement due to logistic and resource issues. Participants believed that checking adherence to guidelines goes beyond the role of peer reviewers and were concerned that the quality of peer review could be compromised. Reviewers are generally not expected to focus on reporting issues but on providing an expert view on the importance, novelty, and relevance of the manuscript. Journals incentivising adherence, and publishers and medical institutions encouraging journals to take action to boost adherence were two recurrent themes. Conclusions: Biomedical journal editors generally believed that engaging trained professionals would be the most effective, yet resource intensive, editorial intervention. Also, they thought that peer reviewers should not be asked to check RGs. Future evaluations of interventions can take into account the barriers, facilitators, and incentives described in this survey.

Background: Improving the completeness of reporting of biomedical research is essential for improving its usability. For this reason, hundreds of reporting guidelines have been created in the last few decades but adherence to these remains suboptimal. This survey aims to inform future evaluations of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines. In particular, it gathers editors’ perceptions of a range of interventions at various stages in the editorial process. Methods: We surveyed biomedical journal editors that were knowledgeable about this topic. The questionnaire included open and closed questions that explored (i) the current practice of their journals, (ii) their perceptions of the ease of implementation of different interventions and the potential effectiveness of these at improving adherence to reporting guidelines, (iii) the barriers and facilitators associated with these interventions, and (iv) suggestions for future interventions and incentives. Results: Of the 99 editors invited, 24 (24%) completed the survey. Involving trained editors or administrative staff was deemed the potentially most effective intervention but, at the same time, it was considered moderately difficult to implement due to logistic and resource issues. Participants believed that checking adherence to guidelines goes beyond the role of peer reviewers and were concerned that the quality of peer review could be compromised. Reviewers are generally not expected to focus on reporting issues but on providing an expert view on the importance, novelty, and relevance of the manuscript. Journals incentivising adherence, and publishers and medical institutions encouraging journals to take action to boost adherence were two recurrent themes. Conclusions: Implementing and evaluating editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines is essential to improve the transparency of published research. This survey aims to cast light on the barriers and facilitators that can be expected when implementing diverse interventions, as well as on the potential impact of these interventions.

Objective To evaluate the impact of an editorial intervention to improve completeness of reporting of reports of randomised trials.Design Randomised controlled trial (RCT).Setting BMJ Open’s quality improvement programme.Participants 24 manuscripts describing RCTs.Interventions We used an R Shiny application to randomise manuscripts (1:1 allocation ratio, blocks of 4) to the intervention (n=12) or control (n=12) group. The intervention was performed by a researcher with expertise in the content of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and consisted of an evaluation of completeness of reporting of eight core CONSORT items using the submitted checklist to locate information, and the production of a report containing specific requests for authors based on the reporting issues found, provided alongside the peer review reports. The control group underwent the usual peer review.Outcomes The primary outcome is the number of adequately reported items (0–8 scale) in the revised manuscript after the first round of peer review. The main analysis was intention-to-treat (n=24), and we imputed the scores of lost to follow-up manuscripts (rejected after peer review and not resubmitted). The secondary outcome is the proportion of manuscripts where each item was adequately reported. Two blinded reviewers assessed the outcomes independently and in duplicate and solved disagreements by consensus. We also recorded the amount of time to perform the intervention.Results Manuscripts in the intervention group (mean: 7.01; SD: 1.47) were more completely reported than those in the control group (mean: 5.68; SD: 1.43) (mean difference 1.43, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.58). We observed the main differences in items 6a (outcomes), 9 (allocation concealment mechanism), 11a (blinding) and 17a (outcomes and estimation). The mean time to perform the intervention was 87 (SD 42) min.Conclusions We demonstrated the benefit of involving a reporting guideline expert in the editorial process. Improving the completeness of RCTs is essential to enhance their usability.Trial registration number NCT03751878.

Background: Improving the completeness of reporting of biomedical research is essential for improving its usability. For this reason, hundreds of reporting guidelines have been created in the last few decades but adherence to these remains suboptimal. This survey aims to inform future evaluations of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines. In particular, it gathers editors’ perceptions of a range of interventions at various stages in the editorial process. Methods: We surveyed biomedical journal editors that were knowledgeable about this topic. The questionnaire included open and closed questions that explored (i) the current practice of their journals, (ii) their perceptions of the ease of implementation and the potential effectiveness of different interventions, (iii) the barriers and facilitators associated with these interventions, and (iv) suggestions for future interventions and incentives. Results: Of the 99 editors invited, 24 (24%) completed the survey. Involving trained editors or administrative staff was deemed the potentially most effective intervention but, at the same time, it was considered moderately difficult to implement due to logistic and resource issues. Participants believed that checking adherence to guidelines goes beyond the role of peer reviewers and could decrease the overall quality of reviews. Journals incentivising adherence, and publishers and medical institutions encouraging journals to adopt strategies to boost adherence were two recurrent themes. Conclusions: Further evaluation of interventions are required. These evaluations could take into account the points raised in this survey.

Abstract The selection of appropriate outcomes is crucial when designing clinical trials in order to compare the effects of different interventions directly. For the findings to influence policy and practice, the outcomes need to be relevant and important to key stakeholders including patients and the public, health care professionals and others making decisions about health care. It is now widely acknowledged that insufficient attention has been paid to the choice of outcomes measured in clinical trials. Researchers are increasingly addressing this issue through the development and use of a core outcome set, an agreed standardised collection of outcomes which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all trials for a specific clinical area. Accumulating work in this area has identified the need for guidance on the development, implementation, evaluation and updating of core outcome sets. This Handbook, developed by the COMET Initiative, brings together current thinking and methodological research regarding those issues. We recommend a four-step process to develop a core outcome set. The aim is to update the contents of the Handbook as further research is identified.

Introduction Large sample sizes are often required to detect statistically significant associations between pharmacogenetic markers and treatment response. Meta-analysis may be performed to synthesise data from several studies, increasing sample size and consequently power to detect significant genetic effects. However, performing robust synthesis of data from pharmacogenetic studies is often challenging due to poor reporting of key data in study reports. There is currently no guideline for the reporting of pharmacogenetic studies. The aim of this project is to develop the STrengthening the Reporting Of Pharmacogenetic Studies (STROPS) guideline. The STROPS guideline will facilitate the conduct of high-quality meta-analyses and thus improve the power to detect genetic associations.Methods and analysis We will establish a preliminary checklist of reporting items to be considered for inclusion in the guideline. We will then conduct a Delphi survey of key stakeholder groups to gain consensus opinion on which reporting items to include in the final guideline. The Delphi survey will consist of two rounds: the first round will invite participants to score items from the preliminary checklist and to suggest additional relevant items; the second round will provide feedback from the previous round and invite participants to re-score the items. Following the second round, we will summarise the distribution of scores for each item, stratified by stakeholder group. The Steering Committee for the project and representatives from the key stakeholder groups will meet to consider the results of the Delphi survey and to finalise the list of reporting items. We will then draft, pilot-test and publish the STROPS reporting guideline and accompanying explanatory document.Ethics and dissemination The University of Liverpool Ethics Committee has confirmed ethical approval for this study (reference: 3586). Dissemination activities will include presenting the reporting guideline at conferences relevant to pharmacogenetic research.

To develop and test a new tool to assess the avoidability of adverse drug reactions that is suitable for use in paediatrics but which is also applicable to a variety of other settings.The study involved multiple phases. Preliminary work involved using the Hallas scale and a modification of the existing Hallas scale, to assess two different sets of adverse drug reaction (ADR) case reports. Phase 1 defined, modified and refined a new tool using multidisciplinary teams. Phase 2 involved the assessment of 50 ADR case reports from a prospective study of paediatric inpatients by individual assessors. Phase 3 compared assessments with the new tool for individuals and groups in comparison to the 'gold standard' (the avoidability outcome set by a panel of senior investigators: an experienced clinical pharmacologist, paediatrician and pharmacist).Inter-rater reliability (IRR), measure of disagreement and utilization of avoidability categories.Preliminary work-Pilot phase: results for the original Hallas cases were fair and pairwise kappa scores ranged from 0.21 to 0.36. Results for the modified Hallas cases were poor, pairwise kappa scores ranged from 0.06 to 0.16. Phase 1: on initial use of the new tool, agreement between the two multidisciplinary groups was found on 13/20 cases with a kappa score of 0.29 (95% CI -0.04 to 0.62). Phase 2: the assessment of 50 ADR case reports by six individual reviewers yielded pairwise kappa scores ranging from poor to good 0.12 to 0.75 and percentage exact agreement (%EA) ranged from 52-90%. Phase 3: Percentage exact agreement ranged from 35-70%. Overall, individuals had better agreement with the 'gold standard'.Avoidability assessment is feasible but needs careful attention to methods. The Liverpool ADR avoidability assessment tool showed mixed IRR. We have developed and validated a method for assessing the avoidability of ADRs that is transparent, more objective than previous methods and that can be used by individuals or groups.

Study publication bias and outcome reporting bias have been recognised as two threats to the validity of systematic reviews. The purpose of this research was to estimate the proportion of missing participant outcome data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) due to lack of publication of whole studies and due to outcome data missing within study publications.Data were extracted from protocols of clinical research projects submitted to the research ethics committee of the University of Freiburg (Germany) between 2000 and 2002 and associated fully published articles. The total amount of published and unpublished outcome data from all trial participants was calculated for each trial and the overall proportion of missing data from both unpublished and published trials computed. Full and partially reported outcome data was also taken into consideration. The impact of funding source on missingness was also considered at the trial level. From 308 parallel group trials in the study cohort, 167 were published and 141 were unpublished. Overall, 260,563 participants contributed to a total of 2,618,116 participant outcome data across all trials. About half (47%) of the participant outcome data from the 308 trials was reported in full but at least 81% were partially reported. Of the 19% of participant data that were missing, 4% was attributable to missing data from published trials and 15% from unpublished trials. Commercially funded trials had a higher probability of publication (relative risk 1.20, 95% confidence interval 0.86, 1.67; p = 0.27) but were less likely to fully report all outcomes than non-commercially funded trials (relative risk 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.30, 1.38; p = 0.26).Missing participant outcome data from both published and unpublished trials is frequent. Clinical trial registration including outcome information not only identifies that clinical trials exist but the systematic examination and monitoring of trial information within a registry can help detect selective reporting of entire studies and of outcome data within studies and possibly prevent it.

Background: During pandemics of novel influenza and outbreaks of emerging infections, surge in health-care demand can exceed capacity to provide normal standards of care. In such exceptional circumstances, triage tools may aid decisions in identifying people who are most likely to benefit from higher levels of care. Rapid research during the early phase of an outbreak should allow refinement and validation of triage tools so that in the event of surge a valid tool is available. The overarching study aim is to conduct a prospective near real-time analysis of structured clinical assessments of influenza-like illness (ILI) using primary care electronic health records (EHRs) during a pandemic. This abstract summarises the preparatory work, infrastructure development, user testing and proof-of-concept study. Objectives: (1) In preparation for conducting rapid research in the early phase of a future outbreak, to develop processes that allow near real-time analysis of general practitioner (GP) assessments of people presenting with ILI, management decisions and patient outcomes. (2) As proof of concept: conduct a pilot study evaluating the performance of the triage tools ‘Community Assessment Tools’ and ‘Pandemic Medical Early Warning Score’ to predict hospital admission and death in patients presenting with ILI to GPs during inter-pandemic winter seasons. Design: Prospective near real-time analysis of structured clinical assessments and anonymised linkage to data from EHRs. User experience was evaluated by semistructured interviews with participating GPs. Setting: Thirty GPs in England, Wales and Scotland, participating in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Participants: All people presenting with ILI. Interventions: None. Main outcome measures: Study outcome is proof of concept through demonstration of data capture and near real-time analysis. Primary patient outcomes were hospital admission within 24 hours and death (all causes) within 30 days of GP assessment. Secondary patient outcomes included GP decision to prescribe antibiotics and/or influenza-specific antiviral drugs and/or refer to hospital – if admitted, the need for higher levels of care and length of hospital stay. Data sources: Linked anonymised data from a web-based structured clinical assessment and primary care EHRs. Results: In the 24 months to April 2015, data from 704 adult and 159 child consultations by 30 GPs were captured. GPs referred 11 (1.6%) adults and six (3.8%) children to hospital. There were 13 (1.8%) deaths of adults and two (1.3%) of children. There were too few outcome events to draw any conclusions regarding the performance of the triage tools. GP interviews showed that although there were some difficulties with installation, the web-based data collection tool was quick and easy to use. Some GPs felt that a minimal monetary incentive would promote participation. Conclusions: We have developed processes that allow capture and near real-time automated analysis of GP’s clinical assessments and management decisions of people presenting with ILI. Future work: We will develop processes to include other EHR systems, attempt linkage to data on influenza surveillance and maintain processes in readiness for a future outbreak. Study registration: This study is registered as ISRCTN87130712 and UK Clinical Research Network 12827. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. MGS is supported by the UK NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections.

BackgroundApproximately 75% of children with cleft palate (CP) have Otitis Media with Effusion (OME) histories. Evidence for the effective management of OME in these children is lacking. The inconsistency in outcome measurement in previous studies has led to a call for the development of a Core Outcome Set (COS). Despite the increase in the number of published COS, involvement of patients in the COS development process, and methods to integrate the views of patients and health professionals, to date have been limited.Methods and findingsA list of outcomes measured in previous research was identified through reviewing the literature. Opinion on the importance of each of these outcomes was then sought from key stakeholders: Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) surgeons, audiologists, cleft surgeons, speech and language therapists, specialist cleft nurses, psychologists, parents and children. The opinion of health professionals was sought in a three round Delphi survey where participants were asked to score each outcome using a bespoke online system. Parents and children were also asked to score outcomes in a survey and provided an in-depth insight into having OME through semi-structured interviews. The results of the Delphi survey, interviews and parent/patient survey were brought together in a final consensus meeting with representation from all stakeholders. A final set of eleven outcomes reached the definition of "consensus in" to form the recommended COS: hearing; chronic otitis media (COM); OME; receptive language skills; speech development; psycho social development; acute otitis media (AOM); cholesteatoma; side effects of treatment; listening skills; otalgia.ConclusionsWe have produced a recommendation about the outcomes that should be measured, as a minimum, in studies of the management of OME in children with CP. The development process included input from key stakeholders and used novel methodology to integrate the opinion of healthcare professionals, parents and children.

Aims: To comprehensively investigate the incidence, nature and risk factors of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in a hospital-based population of children, with rigorous assessment of causality, severity and avoidability, and to assess the consequent impact on children and families. We aimed to improve the assessment of ADRs by development of new tools to assess causality and avoidability, and to minimise the impact on families by developing better strategies for communication. Review methods: Two prospective observational studies, each over 1 year, were conducted to assess ADRs in children associated with admission to hospital, and those occurring in children who were in hospital for longer than 48 hours. We conducted a comprehensive systematic review of ADRs in children. We used the findings from these studies to develop and validate tools to assess causality and avoidability of ADRs, and conducted interviews with parents and children who had experienced ADRs, using these findings to develop a leaflet for parents to inform a communication strategy about ADRs. Results: The estimated incidence of ADRs detected in children on admission to hospital was 2.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.5% to 3.3%]. Of the reactions, 22.1% (95% CI 17% to 28%) were either definitely or possibly avoidable. Prescriptions originating in the community accounted for 44 out of 249 (17.7%) of ADRs, the remainder originating from hospital. A total of 120 out of 249 (48.2%) reactions resulted from treatment for malignancies. Off-label and/or unlicensed (OLUL) medicines were more likely to be implicated in an ADR than authorised medicines [relative risk (RR) 1.67, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.02; p 48 hours, the overall incidence of definite and probable ADRs based on all admissions was 15.9% (95% CI 15.0 to 16.8). Opiate analgesic drugs and drugs used in general anaesthesia (GA) accounted for > 50% of all drugs implicated in ADRs. The odds ratio of an OLUL drug being implicated in an ADR compared with an authorised drug was 2.25 (95% CI 1.95 to 2.59; p

Most publications about selective reporting in clinical trials have focussed on outcomes. However, selective reporting of analyses for a given outcome may also affect the validity of findings. If analyses are selected on the basis of the results, reporting bias may occur. The aims of this study were to review and summarise the evidence from empirical cohort studies that assessed discrepant or selective reporting of analyses in randomised controlled trials (RCTs).A systematic review was conducted and included cohort studies that assessed any aspect of the reporting of analyses of RCTs by comparing different trial documents, e.g., protocol compared to trial report, or different sections within a trial publication. The Cochrane Methodology Register, Medline (Ovid), PsycInfo (Ovid), and PubMed were searched on 5 February 2014. Two authors independently selected studies, performed data extraction, and assessed the methodological quality of the eligible studies. Twenty-two studies (containing 3,140 RCTs) published between 2000 and 2013 were included. Twenty-two studies reported on discrepancies between information given in different sources. Discrepancies were found in statistical analyses (eight studies), composite outcomes (one study), the handling of missing data (three studies), unadjusted versus adjusted analyses (three studies), handling of continuous data (three studies), and subgroup analyses (12 studies). Discrepancy rates varied, ranging from 7% (3/42) to 88% (7/8) in statistical analyses, 46% (36/79) to 82% (23/28) in adjusted versus unadjusted analyses, and 61% (11/18) to 100% (25/25) in subgroup analyses. This review is limited in that none of the included studies investigated the evidence for bias resulting from selective reporting of analyses. It was not possible to combine studies to provide overall summary estimates, and so the results of studies are discussed narratively.Discrepancies in analyses between publications and other study documentation were common, but reasons for these discrepancies were not discussed in the trial reports. To ensure transparency, protocols and statistical analysis plans need to be published, and investigators should adhere to these or explain discrepancies.