Search

The Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD), published in 2017, contains 11 standards (12 criteria) describing minimum design criteria for COS development. We aimed to identify and appraise all pediatric COS published prior to COS-STAD, and to assess methods of child and family involvement in their development.This methodological review included documents that described the development of pediatric COS up to and including 2017. Reviewers independently assessed each COS against COS-STAD criteria, and methods of involvement were synthesized.56 pediatric COS were identified, meeting a median of five COS-STAD criteria. Nearly all met criteria on COS scope specification for setting, health condition, and population; 41% met criteria for intervention. Standards were more often met for the involvement of researchers/health professionals (64%) than for patients or their representatives (29%). Few met standards for achieving COS consensus (4 to 23%). Methods of child and family engagement varied and were limited.A large proportion of pediatric COS developed prior to COS-STAD recommendations show gaps in design methodology. Updated and newly developed pediatric COS would benefit from the inclusion of the child and family voice, implementing a priori criteria for COS consensus, and clear reporting.

Objective: : To develop an international Core Outcome Set (COS), a minimal collection of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all future clinical trials evaluating treatments of acute simple appendicitis in children.Summary Background Data: A previous systematic review identified 115 outcomes in 60 trials and systematic reviews evaluating treatments for children with appendicitis, suggesting the need for a COS.Methods: The development process consisted of four phases: (1) an updated systematic review identifying all previously reported outcomes, (2) a two-stage international Delphi study in which parents with their children and surgeons rated these outcomes for inclusion in the COS, (3) focus groups with young people to identify missing outcomes, and (4) international expert meetings to ratify the final COS.Results: The systematic review identified 129 outcomes which were mapped to 43 unique outcome terms for the Delphi survey. The first-round included 137 parents (eight countries) and 245 surgeons (10 countries), the second-round response rates were 61% and 85% respectively, with ten outcomes emerging with consensus. After two young peoples’ focus groups, two additional outcomes were added to the final COS (12): mortality, bowel obstruction, intra-abdominal abscess, recurrent appendicitis, complicated appendicitis, return to baseline health, readmission, reoperation, unplanned appendectomy, adverse events related to treatment, major and minor complications.Conclusion: An evidence-informed COS based on international consensus, including patients and parents has been developed. This COS is recommended for all future studies evaluating treatment of simple appendicitis in children, to reduce heterogeneity between studies and facilitate data synthesis and evidence-based decision-making.

To make decisions in mental health care, service users, clinicians, and administrators need to make sense of research findings. Unfortunately, study results are often presented as raw questionnaire scores at different time points and regression coefficients, which are difficult to interpret with regards to their clinical meaning. Other commonly reported treatment outcome indicators in clinical trials or meta-analyses do not convey whether a given change score would make a noticeable difference to service users. There is an urgent need to improve the interpretability and relevance of outcome indicators in youth mental health (aged 12-24 years), in which shared decision making and person-centred care are cornerstones of an ongoing global transformation of care. In this Personal View, we make a case for considering minimally important change (MIC) as a meaningful, accessible, and user-centred outcome indicator. We discuss what the MIC represents, how it is calculated, and how it can be implemented in dialogues between clinician and researcher, and between youth and clinician. We outline how use of the MIC could enhance reporting in clinical trials, meta-analyses, clinical practice guidelines, and measurement-based care. Finally, we identify current methodological challenges around estimating the MIC and areas for future research. Efforts to select outcome domains and valid measurement instruments that resonate with youth, families, and clinicians have increased in the past 5 years. In this context, now is the time to define demarcations of changes in outcome scores that are clinically relevant, and meaningful to youth and families. Through the use of MIC, youth-centred outcome measurement, analysis, and reporting would support youth-centred therapeutic decision making.

Background: A Core Outcome Set for Inguinal Hernia repair (COS-IH) will facilitate adequate comparison of treatment strategies and the interpretation and implementation of clinical trial results. To develop such a COS-IH, this systematic review is performed to determine which outcomes are reported in RCTs and MA in children aged 0-16 years undergoing inguinal hernia repair. Methods: A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines using PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library databases (Prospero registry: CRD42021281422). This systematic review included all randomized trials (RCTs) and meta-analysis (MA) that assessed inguinal hernia repair in children. Results: A total of 96 unique outcomes were identified in the 47 included articles. These outcomes were mapped into the 62 terms as shown in table 2. Conclusion: The development of this IH-COS is crucial for outcome data comparison and will enable adequate and efficient comparison of treatment strategies, and will aid the interpretation and implementation of clinical trial results.

ImportanceClinicians, 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.ObjectiveTo 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 ReviewUsing 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.FindingsThe 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 RelevanceThis 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.

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

Background Definitions of dichotomous outcome terms, such as "response," "remission," and "recovery" are central to the design, interpretation, and clinical application of randomized controlled trials of adolescent depression interventions. Accordingly, this scoping review was conducted to document how these terms have been defined and justified in clinical trials. Method Bibliographic databases MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycInfo, and CINAHL were searched from inception to February 2020 for randomized controlled trials evaluating treatments for adolescent depression. Ninety-eight trials were included for data extraction and analysis. Results Assessment of outcome measurement instruments, metric strategies, methods of aggregation, and measurement timing, yielded 53 unique outcome definitions of "response" across 45 trials that assessed response, 47 unique definitions of "remission" in 29 trials that assessed remission, and 19 unique definitions of "recovery" across 11 trials that assessed recovery. A minority of trials (N = 35) provided a rationale for dichotomous outcomes definitions, often by citing other studies that used a similar definition (N = 11). No rationale included input from youth or families with lived experience. Conclusion Our review revealed that definitions of "response," "remission," "recovery," and related terms are highly variable, lack clear rationales, and are not informed by key stakeholder input. These limitations impair pooling of trial results and the incorporation of trial findings into pragmatic treatment decisions in clinical practice. Systematic approaches to establishing outcome definitions are needed to enhance the impact of trials examining adolescent depression treatment.

ObjectiveTo develop an Overall Pediatric Health Standard Set (OPH-SS) of outcome measures that captures what matters to young people and their families and recognising the biopsychosocial aspects of health for all children and adolescents regardless of health condition.DesignA modified Delphi process.SettingThe International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement convened an international Working Group (WG) comprised of 23 international experts from 12 countries in the field of paediatrics, family medicine, psychometrics as well as patient advisors. The WG participated in 11 video-conferences, through a modified Delphi process and 9 surveys between March 2018 and January 2020 consensus was reached on a final recommended health outcome standard set. By a literature review conducted in March 2018, 1136 articles were screened for clinician and patient-reported or proxy-reported outcomes. Further, 4315 clinical trials and 12 paediatric health surveys were scanned. Between November 2019 and January 2020, the final standard set was endorsed by a patient validation (n=270) and a health professional (n=51) survey.ResultsFrom a total of 63 identified outcomes, consensus was formed on a standard set of outcome measures that comprises 10 patient-reported outcomes, 5 clinician-reported measures, and 6 case-mix variables. The four developmental age-specific packages (ie, 0–5, 6–12, 13–17, 18–24 years) include either five or six measures with an average time for completion of 20 min.ConclusionsThe OPH-SS is a starting point to drive value-based paediatric healthcare delivery from a global perspective for enhancing child and adolescent physical health and psychosocial well-being.

Objectives The objective of this review was to identify outcomes reported in adolescent major depressive disorder trials and quantify outcome heterogeneity. Study Design and Setting Three databases were searched to identify trials evaluating therapies for major depressive disorder in adolescents published from 2008 to 2017. Identified outcomes were thematically grouped and mapped into predefined outcome core areas (physiological/clinical, life impact, resource use, adverse events, and death). Outcome heterogeneity was quantified using descriptive analyses. Results Of 2,686 articles yielded from the search, 42 articles describing 32 trials were included. A total of 434 outcomes measured using 118 different outcome measurement instruments were grouped into 86 unique outcome terms. Most outcome terms mapped to the physiological/clinical core area (62%), followed by the life impact (27%). Nearly half (45%) were reported in only a single trial each. Of 18 primary outcomes reported, 13 (72%) were each only reported in a single trial. “Depressive symptom severity”, reported in 30 trials (94%), was measured using 19 different outcome measurement instruments. Conclusion Heterogeneity exists in the outcomes and outcome measurement instruments used in adolescent depression trials. To enable reproducibility, comparison, and synthesis of trial results, a standard set of agreed-on outcomes and methods of measurement is needed.

Objective: 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11DS) is among the strongest known genetic risk factors for schizophrenia. Previous studies have reported variable alterations in subcortical brain structures in 22q11DS. To better characterize subcortical alterations in 22q11DS, including modulating effects of clinical and genetic heterogeneity, the authors studied a large multicenter neuroimaging cohort from the ENIGMA 22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome Working Group. Methods: Subcortical structures were measured using harmonized protocols for gross volume and subcortical shape morphometry in 533 individualswith 22q11DS and 330matched healthy control subjects (age range, 6-56 years; 49% female). Results: Compared with the control group, the 22q11DS group showed lower intracranial volume (ICV) and thalamus, putamen, hippocampus, and amygdala volumes and greater lateral ventricle, caudate, and accumbens volumes (Cohen's d values, 20.90 to 0.93). Shape analysis revealed complex differences in the 22q11DS group across all structures. The larger A-D deletion was associated with more extensive shape alterations compared with the smaller A-B deletion. Participants with 22q11DS with psychosis showed lower ICV and hippocampus, amygdala, and thalamus volumes (Cohen's d values, 20.91 to 0.53) compared with participants with 22q11DS without psychosis. Shape analysis revealed lower thickness and surface area across subregions of these structures. Compared with subcortical findings from other neuropsychiatric disorders studied by the ENIGMA consortium, significant convergence was observed between participants with 22q11DS with psychosis and participants with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Conclusions: In the largest neuroimaging study of 22q11DS to date, the authors found widespread alterations to subcortical brain structures, which were affected by deletion size and psychotic illness. Findings indicate significant overlap between 22q11DS-associated psychosis, idiopathic schizophrenia, and other severe neuropsychiatric illnesses.

BackgroundEvidence-based health care is informed by results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and their syntheses in meta-analyses. When the trial outcomes measured are not clearly described in trial publications, knowledge synthesis, translation, and decision-making may be impeded. While heterogeneity in outcomes measured in adolescent major depressive disorder (MDD) RCTs has been described, the comprehensiveness of outcome reporting is unknown. This study aimed to assess the reporting of primary outcomes in RCTs evaluating treatments for adolescent MDD.MethodsRCTs evaluating treatment interventions in adolescents with a diagnosis of MDD published between 2008 and 2017 specifying a single primary outcome were eligible for outcome reporting assessment. Outcome reporting assessment was done independently in duplicate using a comprehensive checklist of 58 reporting items. Primary outcome information provided in each RCT publication was scored as “fully reported”, “partially reported”, or “not reported” for each checklist item, as applicable.ResultsEighteen of 42 identified articles were found to have a discernable single primary outcome and were included for outcome reporting assessment. Most trials (72%) did not fully report on over half of the 58 checklist items. Items describing masking of outcome assessors, timing and frequency of outcome assessment, and outcome analyses were fully reported in over 70% of trials. Items less frequently reported included outcome measurement instrument properties (ranging from 6 to 17%), justification of timing and frequency of outcome assessment (6%), and justification of criteria used for clinically significant differences (17%). The overall comprehensiveness of reporting appeared stable over time.ConclusionsHeterogeneous reporting exists in published adolescent MDD RCTs, with frequent omissions of key details about their primary outcomes. These omissions may impair interpretability, replicability, and synthesis of RCTs that inform clinical guidelines and decision-making in this field. Consensus on the minimal criteria for outcome reporting in adolescent MDD RCTs is needed.

Results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and, ideally, the synthesis of RCT results into meta-analyses, drive both clinical and policy decision making about health care interventions and inform new avenues for research. Selection of the right health outcomes to measure, analyze, and report on when designing a trial therefore is key in ensuring that the research will be useful and will have maximum impact.1-3 As in many areas of medicine, wide variability exists in pediatric mental health research as to which outcomes are selected, how they are measured, and how they are reported. Variability in outcome selection and measurement may stem from various factors, including a tendency to select what is feasible or historical to measure rather than a focus on what is important to measure and how best to measure it. The resulting variability limits comparing and combining the results from different trials addressing a similar question in meta-analyses, hindering the translation of research to practice.1,2 The objective of this article is to highlight the importance of outcome selection, measurement, and reporting in the translation of research to clinical practice.

BackgroundEngaging patients and the public as collaborators in research is increasingly recognised as important as such partnerships can help improve research relevance and acceptability. Young Persons’ Advisory Groups (YPAGs) provide a forum for clinical researchers and triallists to engage with children and young people on issues relevant to the design, conduct and translation of paediatric clinical trials. Until fairly recently, there was very little information available to guide the successful development and operation of YPAGs.ObjectiveTo develop an evidence-based tool to guide clinical researchers and triallists in the establishment and operation of a YPAG.MethodsAn online needs assessment survey was conducted using SurveyMonkey with 60 known paediatric drug researchers to identify knowledge gaps around YPAG engagement, development and operation. Semistructured interviews with founders and coordinators of five well-established existing YPAGs and a review of the literature were performed to identify best-practice processes for starting up and operating YPAG.ResultsThe majority of 12 survey respondents (20%) from 12 different centres indicated that while they felt YPAGs could benefit their research, guidance on how to develop and operate a YPAG was needed. Most preferred a web-based guidance tool. Ten core steps in starting up and operating a YPAG were identified and developed into an online YPAG guidance tool, now freely accessible for use by paediatric clinical researchers worldwide. Plans to evaluate the impact are in place.ConclusionsThis novel tool, developed with an internationally based group of public involvement leads working across paediatric clinical research areas, provides harmonised guidance for researchers seeking to develop and operate YPAGs to help improve the quality and impact of paediatric clinical research studies.

Background and objectivesCaregivers 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsAll 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.ConclusionsThe 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.

IntroductionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) may use surrogate endpoints as substitutes and predictors of patient-relevant/participant-relevant final outcomes (eg, survival, health-related quality of life). Translation of effects measured on a surrogate endpoint into health benefits for patients/participants is dependent on the validity of the surrogate; hence, more accurate and transparent reporting on surrogate endpoints is needed to limit misleading interpretation of trial findings. However, there is currently no explicit guidance for the reporting of such trials. Therefore, we aim to develop extensions to the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) reporting guidelines to improve the design and completeness of reporting of RCTs and their protocols using a surrogate endpoint as a primary outcome.Methods and analysisThe project will have four phases: phase 1 (literature reviews) to identify candidate reporting items to be rated in a Delphi study; phase 2 (Delphi study) to rate the importance of items identified in phase 1 and receive suggestions for additional items; phase 3 (consensus meeting) to agree on final set of items for inclusion in the extensions and phase 4 (knowledge translation) to engage stakeholders and disseminate the project outputs through various strategies including peer-reviewed publications. Patient and public involvement will be embedded into all project phases.Ethics and disseminationThe study has received ethical approval from the University of Glasgow College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences Ethics Committee (project no: 200210051). The findings will be published in open-access peer-reviewed publications and presented in conferences, meetings and relevant forums.

Objectives: Recurrent chromosome 22q11.2 deletions cause 22q11 deletion syndrome (22q11DS), a multisystem disorder associated with high rates of schizophrenia. Neuroanatomical changes on brain MRI have been reported in relation to 22q11DS. However, to date no 22q11DS neuroimaging studies have examined cerebral blood flow (CBF). This exploratory case-control study seeks to identify differences in regional cerebral blood flow between 22q11DS subjects and controls, and their association with psychotic symptoms. Methods: This study of 23 adults used arterial spin labelling MRI to investigate voxel-wise CBF in 22q11DS individuals compared with age- and sex-matched healthy controls. Results: Four significant clusters, involving the right and left putamen, right fusiform gyrus and left middle temporal gyrus, delineated significantly elevated CBF in individuals with 22q11DS compared to controls. Post-hoc analysis determined that this elevation in CBF trended with psychotic symptom diagnosis within the 22q11DS group. Conclusions: These findings suggest possible relevance to schizophrenia risk and support further functional neuroimaging studies of 22q11DS with larger sample sizes to improve our understanding of the underlying pathophysiology.

Background Core outcome sets (COS) are lists of consensus-determined outcomes to be measured and reported in all clinical research studies within a disease area. While including patients and families in COS development to improve their relevance and applicability to patient values is key, there is limited literature documenting practical barriers and facilitators to successful patient engagement in COS development. In this paper, as researchers and patient partners, we provide a resource for COS developers to meaningfully and effectively engage patients and families. Main body To establish a consensus-based COS for children with two inherited metabolic diseases (medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency and phenylketonuria), we conducted an evidence review, Delphi survey, and workshop. Two adult patient partner co-investigators co-developed the study protocol, co-designed strategies to address challenges with incorporating patient perspectives, and led all patient engagement activities, including communication with a group of family advisors. Seven adult family advisors received training about COS development and subsequently contributed to Delphi survey development, outcome definitions, the consensus workshop, and selection of outcome measurement instruments. Patient partner co-investigators and family advisors were essential to the successful design, conduct, and completion of the two COS. Patient partner co-investigators supported the understanding, inclusion and engagement of family advisors, and helped develop accessible tools to determine patient-oriented outcome measurement instruments. Patient partner co-investigators and family advisors collaborated with the study team to co-develop surveys, modify technical language, and recruit participants to the study. Together, we addressed challenges to patient engagement in COS development such as unfamiliarity with study methods, comprehensibility of materials and ongoing engagement, and power imbalances between team members. Conclusion Our approach to patient and family engagement in COS development for two rare conditions for children was feasible and considered valuable by all study team members, including patients and family members, in improving the relevance of the deliverable to patients. This approach to patient engagement in developing COS can be applied to other paediatric disease contexts, allowing patient and family perspectives to influence the direction of future studies to develop COS. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40900-021-00304-y., Plain English summary Core outcome sets (COS) are lists of outcomes agreed upon by a group of people to be measured and reported in studies about certain diseases and populations. Core outcomes are meant to represent what is useful to study from the perspectives of health care providers, researchers and patients. For researchers who seek to include patients in the development of a COS, there is little guidance about how to do this well. We recently developed COS for two rare diseases in children, medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency and phenylketonuria. We did this by reviewing available information from published research, surveying health care providers, researchers, and patients, and eventually coming to agreement during a workshop. We included two adult patient partner co-researchers who helped design the COS study and co-developed the patient engagement strategy. These partners formed relationships with seven adult family advisors, who helped ensure that materials were accessible, participated in outcome selection, and helped select tools to measure core outcomes. Strategies we used to engage patient partners included a) training about both the scientific research process and how to help other researchers in the future, and b) frequent communication about study progress and how family advisor feedback was used. Also, we made sure that the impacts of power imbalances between health care providers, researchers and patients were low. Our approach to patient engagement in COS development for two rare conditions in children proved to be both feasible and considered valuable by all study team members, including patient partners and family advisors. To include patient perspectives and values, future COS developers may take a similar approach. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40900-021-00304-y.

The objectives of this review are to determine if the ADRS and the QIDS have sufficient measurement properties according to the COSMIN guidelines, to evaluate the quality of this evidence, and to determine whether these OMIs meet at least minimum COSMIN criteria to support their use in youth with MDD and consideration for inclusion in a COS for this population (i.e., sufficient content validity (any level) AND at least low quality evidence for sufficient internal consistency).

IntroductionAn important consideration for determining the severity of mental health symptoms is their impact on youth’s daily lives. Those wishing to assess life impact face several challenges: First, various measurement instruments are available, including of global functioning, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and well-being. Existing reviews have tended to focus on one of these domains; consequently, a comprehensive overview is lacking. Second, the extent to which such instruments truly capture distinct concepts is unclear. Third, many available scales conflate symptoms and their impact, thus undermining much needed analyses of associations between the two.Methods and analysisA scoping umbrella review will examine existing reviews of life impact measures for use with 6-24-year-olds in the context of mental health and well-being research. We will systematically search five bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science), and conduct systematic record screening, data extraction and charting based on methodological guidance by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Data synthesis will involve the tabulation of scale characteristics, feasibility, and measurement properties, and the use of summary statistics to synthesize how these instruments operationalize life impact.Ethics and disseminationThis study will provide a comprehensive road map for researchers and clinicians seeking to assess life impact in youth mental health, providing guidance in navigating available measurement options. We will seek to publish the findings in a leading peer-reviewed journal in the field. Formal research ethics approval will not be required.Registration detailsThis protocol was registered prospectively with the Open Science Framework (osf.io/jfqdv).Strengths and Limitations of this StudyUmbrella review methodology will enable a higher-level synthesis of existing review efforts, thus generating a comprehensive map of available measurement instruments and research findings about their properties.Our methodological approach is based on the JBI guidelines for scoping reviews, umbrella reviews, and psychometric reviews.This review is based on a rigorous systematic search developed and executed by a health science librarian.We will only include studies published in the English language since 1990.As this is a scoping umbrella review designed to map available measurement instruments, the quality and risk of bias of included review articles will not be systematically assessed.

22q11.2 deletion syndrome is characterised by a well defined microdeletion that is associated with a high risk of neuropsychiatric disorders, including intellectual disability, schizophrenia, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, anxiety disorders, seizures and epilepsy, and early-onset Parkinson’s disease. Preclinical and clinical data reveal substantial variability of the neuropsychiatric phenotype despite the shared underlying deletion in this genetic model. Factors that might explain this variability include genetic background effects, additional rare pathogenic variants, and potential regulatory functions of some genes in the 22q11.2 deletion region. These factors might also be relevant to the pathophysiology of these neuropsychiatric disorders in the general population. We review studies that might provide insight into pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the expression of neuropsychiatric disorders in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome, and potential implications for these common disorders in the general (non-deleted) population. The recurrent hemizygous 22q11.2 deletion, associated with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome, has attracted attention as a genetic model for common neuropsychiatric disorders because of its association with substantially increased risk of such disorders.(1) Studying such a model has many advantages. First, 22q11.2 deletion has been genetically well characterised.(2) Second, most genes present in the region typically deleted at the 22q11.2 locus are expressed in the brain.(3–5) Third, genetic diagnosis might be made early in life, long before recognisable neuropsychiatric disorders have emerged. Thus, this genetic condition offers a unique opportunity for early intervention, and monitoring individuals with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome throughout life could provide important information on factors contributing to disease risk and protection. Despite the commonly deleted region being shared by about 90% of individuals with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome, neuropsychiatric outcomes are highly variable between individuals and across the lifespan. A clear link remains to be established between genotype and phenotype.(3,5) In this Review, we summarise preclinical and clinical studies investigating biological mechanisms in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome, with a focus on those that might provide insight into mechanisms underlying neuropsychiatric disorders in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome and in the general population.

Background Inadequate and poor quality outcome reporting in clinical trials is a well-documented problem that impedes the ability of researchers to evaluate, replicate, synthesize, and build upon study findings and impacts evidence-based decision-making by patients, clinicians, and policy-makers. To facilitate harmonized and transparent reporting of outcomes in trial protocols and published reports, the Instrument for reporting Planned Endpoints in Clinical Trials (InsPECT) is being developed. The final product will provide unique InsPECT extensions to the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) reporting guidelines. Methods The InsPECT SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions will be developed in accordance with the methodological framework created by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research Quality) Network for reporting guideline development. Development will consist of (1) the creation of an initial list of candidate outcome reporting items synthesized from expert consultations and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting outcomes in trial protocols and reports; (2) a three-round international Delphi study to identify additional candidate items and assess candidate item importance on a 9-point Likert scale, completed by stakeholders such as trial report and protocol authors, systematic review authors, biostatisticians and epidemiologists, reporting guideline developers, clinicians, journal editors, and research ethics board representatives; and (3) an in-person expert consensus meeting to finalize the set of essential outcome reporting items for trial protocols and reports, respectively. The consensus meeting discussions will be independently facilitated and informed by the empirical evidence identified in the primary literature and through the opinions (aggregate rankings and comments) collected via the Delphi study. An integrated knowledge translation approach will be used throughout InsPECT development to facilitate implementation and dissemination, in addition to standard post-development activities. Discussion InsPECT will provide evidence-informed and consensus-based standards focused on outcome reporting in clinical trials that can be applied across diverse disease areas, study populations, and outcomes. InsPECT will support the standardization of trial outcome reporting, which will maximize trial usability, reduce bias, foster trial replication, improve trial design and execution, and ultimately reduce research waste and help improve patient outcomes. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3248-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BACKGROUND Evidence to guide treatment of pediatric medium-chain acyl-coenzyme A dehydrogenase (MCAD) deficiency and phenylketonuria (PKU) is fragmented because of large variability in outcome selection and measurement. Our goal was to develop core outcome sets (COSs) for these diseases to facilitate meaningful future evidence generation and enhance the capacity to compare and synthesize findings across studies. METHODS Parents and/or caregivers, health professionals, and health policy advisors completed a Delphi survey and participated in a consensus workshop to select core outcomes from candidate lists of outcomes for MCAD deficiency and PKU. Delphi participants rated the importance of outcomes on a nine-point scale (1–3: not important, 4–6: important but not critical, 7–9: critical). Candidate outcomes were progressively narrowed down over 3 survey rounds. At the workshop, participants evaluated the remaining candidate outcomes using an adapted nominal technique, open discussion, and voting. After the workshop, we finalized the COSs and recommended measurement instruments for each outcome. RESULTS There were 85, 61, and 53 participants across 3 Delphi rounds, respectively. The candidate core outcome lists were narrowed down to 20 outcomes per disease to be discussed at the consensus workshop. Voting by 18 workshop participants led to COSs composed of 8 and 9 outcomes for MCAD deficiency and PKU, respectively, with measurement recommendations. CONCLUSIONS These are the first known pediatric COSs for MCAD deficiency and PKU. Adoption in future studies will help to ensure best use of limited research resources to ultimately improve care for children with these rare diseases.

The Children’s Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R) is the most commonly used method to measure depression in treatment studies of teens with depression, but itis unknown whether the CDRS-R is appropriate for the purpose of measuring depression inadolescents. This study aimed to identify all existing evidence of the key measurement propertiesof the CDRS-R (for example, how well the scale measures what it is supposed to measure) in teens with depression, and to evaluate these properties using a well-establishedmethod developed by the COSMIN Initiative (https://www.cosmin.nl/). The study concludes thatit is unclear whether the CDRS-R can appropriately measure depression symptom severity in treatment studies of teens with depression based on current available evidence. It is important that the best methods are used to measure outcomes to ensure that results from clinical researchstudies in teens with depression are meaningful and useful to relevant stakeholders, including patients, caregivers, health care providers, researchers, and policymakers.

The objective of this review was to identify outcomes reported in adolescent major depressive disorder trials and quantify outcome heterogeneity.Three databases were searched to identify trials evaluating therapies for major depressive disorder in adolescents published from 2008 to 2017. Identified outcomes were thematically grouped and mapped into predefined outcome core areas (physiological/clinical, life impact, resource use, adverse events, and death). Outcome heterogeneity was quantified using descriptive analyses.Of 2,686 articles yielded from the search, 42 articles describing 32 trials were included. A total of 434 outcomes measured using 118 different outcome measurement instruments were grouped into 86 unique outcome terms. Most outcome terms mapped to the physiological/clinical core area (62%), followed by the life impact (27%). Nearly half (45%) were reported in only a single trial each. Of 18 primary outcomes reported, 13 (72%) were each only reported in a single trial. "Depressive symptom severity", reported in 30 trials (94%), was measured using 19 different outcome measurement instruments.Heterogeneity exists in the outcomes and outcome measurement instruments used in adolescent depression trials. To enable reproducibility, comparison, and synthesis of trial results, a standard set of agreed-on outcomes and methods of measurement is needed.

The 22q11.2 deletion (22q11DS) is a common chromosomal microdeletion and a potent risk factor for psychotic illness. Prior studies reported widespread cortical changes in 22q11DS, but were generally underpowered to characterize neuroanatomic abnormalities associated with psychosis in 22q11DS, and/or neuroanatomic effects of variability in deletion size. To address these issues, we developed the ENIGMA (Enhancing Neuro Imaging Genetics Through Meta-Analysis) 22q11.2 Working Group, representing the largest analysis of brain structural alterations in 22q11DS to date. The imaging data were collected from 10 centers worldwide, including 474 subjects with 22q11DS (age = 18.2 ± 8.6; 46.9% female) and 315 typically developing, matched controls (age = 18.0 ± 9.2; 45.9% female). Compared to controls, 22q11DS individuals showed thicker cortical gray matter overall (left/right hemispheres: Cohen’s d = 0.61/0.65), but focal thickness reduction in temporal and cingulate cortex. Cortical surface area (SA), however, showed pervasive reductions in 22q11DS (left/right hemispheres: d = −1.01/−1.02). 22q11DS cases vs. controls were classified with 93.8% accuracy based on these neuroanatomic patterns. Comparison of 22q11DS-psychosis to idiopathic schizophrenia (ENIGMA-Schizophrenia Working Group) revealed significant convergence of affected brain regions, particularly in fronto-temporal cortex. Finally, cortical SA was significantly greater in 22q11DS cases with smaller 1.5 Mb deletions, relative to those with typical 3 Mb deletions. We found a robust neuroanatomic signature of 22q11DS, and the first evidence that deletion size impacts brain structure. Psychotic illness in this highly penetrant deletion was associated with similar neuroanatomic abnormalities to idiopathic schizophrenia. These consistent cross-site findings highlight the homogeneity of this single genetic etiology, and support the suitability of 22q11DS as a biological model of schizophrenia.

Background Clinicians, patients, and policy-makers rely on published evidence from clinical trials to help inform decision-making. A lack of complete and transparent reporting of the investigated trial outcomes limits reproducibility of results and knowledge synthesis efforts, and contributes to outcome switching and other reporting biases. Outcome-specific extensions for the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT-Outcomes) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT-Outcomes) reporting guidelines are under development to facilitate harmonized reporting of outcomes in trial protocols and reports. The aim of this review was to identify and synthesize existing guidance for trial outcome reporting to inform extension development. Methods We searched for documents published in the last 10 years that provided guidance on trial outcome reporting using: an electronic bibliographic database search (MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register); a grey literature search; and solicitation of colleagues using a snowballing approach. Two reviewers completed title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data charting after training. Extracted trial outcome reporting guidance was compared with candidate reporting items to support, refute, or refine the items and to assess the need for the development of additional items. Results In total, 1758 trial outcome reporting recommendations were identified within 244 eligible documents. The majority of documents were published by academic journals (72%). Comparison of each recommendation with the initial list of 70 candidate items led to the development of an additional 62 items, producing 132 candidate items. The items encompassed outcome selection, definition, measurement, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of modifications between trial documents. The total number of documents supporting each candidate item ranged widely (median 5, range 0–84 documents per item), illustrating heterogeneity in the recommendations currently available for outcome reporting across a large and diverse sample of sources. Conclusions Outcome reporting guidance for clinical trial protocols and reports lacks consistency and is spread across a large number of sources that may be challenging to access and implement in practice. Evidence and consensus-based guidance, currently in development (SPIRIT-Outcomes and CONSORT-Outcomes), may help authors adequately describe trial outcomes in protocols and reports transparently and completely to help reduce avoidable research waste.

Schizophrenia occurs in about one in four individuals with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11.2DS). The aim of this International Brain and Behavior 22q11.2DS Consortium (IBBC) study was to identify genetic factors that contribute to schizophrenia, in addition to the ~20-fold increased risk conveyed by the 22q11.2 deletion. Using whole-genome sequencing data from 519 unrelated individuals with 22q11.2DS, we conducted genome-wide comparisons of common and rare variants between those with schizophrenia and those with no psychotic disorder at age ≥25 years. Available microarray data enabled direct comparison of polygenic risk for schizophrenia between 22q11.2DS and independent population samples with no 22q11.2 deletion, with and without schizophrenia (total n = 35,182). Polygenic risk for schizophrenia within 22q11.2DS was significantly greater for those with schizophrenia (padj = 6.73 × 10−6). Novel reciprocal case–control comparisons between the 22q11.2DS and population-based cohorts showed that polygenic risk score was significantly greater in individuals with psychotic illness, regardless of the presence of the 22q11.2 deletion. Within the 22q11.2DS cohort, results of gene-set analyses showed some support for rare variants affecting synaptic genes. No common or rare variants within the 22q11.2 deletion region were significantly associated with schizophrenia. These findings suggest that in addition to the deletion conferring a greatly increased risk to schizophrenia, the risk is higher when the 22q11.2 deletion and common polygenic risk factors that contribute to schizophrenia in the general population are both present. ispartof: Molecular Psychiatry vol:26 issue:8 pages:1-15 ispartof: location:England status: published

Background Inherited metabolic diseases (IMDs) are a group of individually rare single-gene diseases. For many IMDs, there is a paucity of high-quality evidence that evaluates the effectiveness of clinical interventions. Clinical effectiveness trials of IMD interventions could be supported through the development of core outcome sets (COSs), a recommended minimum set of standardized, high-quality outcomes and associated outcome measurement instruments to be incorporated by all trials in an area of study. We began the process of establishing pediatric COSs for two IMDs, medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase (MCAD) deficiency and phenylketonuria (PKU), by reviewing published literature to describe outcomes reported by authors, identify heterogeneity in outcomes across studies, and assemble a candidate list of outcomes. Methods We used a comprehensive search strategy to identify primary studies and guidelines relevant to children with MCAD deficiency and PKU, extracting study characteristics and outcome information from eligible studies including outcome measurement instruments for select outcomes. Informed by an established framework and a previously published pediatric COS, outcomes were grouped into five, mutually-exclusive, a priori core areas: growth and development, life impact, pathophysiological manifestations, resource use, and death. Results For MCAD deficiency, we identified 83 outcomes from 52 articles. The most frequently represented core area was pathophysiological manifestations, with 33 outcomes reported in 29/52 articles (56%). Death was the most frequently reported outcome. One-third of outcomes were reported by a single study. The most diversely measured outcome was cognition and intelligence/IQ for which eight unique measurement instruments were reported among 14 articles. For PKU, we identified 97 outcomes from 343 articles. The most frequently represented core area was pathophysiological manifestations with 31 outcomes reported in 281/343 articles (82%). Phenylalanine concentration was the most frequently reported outcome. Sixteen percent of outcomes were reported by a single study. Similar to MCAD deficiency, the most diversely measured PKU outcome was cognition and intelligence/IQ with 39 different instruments reported among 82 articles. Conclusions Heterogeneity of reported outcomes and outcome measurement instruments across published studies for both MCAD deficiency and PKU highlights the need for COSs for these diseases, to promote the use of meaningful outcomes and facilitate comparisons across studies.

Background Although children have historically been excluded from clinical trials (CTs), many require medicines tested and approved in CTs, forcing health care providers to treat their pediatric patients based on extrapolated data. Unfortunately, traditional randomized CTs can be slow and resource-intensive, and they often require multi-center collaboration. However, an adaptive design (AD) framework for CTs could be used to increase the efficiency of pediatric CTs by incorporating prospectively planned modifications to CT methods without undermining the integrity or validity of the study. There are many possible adaptations, but each will have ethical, logistical, and statistical implications. It remains unclear which adaptations (or combinations thereof) will lead to real-world improvements in pediatric CT efficiency. This study will identify, evaluate, and synthesize the various regulatory, ethical, logistical, and statistical considerations and emerging issues of AD in CTs that could be used to evaluate the use of drugs in children. Methods/design Following the development of a peer-reviewed search strategy, a systematic review on AD in CTs will be conducted. Data on regulatory, ethical, logistic, and statistical considerations as well as population and trial design characteristics will be synthesized. A mixed-methods study including surveys and focus groups with regulators, research ethics board members, biostatisticians, clinicians, and scientists, as well as representatives from patient groups and the public will evaluate the opportunities and challenges in applying AD in trials enrolling children and propose recommendations on best practices. Discussion This study will deliver practical recommendations on the use of AD in pediatric CTs. Collaboration and consultation with national and global partners will ensure that our results meet the needs of researchers, regulators, and patients, both locally and globally, and that they remain current and relevant by engaging a wide variety of stakeholders. Overall, this research will enrich the knowledge base regarding if, how, and when AD can be used to answer research questions with fewer resources while still meeting the highest ethical standards and regulatory requirements for CTs. In turn, this will result in increased high-quality clinical research needed by health care providers so they have access to appropriate, population-specific evidence regarding the safe and effective use of medicines in children.