Search

Introduction Heterogeneity in reported outcomes of infants with oesophageal atresia (OA) with or without tracheo-oesophageal fistula (TOF) prevents effective data pooling. Core outcome sets (COS) have been developed for many conditions to standardise outcome reporting, facilitate meta-analysis and improve the relevance of research for patients and families. Our aim is to develop an internationally-agreed, comprehensive COS for OA-TOF, relevant from birth through to transition and adulthood.Methods and analysis A long list of outcomes will be generated using (1) a systematic review of existing studies on OA-TOF and (2) qualitative research with children (patients), adults (patients) and families involving focus groups, semistructured interviews and self-reported outcome activity packs. A two-phase Delphi survey will then be completed by four key stakeholder groups: (1) patients (paediatric and adult); (2) families; (3) healthcare professionals; and (4) researchers. Phase I will include stakeholders individually rating the importance and relevance of each long-listed outcome using a 9-point Likert scale, with the option to suggest additional outcomes not already included. During phase II, stakeholders will review summarised results from phase I relative to their own initial score and then will be asked to rescore the outcome based on this information. Responses from phase II will be summarised using descriptive statistics and a predefined definition of consensus for inclusion or exclusion of outcomes. Following the Delphi process, stakeholder experts will be invited to review data at a consensus meeting and agree on a COS for OA-TOF.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was sought through the Health Research Authority via the Integrated Research Application System, registration no. 297026. However, approval was deemed not to be required, so study sponsorship and oversight were provided by Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust. The study has been prospectively registered with the COMET Initiative. The study will be published in an open access forum.

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

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

Background: The COMET Initiative promotes the development and use of ‘core outcome sets’ (COS), agreed standardised sets of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all studies in a particular clinical condition. COS are determined by consensus amongst key stakeholders, including health professionals, policymakers and patients, ensuring that the priorities and expertise of these representatives inform the choice of the most important outcomes to measure for a given condition. There is increased recognition of the need to integrate COS across the healthcare system and with existing regulatory apparatus, to ensure that outcomes being recorded are those of key relevance to important stakeholders. The aim of this study is to assess the degree of concordance between outcomes recommended in COS for research and in guidance provided by two key regulators: US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Methods: COS for research published during 2015-2019 with patient involvement and covering drug or device interventions will be compared against relevant regulatory guidelines, matched by condition. Guidance documents matching in scope (relating to intervention and population) to a COS for research will be scrutinised to identify all suggested outcomes for comparison against the core outcomes in the corresponding COS. Discussion: This study will identify variation between outcomes suggested in FDA and EMA regulatory guidance relative to outcomes included in published COS for research, thus demonstrating the degree of representation of COS in regulatory guidance and vice versa. We will share the study findings (in particular, highlighting any lack of concordance between COS and regulatory guidance overall or for particular disease areas) and will invite feedback from FDA and EMA; we will seek to highlight where findings support the recommendations towards using well-developed COS or will make recommendations to COS developers on outcomes of importance to these key regulators.

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.

Background: The COMET Initiative promotes the development and use of ‘core outcome sets’ (COS), agreed standardised sets of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all studies in a particular clinical condition. COS are determined by consensus amongst key stakeholders, including health professionals, policymakers and patients, ensuring that the priorities and expertise of these representatives inform the choice of the most important outcomes to measure for a given condition. There is increased recognition of the need to integrate COS across the healthcare system and with existing regulatory apparatus, to ensure that outcomes being recorded are those of key relevance to important stakeholders. The aim of this study is to assess the degree of concordance between outcomes recommended in COS for research and in guidance provided by two key regulators: US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Methods: COS for research published during 2015-2019 with patient involvement and covering drug or device interventions will be compared against relevant regulatory guidelines, matched by condition. Guidance documents matching in scope (relating to intervention and population) to a COS for research will be scrutinised to identify all suggested outcomes for comparison against the core outcomes in the corresponding COS. Discussion: This study will identify variation between outcomes suggested in FDA and EMA regulatory guidance relative to outcomes included in published COS for research, thus demonstrating the degree of representation of COS in regulatory guidance and vice versa. We will share the study findings (in particular, highlighting any lack of concordance between COS and regulatory guidance overall or for particular disease areas) and will invite feedback from FDA and EMA; we will seek to highlight where findings support the recommendations towards using well-developed COS or will make recommendations to COS developers on outcomes of importance to these key regulators.

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.

BackgroundCore outcome sets (COS) can enhance the relevance of research by ensuring that outcomes of importance to health service users and other people making choices about health care in a particular topic area are measured routinely. Over 200 COS to date have been developed, but the clarity of these reports is suboptimal. COS studies will not achieve their goal if reports of COS are not complete and transparent.Methods and findingsIn recognition of these issues, an international group that included experienced COS developers, methodologists, journal editors, potential users of COS (clinical trialists, systematic reviewers, and clinical guideline developers), and patient representatives developed the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting (COS-STAR) Statement as a reporting guideline for COS studies. The developmental process consisted of an initial reporting item generation stage and a two-round Delphi survey involving nearly 200 participants representing key stakeholder groups, followed by a consensus meeting. The COS-STAR Statement consists of a checklist of 18 items considered essential for transparent and complete reporting in all COS studies. The checklist items focus on the introduction, methods, results, and discussion section of a manuscript describing the development of a particular COS. A limitation of the COS-STAR Statement is that it was developed without representative views of low- and middle-income countries. COS have equal relevance to studies conducted in these areas, and, subsequently, this guideline may need to evolve over time to encompass any additional challenges from developing COS in these areas.ConclusionsWith many ongoing COS studies underway, the COS-STAR Statement should be a helpful resource to improve the reporting of COS studies for the benefit of all COS users.

Background: Multiple studies are evaluating how to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. Interventions are wide ranging and include vaccines, prophylactic drugs, public health safety measures, and behavioural interventions. Heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and reported is leading to research waste and inefficiency, slowing worldwide identification and implementation of effective methods to prevent infection. A core outcome set (COS) for studies of interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection has recently been developed, identifying infection as a critical outcome to measure. This paper examines how SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes are measured in registered COVID-19 prevention trials and considers how this can be improved. Methods: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to identify and review SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes in prevention trials, including the rationale for choice of outcome measurement. We included phase 3 and 4 trials of COVID-19 prevention interventions. Early phase trials and studies relating to the transmission, treatment or management of COVID-19 were excluded. Results: We identified 430 entries in the register, of which 199 unique prevention trials were included across eight settings and 12 intervention types. Fifteen (8%) trials did not include any SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes. The remaining 184 (92%) studies included a total of 268 SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes, of which 32 (17%) did not specify how infection would be measured. Testing (i.e. formal diagnostic test) as a standalone method for determining infection was used in 57 (31%) trials, whereas defining infection by symptoms alone was used in 16 (9%) trials. All other trials (n=79, 43%) included multiple infection outcomes, defined in different ways. Discussion: There is considerable variation in how SARS-CoV-2 infection is measured within and across different interventions and settings. Furthermore, few studies report the rationale for outcome selection and measurement. Better transparency and standardisation of SARS-CoV-2 infection measurement is needed for the findings from prevention trials to inform decision-making.