Outcomes of care during the last month of life: a systematic review to inform the development of a core outcome set.

BACKGROUND: To date, there is a lack of standardization and consensus on which outcomes are central to assess the care provided to patients in the last month of life. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a systematic review to identify relevant outcomes to inform the development of a core outcome set for the best care for the dying person. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of outcomes reported in the scientific literature about the care for the dying person in the last month of life. We searched for peer-reviewed studies published before February 2022 in four electronic databases. To categorise the outcomes, we employed the taxonomy developed by the "Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials" collaboration. RESULTS: Out of the 2,933 articles retrieved, 619 were included for analyses. The majority of studies (71%) were retrospective and with data extracted from chart reviews (71%). We extracted 1,951 outcomes in total, from which, after deletion of repeated outcomes, we identified 256 unique ones. The most frequently assessed outcomes were those related to medication or therapeutic interventions and those to hospital/healthcare use. Outcomes related to psychosocial wellbeing were rarely assessed. The closer to death, the less frequently the outcomes were studied. CONCLUSIONS: Most outcomes were related to medical interventions or to hospital use. Only a few studies focused on other components of integrated care such as psychosocial aspects. It remains to be defined which of these outcomes are fundamental to achieve the best care for the dying.

The methodological quality of systematic reviews regarding the Core Outcome Set (COS) development.

BACKGROUND: The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) working group proposed core outcome sets (COS) to address the heterogeneity in outcome measures in clinical studies. According to the recommendations of COMET, performing systematic reviews (SRs) usually was the first step for COS development. However, the SRs that serve as a basis for COS are not specifically appraised by organizations such as COMET regarding their quality. Here, we investigated the status of SRs related to development of COS and evaluated their methodological quality. METHODS: We conducted a search on PubMed to identify SRs related to COS development published from inception to May 2022. We qualitatively summarized the disease included in SR topics, and the studies included in the SRs. We evaluated the methodological quality of the SRs using AMSTAR 2.0 and compared the overall quality of SRs with and without protocols using the Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: We included 175 SRs from 23 different countries or regions, and they mainly focused on five diseases: musculoskeletal system or connective tissue disease (n = 19, 10.86%), injury, poisoning, or certain other consequences of external causes (n = 18, 10.29%), digestive system disease (n = 16, 9.14%), nervous system disease (n = 15, 8.57%), and genitourinary system disease (n = 15, 8.57%). Although 88.00% of SRs included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), only a few SRs (23.38%) employed appropriate tools to assess the risk of bias in RCTs. The assessment results on the basis of AMSTAR 2.0 indicated that most SRs (93.71%) were rated as ''critically low'' to ''low'' in terms of overall confidence. The overall confidence of SRs with protocols was significantly higher than that without protocols (P <.001). Compared to the SRs with protocols on Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET), SRs with protocols on PROSPERO were of better overall confidence (P = .017). CONCLUSION: The overall quality of published SRs regarding COS development was poor. Our findings emphasize the need for researchers to carefully select the disease topic and strictly adhere to the requirements of optimal methodology when conducting a SR for the establishment of a COS.

Assessing the uptake of the type 1 diabetes core outcome set in randomized controlled trials: A Cross-Sectional study.

AIMS: This study analyzed uptake of the core outcome set (COS) for type 1 diabetes (T1D) and trends in its use before and after its development in December 2017. METHODS: On June 26, 2023, ClinicalTrials.gov was systematically searched for T1D randomized controlled trials. The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database provided a COS of eight key outcomes for analysis. Included trials were analyzed for COS uptake before and after its release in December 2017 in a masked, duplicate fashion by independent reviewers. We also calculated the proportion of trials that measured the complete COS and assessed the most frequently reported COS outcomes. RESULTS: Of 3,792 originally screened articles, 144 RCTs were included in the final sample. Following COS publication, its use steadily decreased. Within the COS, HbA1c and severe hypoglycemia were most frequently implemented as endpoints; other recommended outcomes were rarely used in the published trials. CONCLUSION: Despite the 2017 T1D COS publication, use has decreased over time. This inconsistency negatively influences evidence-based practices and care. Educating researchers on COS and promoting uptake is crucial. Wider COS adoption in T1D trials could enhance clinical research overall. Further study of barriers and facilitators influencing uptake is essential to support consistent use and reporting.

Measurement instruments for the core outcome set of congenital melanocytic naevi and an assessment of the measurement properties according to COSMIN: a systematic review.

Background: Congenital melanocytic naevi (CMN) can impact on patients' lives due to their appearance and the risk they carry of neurological complications or melanoma development. The development of a core outcome set (COS) will allow standardised reporting and enable comparison of outcomes. This will help to improve guidelines. In previous research, relevant stakeholders reached a consensus over which core outcomes should be measured in any future care or research. The next step of the COS development is to select the appropriate measurement instruments. Aim: Step 1: to update a systematic review identifying all core outcomes and measurement instruments available for CMN. Step 2: to evaluate the measurement properties of the instruments for the core outcomes. Methods: This study was registered in PROSPERO and performed according to the PRISMA checklist. Step 1 includes a literature search in EMBASE (Ovid), PubMed and the Cochrane Library to identify core outcomes and instruments previously used in research of CMN. Step 2 yields a systematic search for studies on the measurement properties of instruments that were either developed or validated for CMN, including a methodological quality assessment following the COSMIN methodology. Results: Step 1 included twenty-nine studies. Step 2 yielded two studies, investigating two quality of life measurement instruments. Conclusion: Step 1 provided an overview of outcomes and instruments used for CMN. Step 2 showed that additional research on measurement properties is needed to evaluate which instruments can be used for the COS of CMN. This study informs the instrument selection and/or development of new instruments.

Prioritizing outcome measures after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: A q-sort survey of patients, health care providers and researchers.

Objective: To understand which outcome measures patients and their families, health care providers, and researchers prioritize after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional q-sort survey with participants from three key stakeholder groups. Potential outcomes were identified from interviews and focus groups. Participants were purposively sampled to achieve diversity based on stakeholder group, geography, and profession. Respondents sorted 27 outcomes in a quasi-normally distributed grid (Q-Sort) from most to least important. Principal components analysis was used to determine similarities in the way participants sorted the outcome measures resulting in distinct groupings. Overall rankings were also reported. Results: 112 participants were invited. 70 responded and 64 participants from 25 different countries completed a Q-sort. Balanced stakeholder representation was achieved. Five distinct patterns were identified based on survival, pathophysiological, psychological, resource use, and functional outcome measures. Quality of life as reported by the patient was the highest ranked outcome measure followed by independence and functional measures. Survival and biomedical outcomes were ranked in the middle and cost measures last. Conclusions: In this diverse sample of key stakeholders, we characterized several distinct perspectives with respect to outcome measure selection in aSAH. We did not identify a clear pattern of opinion based on stakeholder group or other participant characteristics. Patient-reported measure of quality of life was ranked the most important overall with function and independence also highly rated. These results will assist study design and inform efforts to improve outcome selection in aSAH research.

Made to measure-Selecting outcomes in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage research.

There has been limited new high-level evidence generated to guide aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) management in the past decade. The choice of outcome measures used in aSAH clinical trials may be one of the factors hindering progress. In this narrative review we consider the current process for determining "what" to measure in aSAH and identify some of the shortcomings of these approaches. A consideration of the unique clinical course of aSAH is then discussed and how this impacts on selecting the best timepoints to assess change in the chosen constructs. We also review the how to critically appraise different measurement instruments and some of the issues with how these are applied in the context of aSAH. We conclude with current initiatives to improve outcome selection in aSAH and future directions in the research agenda.

A protocol for developing, disseminating, and implementing a core outcome set (COS) for childbirth pelvic floor trauma research.

BACKGROUND: More than 85% of women sustain different degrees of trauma during vaginal birth. Randomized controlled trials on childbirth pelvic floor trauma have reported a wide range of outcomes and used different outcome measures. This variation restricts effective data synthesis, impairing the ability of research to inform clinical practice. The development and use of a core outcome set (COS) for childbirth pelvic floor trauma aims to ensure consistent use of outcome measures and reporting of outcomes. METHODS: An international steering group, within CHORUS, an International Collaboration for Harmonising Outcomes, Research and Standards in Urogynaecology and Women's Health, including academic community members, researchers, healthcare professionals, policy makers and women with childbirth pelvic floor trauma will lead the development of this COS. Relevant outcome parameters will be identified through comprehensive literature reviews. The selected outcomes will be entered into an international, multi-perspective online Delphi survey. Subsequently and based on the results of the Delphi surveys consensus will be sought on 'core' outcomes. DISCUSSION: Dissemination and implementation of the resulting COS within an international context will be supported and promoted. Embedding the COS for childbirth pelvic floor trauma within future clinical trials, systematic reviews, and clinical practice guidelines is expected to enrich opportunities for comparison of future clinical trials and allow better synthesis of outcomes, and will enhance mother and child care. The infrastructure created by developing a COS for childbirth pelvic floor trauma could be leveraged in other settings, for example, advancing research priorities and clinical practice guideline development.

Development of a core outcome set for myelodysplastic syndromes - a Delphi study from the EUMDS Registry Group.

Treatment options for myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) vary widely, depending on the natural disease course and patient-related factors. Comparison of treatment effectiveness is challenging as different endpoints have been included in clinical trials and outcome reporting. Our goal was to develop the first MDS core outcome set (MDS-COS) defining a minimum set of outcomes that should be reported in future clinical studies. We performed a comprehensive systematic literature review among MDS studies to extract patient- and/or clinically relevant outcomes. Clinical experts from the European LeukemiaNet MDS (EUMDS) identified 26 potential MDS core outcomes and participated in a three-round Delphi survey. After the first survey (56 experts), 15 outcomes met the inclusion criteria and one additional outcome was included. The second round (38 experts) resulted in six included outcomes. In the third round, a final check on plausibility and practicality of the six included outcomes and their definitions was performed. The final MDS-COS includes: health-related quality of life, treatment-related mortality, overall survival, performance status, safety, and haematological improvement. This newly developed MDS-COS represents the first minimum set of outcomes aiming to enhance comparability across future MDS studies and facilitate a better understanding of treatment effectiveness.

Definitions of Pediatric Functional Abdominal Pain Disorders and Outcome Measures: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review definitions of functional abdominal pain orders (FAPDs) and outcome measures used in therapeutic randomized controlled trials in pediatric FAPDs adhering to the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology recommendations. STUDY DESIGN: Cochrane, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cinahl databases were systematically searched from inception to April 2018. English-written therapeutic randomized controlled trials concerning FAPDs in children aged 4-18 years were included. Definitions of FAPDs, interventions, outcome measures, measurement instruments, and outcome assessors of each study were tabulated descriptively. Quality was assessed using the Delphi List. RESULTS: A total of 4771 articles were found, of which 64 articles were included (n = 25, 39% of high methodologic quality). The Rome III (50%), Rome II (17%), Apley (16%), and author-defined (17%) criteria were used to define FAPDs. Fourteen studies (22%) assessed a pharmacologic, 25 (39%) a dietary, and 25 (39%) a psychosocial intervention. Forty-four studies (69%) predefined their primary outcomes. In total, 211 reported predefined outcome measures were grouped into 23 different outcome domains; the majority being patient-reported (n = 27, 61%). Of the 14 studies that evaluated a pharmacologic intervention, 12 (86%) reported on adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Studies on pediatric FAPDs are of limited methodologic quality and show large heterogeneity and inconsistency in defining FAPDs and outcome measures used. Development of a core outcome set is needed to make comparison between intervention studies possible.