Multimorbidity prevalence and health outcome prediction: assessing the impact of lookback periods, disease count, and definition criteria in health administrative data at the population-based level.

BACKGROUND: Health administrative databases play a crucial role in population-level multimorbidity surveillance. Determining the appropriate retrospective or lookback period (LP) for observing prevalent and newly diagnosed diseases in administrative data presents challenge in estimating multimorbidity prevalence and predicting health outcome. The aim of this population-based study was to assess the impact of LP on multimorbidity prevalence and health outcomes prediction across three multimorbidity definitions, three lists of diseases used for multimorbidity assessment, and six health outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a population-based study including all individuals ages > 65 years on April 1st, 2019, in Québec, Canada. We considered three lists of diseases labeled according to the number of chronic conditions it considered: (1) L60 included 60 chronic conditions from the International Classification of Diseases (ICD); (2) L20 included a core of 20 chronic conditions; and (3) L31 included 31 chronic conditions from the Charlson and Elixhauser indices. For each list, we: (1) measured multimorbidity prevalence for three multimorbidity definitions (at least two [MM2+], three [MM3+] or four (MM4+) chronic conditions); and (2) evaluated capacity (c-statistic) to predict 1-year outcomes (mortality, hospitalisation, polypharmacy, and general practitioner, specialist, or emergency department visits) using LPs ranging from 1 to 20 years. RESULTS: Increase in multimorbidity prevalence decelerated after 5-10 years (e.g., MM2+, L31: LP = 1y: 14%, LP = 10y: 58%, LP = 20y: 69%). Within the 5-10 years LP range, predictive performance was better for L20 than L60 (e.g., LP = 7y, mortality, MM3+: L20 [0.798;95%CI:0.797-0.800] vs. L60 [0.779; 95%CI:0.777-0.781]) and typically better for MM3 + and MM4 + definitions (e.g., LP = 7y, mortality, L60: MM4+ [0.788;95%CI:0.786-0.790] vs. MM2+ [0.768;95%CI:0.766-0.770]). CONCLUSIONS: In our databases, ten years of data was required for stable estimation of multimorbidity prevalence. Within that range, the L20 and multimorbidity definitions MM3 + or MM4 + reached maximal predictive performance.

Machine learning models for abstract screening task - A systematic literature review application for health economics and outcome research.

OBJECTIVE: Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) are critical for life-science research. However, the manual selection and retrieval of relevant publications can be a time-consuming process. This study aims to (1) develop two disease-specific annotated corpora, one for human papillomavirus (HPV) associated diseases and the other for pneumococcal-associated pediatric diseases (PAPD), and (2) optimize machine- and deep-learning models to facilitate automation of the SLR abstract screening. METHODS: This study constructed two disease-specific SLR screening corpora for HPV and PAPD, which contained citation metadata and corresponding abstracts. Performance was evaluated using precision, recall, accuracy, and F1-score of multiple combinations of machine- and deep-learning algorithms and features such as keywords and MeSH terms. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The HPV corpus contained 1697 entries, with 538 relevant and 1159 irrelevant articles. The PAPD corpus included 2865 entries, with 711 relevant and 2154 irrelevant articles. Adding additional features beyond title and abstract improved the performance (measured in Accuracy) of machine learning models by 3% for HPV corpus and 2% for PAPD corpus. Transformer-based deep learning models that consistently outperformed conventional machine learning algorithms, highlighting the strength of domain-specific pre-trained language models for SLR abstract screening. This study provides a foundation for the development of more intelligent SLR systems.

Protocol for the development of a core outcome set and reporting guidelines for locoregional treatment in neoadjuvant systemic breast cancer treatment trials: the PRECEDENT project.

INTRODUCTION: Neoadjuvant systemic anticancer therapy (neoSACT) is increasingly used in the treatment of early breast cancer. Response to therapy is prognostic and allows locoregional and adjuvant systemic treatments to be tailored to minimise morbidity and optimise oncological outcomes and quality of life. Accurate information about locoregional treatments following neoSACT is vital to allow the translation of downstaging benefits into practice and facilitate meaningful interpretation of oncological outcomes, particularly locoregional recurrence. Reporting of locoregional treatments in neoSACT studies, however, is currently poor. The development of a core outcome set (COS) and reporting guidelines is one strategy by which this may be improved. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A COS for reporting locoregional treatment (surgery and radiotherapy) in neoSACT trials will be developed in accordance with Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) and Core Outcome Set-Standards for Development guidelines. Reporting guidance will be developed concurrently.The project will have three phases: (1) generation of a long list of relevant outcome domains and reporting items from a systematic review of published neoSACT studies and interviews with key stakeholders. Identified items and domains will be categorised and formatted into Delphi consensus questionnaire items. (2) At least two rounds of an international online Delphi survey in which at least 250 key stakeholders (surgeons/oncologists/radiologists/pathologists/trialists/methodologists) will score the importance of reporting each outcome. (3) A consensus meeting with key stakeholders to discuss and agree the final COS and reporting guidance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the consensus process will be obtained from the Queen's University Belfast Faculty Ethics Committee. The COS/reporting guidelines will be presented at international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. Dissemination materials will be produced in collaboration with our steering group and patient advocates so the results can be shared widely. REGISTRATION: The study has been prospectively registered on the COMET website (https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2854).

Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of point-of-care outcome assessment tools in Chinese palliative care clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: A standardized national approach to routinely assessing palliative care patients helps improve patient outcomes. However, a quality improvement program-based on person centered outcomes within palliative care is lacking in Mainland China. The well-established Australian Palliative Care Outcome Collaboration (PCOC) national model improves palliative care quality. This study aimed to culturally adapt and validate three measures that form part of the PCOC program for palliative care clinical practice in China: The PCOC Symptom Assessment Scale (PCOC SAS), Palliative Care Problem Severity Scale (PCPSS), Palliative Care Phase. METHODS: A study was conducted on cross-cultural adaptation and validation of PCOC SAS, PCPSS and Palliative Care Phase, involving translation methods, cognitive interviewing, and psychometric testing through paired assessments. RESULTS: Cross-cultural adaptation highlighted the need to strengthen the link between the patient's care plan and the outcome measures to improve outcomes, and the concept of distress in PCOC SAS. Analysis of 368 paired assessments (n = 135 inpatients, 22 clinicians) demonstrated that the PCOC SAS and PCPSS had good and acceptable coherence (Cronbach's a = 0.85, 0.75 respectively). Palliative Care Phase detected patients' urgent needs. PCOC SAS and PCPSS showed fair discriminant and concurrent validity. Inter-rater reliability was fair for Palliative Care Phase (k = 0.31) and PCPSS (k = 0.23-0.30), except for PCPSS-pain, which was moderate (k = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: The Chinese version of PCOC SAS, PCPSS, and Palliative Care Phase can be used to assess outcomes as part of routine clinical practice in Mainland China. Comprehensive clinical education regarding the assessment tools is necessary to help improve the inter-rater reliability.

Study protocol: a core outcome set for perioperative exercise clinical effectiveness trials for lung cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Outcome assessment in perioperative exercise trials for lung cancer is heterogeneous, often omitting those that are important and patient-relevant. This heterogeneity hinders the synthesis of evidence. To address this issue, a core outcome set, an agreed-upon standardized set of outcomes to be measured and reported, is required to reduce heterogeneity among outcome measurements. This study protocol describes the methodology, aiming to develop a core outcome set for perioperative exercise intervention trials for lung cancer in clinical practice. METHODS: The project will follow the standard methodology recommended by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative, which is divided into four steps. Stage I: Conducting a scoping review of outcomes reported in clinical trials and protocols to develop a list of potential outcome domains. Stage II: Conducting semi-structured interviews to obtain important outcomes for patients. Stage III: Choosing the most important outcomes by conducting two rounds of the Delphi exercise. Stage IV: Achieving a consensus in a face-to-face meeting to discuss the final core outcome set. DISCUSSION: This is the first project identified for the core outcome set of perioperative exercise trials in lung cancer, which will enhance the quality, comparability, and usability of future trials and positively impact perioperative exercise and the care of patients with lung cancer. TRIALS REGISTRATION: Core Outcome Measurement in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative database registration: https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2091.

Development of a core set of outcome measures to be applied toward breast cancer-related lymphedema core outcome domains.

PURPOSE: For breast cancer survivors (BCS) living with breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL), what outcome measures (OMs) are recommended to be used to measure standardized outcome domains to fully assess the burden of the disease and efficacy of interventions? An integral component of a standardized core outcome set (COS) are the OMs used to measure the COS. METHODS: A supplemental online survey was linked to a Delphi study investigating a COS for BCRL. OMs were limited to a maximum of 10 options for each outcome domain (OD). There were 14 ODs corresponding to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) framework and respondents rated the OMs with a Likert level of recommendation. The feasibility of the listed OMs was also investigated for most outpatient, inpatient, and research settings. RESULTS: This study identified 27 standardized OMs with a few ODs having 2-3 highly recommended OMs for proper measurement. A few of the recommended OMs have limitations with reliability due to being semi-quantitative measures requiring the interpretation of the rater. CONCLUSION: Narrowing the choices of OMs to 27 highly recommended by BCRL experts may reduce selective reporting, inconsistency in clinical use, and variability of reporting across interdisciplinary healthcare fields which manage or research BCRL. There is a need for valid, reliable, and feasible OMs that measure tissue consistency. Measures of upper extremity activity and motor control need further research in the BCS with BCRL population.

Development of a core outcome set for breast cancer-related lymphedema: a Delphi study.

PURPOSE: For breast cancer survivors (BCS) living with breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL), what outcome domains (OD) should be measured to assess the burden of the disease and efficacy of interventions? A Core Outcome Set (COS) that promotes standardized measurement of outcomes within the constraints of time influenced by work environments is essential for patients and the multidisciplinary professionals that manage and research BCRL. METHODS: Using Delphi methodology, a multidisciplinary group of BCRL experts (physical and occupational therapists, physicians, researchers, physical therapist assistants, nurses, and massage therapist) completed two waves of online surveys. BCRL expert respondents that completed the first survey (n = 78) had an average of 26.5 years in practice, whereas, respondents who completed the second survey (n = 33) had an average of 24.9 years. ODs were included in the COS when consensus thresholds, ranging from 70% to 80%, were met. RESULTS: A total of 12 ODs made up the COS. Reaching a minimum consensus of 70%; volume, tissue consistency, pain, patient-reported upper quadrant function, patient-reported health-related quality of life, and upper extremity activity and motor control were recommended at different phases of the BCRL continuum in a time-constrained environment. Joint function, flexibility, strength, sensation, mobility and balance, and fatigue met an 80% consensus to be added when time and resources were not constrained. CONCLUSION: The COS developed in this study thoroughly captures the burden of BCRL. Using this COS may reduce selective reporting, inconsistency in clinical use, and variability of reporting across interdisciplinary healthcare fields, which manage or research BCRL.

Beating the empty pelvis syndrome: the PelvEx Collaborative core outcome set study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The empty pelvis syndrome is a significant source of morbidity following pelvic exenteration surgery. It remains poorly defined with research in this field being heterogeneous and of low quality. Furthermore, there has been minimal engagement with patient representatives following pelvic exenteration with respect to the empty pelvic syndrome. 'PelvEx-Beating the empty pelvis syndrome' aims to engage both patient representatives and healthcare professionals to achieve an international consensus on a core outcome set, pathophysiology and mitigation of the empty pelvis syndrome. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A modified-Delphi approach will be followed with a three-stage study design. First, statements will be longlisted using a recent systematic review, healthcare professional event, patient and public engagement, and Delphi piloting. Second, statements will be shortlisted using up to three rounds of online modified Delphi. Third, statements will be confirmed and instruments for measurable statements selected using a virtual patient-representative consensus meeting, and finally a face-to-face healthcare professional consensus meeting. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Southampton Faculty of Medicine ethics committee has approved this protocol, which is registered as a study with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative. Publication of this study will increase the potential for comparative research to further understanding and prevent the empty pelvis syndrome. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05683795.

Core Descriptor Sets for Rectal Prolapse Outcomes Research Using a Modified Delphi Consensus.

BACKGROUND: There is wide variation in prolapse care. OBJECTIVE: To determine core descriptor sets for rectal prolapse to enhance outcomes research. DESIGN: Descriptors for patients undergoing rectal prolapse surgery were generated through a systematic review and expert opinion. Stakeholders were recruited internationally via listserv and social media. Experts were encouraged to consider the minimum descriptors that could be considered during clinical care, and descriptors were grouped into core descriptor sets. Consensus was defined as greater than 70% agreement. SETTING: A 3-round Delphi process using a 9-point Likert scale based on expert results was distributed via survey. The final interactive meeting used a polling platform. PARTICIPANTS: The Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium interdisciplinary group convened to advance the clinical care of pelvic floor disorders. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To achieve expert consensus for core descriptor sets for rectal prolapse using a modified Delphi method. RESULTS: A total of 206 providers participated, with survey response rates of 82% and 88%, respectively. Responders were from North America (56%), Europe (29%), and Latin America, Asia, Australia, New Zealand, and Africa (15%). Ninety-one percent of participants identified as colorectal surgeons and 80% reported >5 years of experience (35% reported >15 years). Fifty-seven attendees participated in the final meeting and voted on core descriptor sets. Ninety-three percent of participants agreed that descriptors such as age, BMI, frailty, nutrition, and the American Society of Anesthesiology score correlated to physiologic status. One hundred percent of participants agreed to include baseline bowel function. One hundred percent of participants reported willingness to complete a synoptic operative report. Follow-up intervals 1, 3, and 5 years after surgery (76%) with a collection of recurrence and functional outcomes at those time periods reached an agreement. LIMITATIONS: Individual bias, self-identification of experts, and paucity of knowledge related to rectal prolapse. CONCLUSIONS: This represents the first steps toward international consensus to unify language and data collection processes for rectal prolapse. See Video Abstract . CONJUNTOS DE DESCRIPTORES BSICOS PARA LA INVESTIGACIN DE RESULTADOS DE PROLAPSO RECTAL MEDIANTE UN CONSENSO DELPHI MODIFICADO: ANTECEDENTES:Existe una amplia variación en la atención del prolapso.OBJETIVO:Determinar conjuntos de descriptores básicos para el prolapso rectal para mejorar los resultados de la investigación.DISEÑO:Los descriptores para pacientes sometidos a cirugía de prolapso rectal se generaron a través de una revisión sistemática y la opinión de expertos. Las partes interesadas fueron reclutadas internacionalmente a través de listas de servicio y redes sociales. Se animó a los expertos a considerar los descriptores mínimos que podrían considerarse durante la atención clínica, y los descriptores se agruparon en conjuntos de descriptores básicos. El consenso se definió como > 70% de acuerdo.AJUSTE:Se distribuyó mediante encuesta un proceso Delphi de tres rondas que utiliza una escala Likert de 9 puntos basada en resultados de expertos. La reunión interactiva final utilizó una plataforma de votación.PARTICIPANTES:El grupo interdisciplinario del Consorcio de Trastornos del Suelo Pélvico se reunió para avanzar en la atención clínica de los trastornos del suelo pélvico.MEDIDAS PRINCIPALES DE RESULTADOS:Lograr el consenso de expertos para los conjuntos de descriptores básicos para el prolapso rectal utilizando un método Delphi modificado.RESULTADOS:Participaron 206 proveedores con tasas de respuesta a la encuesta del 82% y 88% respectivamente. Los encuestados procedían de América del Norte (56%), Europa (29%) y América Latina, Asia, Australia, Nueva Zelanda y África (15%). El noventa y uno por ciento se identificó como cirujanos colorrectales y el 80% reportó más de 5 años de experiencia (35% > 15 años). Cincuenta y siete asistentes participaron en la reunión final y votaron sobre conjuntos de descriptores básicos. El noventa y tres por ciento estuvo de acuerdo en que descriptores como edad, índice de masa corporal, fragilidad, nutrición y puntuación de la Sociedad Estadounidense de Anestesiología se correlacionaban con el estado fisiológico. El cien por ciento estuvo de acuerdo en incluir la función intestinal inicial. El 100% refirió disposición para realizar un informe operativo sinóptico. Los intervalos de seguimiento 1,3,5 años después de la cirugía (76%) con un conjunto de recurrencias y los resultados funcionales en esos períodos de tiempo coincidieron.LIMITACIONES:Sesgo individual, autoidentificación de los expertos y escasez de conocimientos relacionados con el prolapso rectal.CONCLUSIONES:Esto representa los primeros pasos hacia un consenso internacional para unificar el lenguaje y los procesos de recolección de datos para el prolapso rectal. (Traducción-Yesenia Rojas-Khalil ).

Core outcomes in nerve surgery: development of a core outcome set for ulnar neuropathy at the elbow.

OBJECTIVE: Ulnar neuropathy at the elbow (UNE) is common, affecting 1%-6% of the population. Despite this, there remains a lack of consensus regarding optimal treatment. This is primarily due to the difficulty one encounters when trying to assess the literature. Outcomes are inconsistently reported, which makes comparing studies or developing meta-analyses difficult or even impossible. Thus, there is a need for a core outcome set (COS) for UNE (COS-UNE) to help address this problem. The objective of this study was to utilize a modified Delphi method to develop COS-UNE. METHODS: A 5-stage approach was utilized to develop COS-UNE: stage 1, consortium development; 2, literature review to identify potential outcome measures; 3, Delphi survey to develop consensus on outcomes for inclusion; 4, Delphi survey to develop definitions; and 5, consensus meeting to finalize the COS and definitions. The study followed the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) recommendations. RESULTS: The Core Outcomes in Nerve Surgery (COINS) Consortium comprised 21 participants, all neurological surgeons representing 11 countries. The final COS-UNE consisted of 22 data points/outcomes covering the domains of demographic characteristics, diagnostics, patient-reported outcomes, motor/sensory outcomes, and complications. Appropriate instruments, methods of testing, and definitions were set. The consensus minimum duration of follow-up was 6 months, with the consensus optimal timepoints for assessment identified as preoperatively and 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: The authors identified consensus data points/outcomes and also provided definitions and specific scales to be utilized to help ensure that clinicians are consistent in their reporting across studies on UNE. This COS should serve as a minimum set of data to be collected in all future neurosurgical studies on UNE. The authors hope that clinicians evaluating ulnar neuropathy will incorporate this COS into routine practice and that future studies will consider this COS in the design phase.

Development of an international core outcome set for treatment trials in paediatric inguinal hernia: protocol for a three-phase study including a systematic review and Delphi survey.

INTRODUCTION: In children, open inguinal hernia repair has been the gold standard for treatment, but with recent technical advancements in laparoscopy, laparoscopic hernia repair is gaining popularity. Despite available results from comparative studies, there is still no consensus regarding the superiority of open versus laparoscopic treatment strategy. An important reason for lack of consensus is the large heterogeneity in the trials' reported outcomes and outcome definitions, which limits comparisons between studies and precludes conclusions regarding the superiority of treatment strategies. The development and implementation of a core outcome set (COS) is a solution for this heterogeneity in the selection, measurement and reporting of trial outcome measures across studies. Currently, there is no COS for the treatment of paediatric inguinal hernia. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The aim of this project is to reach international consensus on a minimal set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all future clinical trials investigating inguinal hernia repair in children. The development process comprises three phases. First, we identify outcome domains associated with paediatric inguinal hernia repair from a patient perspective and through a systematic review of the literature using EMBASE, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library databases. Second, we conduct a three-step Delphi study to identify and prioritise 'core' outcomes for the eventual minimal set. In the third phase, an expert meeting is held to establish the final COS and develop implementation strategies with participants from all stakeholder groups: healthcare professionals, parents and patients' representatives. The final COS will be reported in accordance with the COS-Standards for Reporting statement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The medical research ethics committee of the Amsterdam UMC confirmed that the Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO) does not apply to this study and that full approval by the committee is not required. Electronic informed consent will be obtained from all participants. Results will be presented in peer-reviewed academic journals and at relevant conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021281422.

The NeoPACE study: study protocol for the development of a core outcome set for neonatal palliative care.

BACKGROUND: Neonatal death is the leading category of death in children under the age of 5 in the UK. Many babies die following decisions between parents and the neonatal team; when a baby is critically unwell, with the support of healthcare professionals, parents may make the decision to stop active treatment and focus on ensuring their baby has a 'good' death. There is very little evidence to support the clinical application of neonatal palliative care and/or end-of-life care, resulting in variation in clinical provision between neonatal units. Developing core outcomes for neonatal palliative care would enable the development of measures of good practice and enhance our care of families. The aim of this study is to develop a core outcome set with associated tools for measuring neonatal palliative care. METHOD: This study has four phases: (1) identification of potential outcomes through systematic review and qualitative interviews with key stakeholders, including parents and healthcare professionals (2) an online Delphi process with key stakeholders to determine core outcomes (3) identification of outcome measures to support clinical application of outcome use (4) dissemination of the core outcome set for use across neonatal units in the UK. Key stakeholders include parents, healthcare professionals, and researchers with a background in neonatal palliative care. DISCUSSION: Developing a core outcome set will standardise minimum reported outcomes for future research and quality improvement projects designed to determine the effectiveness of interventions and clinical care during neonatal palliative and/or end-of-life care. The core outcome set will provide healthcare professionals working in neonatal palliative and/or end-of-life support with an increased and consistent evidence base to enhance practice in this area. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study has been registered with the COMET initiative ( https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1470 ) and the systematic review is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42023451068).

Translation and cultural adaptation of the Greek integrated palliative care outcome scale (IPOS): challenges in a six-phase process.

AIM: To translate and culturally adapt IPOS to the Greek population. METHODS: A four phases- sequential study, which included verification of conceptual equivalence, double forward- backward translations and conceptual cognitive debriefing. Focus group interviews used 'think aloud' and 'verbal probing' techniques. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analyzed using predefined categories. Purposely sampled from two oncology and palliative care units in Athens. RESULTS: The Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale was well accepted by both patients and health professionals. Overall comprehension and acceptability of the scale were good. The comprehension and judgement challenges identified in the pre-final version were successfully resolved in the cognitive interviewing phase. Five out of the seventeen translated items of the scale were modified after cognitive debriefing. Comprehension difficulties were identified with specific terms (e.g., energy/feeling depressed) and with some answer options. Severity of symptoms and not their impact was a common difficulty. A judgement challenge was reported in relation to 7-days recall and fluctuation of symptoms. Layout concerns in relation to length of questions were also stated. All questions were considered important and none as inappropriate. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated face and content validity and acceptability of the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale in the Greek context. Cognitive Interviewing proved valuable in refining concepts within the specific cultural context. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The IPOS outcome measure tool is now being used routinely in a palliative care service in Athens and is currently used to evaluate service outcomes.

Patient-reported outcomes: A primer for plastic surgeons.

Surgical care today is no longer evaluated only on clinical outcomes but also on holistic patient wellbeing. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are a representation of the patient's perspective on their results and wellbeing. The aim of this review is to establish PROs as the center of healthcare and plastic surgery, to delineate important PROs in plastic surgery practice and research, to discuss the future of PROs within our discipline, and to encourage surgeons to incorporate PROs into their practice. PROs are an important parallel of clinical outcomes in that they can use the patient's perspective to 1) support clinical findings, 2) detect differences in care when there are no clear clinical differences, 3) track progress longitudinally, and 4) support systemic improvements in healthcare. Plastic surgery as a field is naturally aligned with PROs because, as a discipline, we focus on patient form and function. The emerging forefronts of plastic surgery such as lymphedema care, gender-affirming care, peripheral nerve surgery, migraine surgery, and breast implant illness are critically dependent on PROs. In the next decade, we predict that there will be a continued proliferation of robust PRO measures and integration into healthcare delivery. Outcomes research in surgery should continue to evolve as surgeons provide increasingly more benefits to improve patient wellbeing. Plastic surgeons must continue to play a prominent role in the future of PROs.

Does EQ-5D Tell the Whole Story? Statistical Methods for Comparing the Thematic Coverage of Clinical and Generic Outcome Measures, With Application to Breast Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to develop the following: (1) methods for assessing claims in any specific application that a generic outcome measure, such as EQ-5D is deficient in its coverage of 1 or more specified domains, and (2) a simple method of judging whether any such deficiency is likely to be quantitatively important enough to call into question evaluations based on the generic instrument. Also to demonstrate the applicability of the methods in the important area of breast cancer. METHODS: The methodology requires a data set with observations from a generic instrument (eg, EQ-5D) and also a more comprehensive clinical instrument (eg, FACT-B [Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast]). A standardized 3-component statistical analysis is proposed for investigating the claim that the generic measure inadequately captures some specified dimension covered by the latter instrument. A theoretically based upper bound on the bias induced by deficient coverage is derived based on the assumption that the designers of the (k-dimensional) generic instrument did succeed in identifying the k most important domains. RESULTS: Data from the MARIANNE breast cancer trial were analyzed and results suggested that impacts on personal appearance and relationships may be inadequately represented by EQ-5D. Nevertheless, the indications are that the bias in quality-adjusted life-year differences from deficient coverage by EQ-5D is likely to be modest. CONCLUSIONS: The methodology offers a systematic approach to determining whether there is clear evidence consistent with any claim that a generic outcome measure such as EQ-5D misses an important specific domain. The approach is readily implementable using data sets that are available in many randomized controlled trials.

World Workshop on Oral Medicine VIII: Development of a core outcome set for oral lichen planus: a consensus study.

OBJECTIVE: A core outcome set (COS) is the minimum agreed-on data set required to be measured in interventional trials. To date, there is no COS for oral lichen planus (OLP). This study describes the final consensus project that brought together the results of the previous stages of the project to develop the COS for OLP. STUDY DESIGN: The consensus process followed the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials guidelines and involved the agreement of relevant stakeholders, including patients with OLP. Delphi-style clicker sessions were conducted at the World Workshop on Oral Medicine VIII and the 2022 American Academy of Oral Medicine Annual Conference. Attendees were asked to rate the importance of 15 outcome domains previously identified from a systematic review of interventional studies of OLP and a qualitative study of OLP patients. In a subsequent step, a group of OLP patients rated the domains. A further round of interactive consensus led to the final COS. RESULTS: The consensus processes led to a COS of 11 outcome domains to be measured in future trials on OLP. CONCLUSION: The COS developed by consensus will help reduce the heterogeneity of outcomes measured in interventional trials. This will allow future pooling of outcomes and data for meta-analyses. This project showed the effectiveness of a methodology that could be used for future COS development.

Use of Pediatric Outcomes Data Collection Instrument to Evaluate Functional Outcomes in Multiple Hereditary Exostoses.

BACKGROUND: The Pediatric Outcomes Data Collection Instrument (PODCI) is a validated quality-of-life questionnaire with 6 domains designed to provide a standardized method of measuring outcomes in pediatric musculoskeletal conditions. To our knowledge there are no reports on its use in children with multiple hereditary exostosis (MHE). QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Most published studies on MHE patients have described the efficacy of specific surgical techniques or the specification of deformities. Little is known about the general health status of pediatric patients, the severity of pain, loss of function, and how MHE influences the activities of daily life. We aim to assess the functional levels of MHE pediatric patients with PODCI questionnaire. PATIENTS AND METHODS: As a cross-sectional study, we prospectively administered PODCI to 34 pediatric patients diagnosed with MHE and their families. The score distributions were compared with values published earlier for children and adolescents without musculoskeletal disorders using the Student and Welch t tests. Parents and adolescents' reports were compared using Wilcoxon signed rank test. Physical examination and PODCI score relation were evaluated by Spearman test. RESULTS: Children with MHE have significantly lower scores ( P <0,05) in comparison with unaffected children in all domains using the Student and Welch t test. Parents score differs from children score with statistically relevance in pain and comfort domain ( P <0,5). The Spearman test showed a negative correlation between physical examination and PODCI score with statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: These results point towards PODCI's capacity in evaluating functional outcomes of pediatric patients with MHE. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Study, Level III.

Are the results of patient reported outcome measures after spine surgery influenced by recall of preoperative scores? A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are of utmost importance to clinical practice as they permit a patient-focused evaluation of surgical outcomes. However, recall bias can limit an adequate interpretation of PROMs. PURPOSE: To assess the impact of recall bias of preoperative status on postoperative PROMs of patients submitted to surgery due to degenerative spine disease. STUDY DESIGN / SETTING: Randomized controlled trial in a tertiary care neurosurgical unit in Portugal PATIENT SAMPLE: All patients submitted to surgery at our institution from January 2019 to April 2020 due to degenerative lumbar or cervical spine disease with valid PROMs questionnaires were enrolled, and 2 computer generated randomized groups were created. OUTCOME MEASURES: The study´s primary endpoint was the median postoperative Core Outcome Measure Index (COMI) score. METHODS: The intervention group was sent postoperative questionnaires including preoperative answers, while patients in the control group were sent the same PROMs without the preoperative answers. RESULTS: Randomization was applied to 236 patients (118 for each group) and valid results were obtained for 147 patients (81 lumbar, 44 from the intervention group; and 66 cervical, 29 from the intervention group), from which 88 (60%) were females, with a median age of 58 years. Both groups shared similar baseline clinical characteristics and preoperative scores. Median postoperative COMI scores and interquartile ranges (IQR) were 4.20 (IQR: 2.30-6.00) and 5.45 (IQR: 3.75-7.40) for the intervention and control groups, respectively (Wilcoxon, p=.02). This difference was reached mainly due to cervical spine patients as median postoperative COMI score was 3.95 (IQR: 2.20-5.32) in the intervention group and 5.1 (IQR: 4.0-8.4) in the control group (Wilcoxon, p=.01). No significant difference was reached for lumbar patients. CONCLUSIONS: Better PROMs scores were obtained for degenerative cervical spine patients to whom the preoperative results were provided. Therefore, providing preoperative scores to patients upon postoperative PROMs fulfilment might influence postoperative results. Further research is necessary to increase the reliability of PROMs in clinical practice.