Analysis of 567,758 randomized controlled trials published over 30 years reveals trends in phrases used to discuss results that do not reach statistical significance.

The power of language to modify the reader's perception of interpreting biomedical results cannot be underestimated. Misreporting and misinterpretation are pressing problems in randomized controlled trials (RCT) output. This may be partially related to the statistical significance paradigm used in clinical trials centered around a P value below 0.05 cutoff. Strict use of this P value may lead to strategies of clinical researchers to describe their clinical results with P values approaching but not reaching the threshold to be "almost significant." The question is how phrases expressing nonsignificant results have been reported in RCTs over the past 30 years. To this end, we conducted a quantitative analysis of English full texts containing 567,758 RCTs recorded in PubMed between 1990 and 2020 (81.5% of all published RCTs in PubMed). We determined the exact presence of 505 predefined phrases denoting results that approach but do not cross the line of formal statistical significance (P < 0.05). We modeled temporal trends in phrase data with Bayesian linear regression. Evidence for temporal change was obtained through Bayes factor (BF) analysis. In a randomly sampled subset, the associated P values were manually extracted. We identified 61,741 phrases in 49,134 RCTs indicating almost significant results (8.65%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 8.58% to 8.73%). The overall prevalence of these phrases remained stable over time, with the most prevalent phrases being "marginally significant" (in 7,735 RCTs), "all but significant" (7,015), "a nonsignificant trend" (3,442), "failed to reach statistical significance" (2,578), and "a strong trend" (1,700). The strongest evidence for an increased temporal prevalence was found for "a numerical trend," "a positive trend," "an increasing trend," and "nominally significant." In contrast, the phrases "all but significant," "approaches statistical significance," "did not quite reach statistical significance," "difference was apparent," "failed to reach statistical significance," and "not quite significant" decreased over time. In a random sampled subset of 29,000 phrases, the manually identified and corresponding 11,926 P values, 68,1% ranged between 0.05 and 0.15 (CI: 67. to 69.0; median 0.06). Our results show that RCT reports regularly contain specific phrases describing marginally nonsignificant results to report P values close to but above the dominant 0.05 cutoff. The fact that the prevalence of the phrases remained stable over time indicates that this practice of broadly interpreting P values close to a predefined threshold remains prevalent. To enhance responsible and transparent interpretation of RCT results, researchers, clinicians, reviewers, and editors may reduce the focus on formal statistical significance thresholds and stimulate reporting of P values with corresponding effect sizes and CIs and focus on the clinical relevance of the statistical difference found in RCTs.

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.

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.

Is it time for PET-guided therapy in follicular lymphoma?

18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) is now established as the gold-standard imaging modality for both staging and response assessment in follicular lymphoma (FL). In this Perspective, we propose where PET can, and cannot, guide clinicians in their therapeutic approach. PET at diagnosis and pretreatment is important for staging, with greater sensitivity compared with standard CT, and consequent improved outcomes in truly limited-stage FL. Small data sets suggesting that a high baseline standardized uptake value (SUVmax) identifies de novo histologic transformation (HT) have not been corroborated by data from GALLIUM, the largest prospective study to examine modern therapies for FL. Nonetheless, the role of baseline quantitative PET measures requires further clarification. The median survival of patients with newly diagnosed FL is now potentially >20 years. Treatment of symptomatic FL aims to achieve remission and optimize quality of life for as long as possible, with many patients achieving a "functional cure" at the cost of unwanted treatment effects. Several studies have identified end-of-induction (EOI) PET after initial chemoimmunotherapy in patients with a high tumor burden as strongly predictive of both progression-free and overall survival, and EOI PET is being evaluated as a platform for response-adapted treatment. Unmet needs remain: improving the inferior survival for patients remaining PET positive and quantifying the progression-free survival and time to next treatment advantage, and additional toxicity of anti-CD20 maintenance in patients who achieve complete metabolic remission. In the absence of an overall survival advantage for frontline antibody maintenance, the question of using PET to guide the therapeutic approach is more important than ever in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Clinician's Approach to Advanced Statistical Methods: Win Ratios, Restricted Mean Survival Time, Responder Analyses, and Standardized Mean Differences.

Novel statistical methods have emerged in recent medical literature, which clinicians must understand to properly appraise and integrate evidence into their practice. Some of these key concepts include win ratios, restricted mean survival time, responder analyses, and standardized mean difference. This article offers guidance to busy clinicians on the comprehension and practical applicability of the results to patients. Win ratios provide an alternative method to analyze composite outcomes by prioritizing individual components of the composite; prioritization of the outcomes should be evidence-based, pre-specified, and patient-centered. Restricted mean survival time presents a method to analyze Kaplan-Meier curves when assumptions required for Cox proportional hazards analysis are not met. As it only considers outcomes that occur within a specific timeframe, the duration of follow-up must be appropriately defined and based on prior epidemiologic and mechanistic evidence. Researchers can analyze continuous outcomes with responder analyses, in which participants are dichotomized into "responders" or "non-responders." While clinicians and patients may more easily grasp outcomes analyzed in this way, they should be aware of the loss of information and resulting imprecision, as well as potential to manipulate data presentation. When meta-analyzing continuous outcomes, point estimates can be converted to standardized mean differences to facilitate the combination of data utilizing various outcome measures. However, clinicians may find it challenging to grasp the clinical meaningfulness of a standardized mean difference, and may benefit from converting it to well-known outcomes. By providing the background knowledge of these statistical methods, along with practical applicability, benefits, and inevitable limitations, this article aims to provide clinicians with an approach to appraise the literature and apply the results in clinical practice.

Development of an International Standard Set of Outcomes and Measurement Methods for Routine Practice for Infants, Children, and Adolescents with Epilepsy: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement Consensus Recommendations.

At present, there is no internationally accepted set of core outcomes or measurement methods for epilepsy clinical practice. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) convened an international working group of experts in epilepsy, people with epilepsy, and their representatives to develop minimum sets of standardized outcomes and outcome measurement methods for clinical practice. Using modified Delphi consensus methods with consecutive rounds of online voting over 12 months, a core set of outcomes and corresponding measurement tool packages to capture the outcomes were identified for infants, children, and adolescents with epilepsy. Consensus methods identified 20 core outcomes. In addition to the outcomes identified for the ICHOM Epilepsy adult standard set, behavioral, motor, and cognitive/language development outcomes were voted as essential for all infants and children with epilepsy. The proposed set of outcomes and measurement methods will facilitate the implementation of the use of patient-centered outcomes in daily practice.

Development of an International Standard Set of Outcomes and Measurement Methods for Routine Practice for Adults with Epilepsy: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement Consensus Recommendations.

At present, there is no internationally accepted set of core outcomes or measurement methods for epilepsy clinical practice. Therefore, the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) convened an international working group of experts in epilepsy, people with epilepsy and their representatives to develop minimum sets of standardized outcomes and outcomes measurement methods for clinical practice that support patient-clinician decision-making and quality improvement. Consensus methods identified 20 core outcomes. Measurement tools were recommended based on their evidence of strong clinical measurement properties, feasibility, and cross-cultural applicability. The essential outcomes included many non-seizure outcomes: anxiety, depression, suicidality, memory and attention, sleep quality, functional status, and the social impact of epilepsy. The proposed set will facilitate the implementation of the use of patient-centered outcomes in daily practice, ensuring holistic care. They also encourage harmonization of outcome measurement, and if widely implemented should reduce the heterogeneity of outcome measurement, accelerate comparative research, and facilitate quality improvement efforts.

Outcomes for clinical trials involving adults with chronic kidney disease: a multinational Delphi survey involving patients, caregivers and health professionals.

BACKGROUND: Many outcomes of high priority to patients and clinicians are infrequently and inconsistently reported across trials in chronic kidney disease (CKD), which generates research waste and limits evidence-informed decision making. We aimed to generate consensus among patients/caregivers and health professionals on critically important outcomes for trials in CKD prior to kidney failure and the need for kidney replacement therapy, and to describe the reasons for their choices. METHODS: This was an online two-round international Delphi survey. Adult patients with CKD (all stages and diagnoses), caregivers and health professionals who could read English, Spanish or French were eligible. Participants rated the importance of outcomes using a Likert scale (7-9 indicating critical importance) and a Best-Worst Scale. The scores for the two groups were assessed to determine absolute and relative importance. Comments were analysed thematically. RESULTS: In total, 1399 participants from 73 countries completed Round 1 of the Delphi survey, including 628 (45%) patients/caregivers and 771 (55%) health professionals. In Round 2, 790 participants (56% response rate) from 63 countries completed the survey including 383 (48%) patients/caregivers and 407 (52%) health professionals. The overall top five outcomes were: kidney function, need for dialysis/transplant, life participation, cardiovascular disease and death. In the final round, patients/caregivers indicated higher scores for most outcomes (17/22 outcomes), and health professionals gave higher priority to mortality, hospitalization and cardiovascular disease (mean difference >0.3). Consensus was based upon the two groups yielding median scores of ≥7 and mean scores >7, and the proportions of both groups rating the outcome as 'critically important' being >50%. Four themes reflected the reasons for their priorities: imminent threat of a health catastrophe, signifying diminishing capacities, ability to self-manage and cope, and tangible and direct consequences. CONCLUSION: Across trials in CKD, the outcomes of highest priority to patients, caregivers and health professionals were kidney function, need for dialysis/transplant, life participation, cardiovascular disease and death.

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 ).

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.

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.

Outcome risk model development for heterogeneity of treatment effect analyses: a comparison of non-parametric machine learning methods and semi-parametric statistical methods.

BACKGROUND: In randomized clinical trials, treatment effects may vary, and this possibility is referred to as heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE). One way to quantify HTE is to partition participants into subgroups based on individual's risk of experiencing an outcome, then measuring treatment effect by subgroup. Given the limited availability of externally validated outcome risk prediction models, internal models (created using the same dataset in which heterogeneity of treatment analyses also will be performed) are commonly developed for subgroup identification. We aim to compare different methods for generating internally developed outcome risk prediction models for subject partitioning in HTE analysis. METHODS: Three approaches were selected for generating subgroups for the 2,441 participants from the United States enrolled in the ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) randomized controlled trial. An extant proportional hazards-based outcomes predictive risk model developed on the overall ASPREE cohort of 19,114 participants was identified and was used to partition United States' participants by risk of experiencing a composite outcome of death, dementia, or persistent physical disability. Next, two supervised non-parametric machine learning outcome classifiers, decision trees and random forests, were used to develop multivariable risk prediction models and partition participants into subgroups with varied risks of experiencing the composite outcome. Then, we assessed how the partitioning from the proportional hazard model compared to those generated by the machine learning models in an HTE analysis of the 5-year absolute risk reduction (ARR) and hazard ratio for aspirin vs. placebo in each subgroup. Cochran's Q test was used to detect if ARR varied significantly by subgroup. RESULTS: The proportional hazard model was used to generate 5 subgroups using the quintiles of the estimated risk scores; the decision tree model was used to generate 6 subgroups (6 automatically determined tree leaves); and the random forest model was used to generate 5 subgroups using the quintiles of the prediction probability as risk scores. Using the semi-parametric proportional hazards model, the ARR at 5 years was 15.1% (95% CI 4.0-26.3%) for participants with the highest 20% of predicted risk. Using the random forest model, the ARR at 5 years was 13.7% (95% CI 3.1-24.4%) for participants with the highest 20% of predicted risk. The highest outcome risk group in the decision tree model also exhibited a risk reduction, but the confidence interval was wider (5-year ARR = 17.0%, 95% CI= -5.4-39.4%). Cochran's Q test indicated ARR varied significantly only by subgroups created using the proportional hazards model. The hazard ratio for aspirin vs. placebo therapy did not significantly vary by subgroup in any of the models. The highest risk groups for the proportional hazards model and random forest model contained 230 participants each, while the highest risk group in the decision tree model contained 41 participants. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of technique for internally developed models for outcome risk subgroups influences HTE analyses. The rationale for the use of a particular subgroup determination model in HTE analyses needs to be explicitly defined based on desired levels of explainability (with features importance), uncertainty of prediction, chances of overfitting, and assumptions regarding the underlying data structure. Replication of these analyses using data from other mid-size clinical trials may help to establish guidance for selecting an outcomes risk prediction modelling technique for HTE analyses.

Observational studies of treatment effectiveness in neurology.

The capacity and power of data from cohorts, registries and randomized trials to provide answers to contemporary clinical questions in neurology has increased considerably over the past two decades. Novel sophisticated statistical methods are enabling us to harness these data to guide treatment decisions, but their complexity is making appraisal of clinical evidence increasingly demanding. In this review, we discuss several methodological aspects of contemporary research of treatment effectiveness in observational data in neurology, aimed at academic neurologists and analysts specializing in outcomes research. The review discusses specifics of the sources of observational data and their key features. It focuses on the limitations of observational data and study design, as well as statistical approaches aimed to overcome these limitations. Among the examples of leading clinical themes typically studied with analyses of observational data, the review discusses methodological approaches to comparative treatment effectiveness, development of diagnostic criteria and definitions of clinical outcomes. Finally, this review provides a brief summary of key points that will help clinical audience critically evaluate design and analytical aspects of studies of disease outcomes using observational data.

Composite outcome measures in high-impact critical care randomised controlled trials: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The use of composite outcome measures (COM) in clinical trials is increasing. Whilst their use is associated with benefits, several limitations have been highlighted and there is limited literature exploring their use within critical care. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the use of COM in high-impact critical care trials, and compare study parameters (including sample size, statistical significance, and consistency of effect estimates) in trials using composite versus non-composite outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review of 16 high-impact journals was conducted. Randomised controlled trials published between 2012 and 2022 reporting a patient important outcome and involving critical care patients, were included. RESULTS: 8271 trials were screened, and 194 included. 39.1% of all trials used a COM and this increased over time. Of those using a COM, only 52.6% explicitly described the outcome as composite. The median number of components was 2 (IQR 2-3). Trials using a COM recruited fewer participants (409 (198.8-851.5) vs 584 (300-1566, p = 0.004), and their use was not associated with increased rates of statistical significance (19.7% vs 17.8%, p = 0.380). Predicted effect sizes were overestimated in all but 6 trials. For studies using a COM the effect estimates were consistent across all components in 43.4% of trials. 93% of COM included components that were not patient important. CONCLUSIONS: COM are increasingly used in critical care trials; however effect estimates are frequently inconsistent across COM components confounding outcome interpretations. The use of COM was associated with smaller sample sizes, and no increased likelihood of statistically significant results. Many of the limitations inherent to the use of COM are relevant to critical care research.

Variation in outcome measurement and reporting in studies of pelvic exenteration for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer: a systematic review.

AIM: There is increasing research interest in pelvic exenteration for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer. Heterogeneity in outcome reporting can prevent meaningful interpretation and valid synthesis of pooled data and meta-analyses. The aim of this study was to assess homogeneity in outcome measures in the current pelvic exenteration literature. METHOD: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL and Scopus databases were searched from 1990 to 25 April 2023 to identify studies reporting outcomes of pelvic exenteration for locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer. All reported outcomes were extracted, merged with those of similar meaning and assigned a domain. RESULTS: Of 4137 abstracts screened, 156 studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 2765 outcomes were reported, of which 17% were accompanied by a definition. There were 1157 unique outcomes, merged into 84 standardized outcomes and assigned one of seven domains. The most reported domains were complications (147 studies, 94%), survival (127, 81%) and surgical outcomes (123, 79%). Resection margins were reported in 122 studies (78%): the definition of a clear resection margin was not provided in 45 studies (37%), it was unclear in 11 studies (9%) and not specified beyond microscopically 'clear' or 'negative' in 31 (28%). Measurements of 2, 1, 0.5 mm and any healthy tissue were all used to define R0 margins. CONCLUSION: There is significant heterogeneity in outcome measurement and reporting in the current pelvic exenteration literature, raising concerns about the validity of comparative or collaborative studies between centres and meta-analyses. Coordinated international collaboration is required to define core outcome sets and benchmarks.

Developing a set of patient-centered outcomes for routine use in endometriosis: An international Delphi study.

INTRODUCTION: There is large variation in individual patient care for endometriosis. A uniform approach to measure outcomes could be incorporated into routine clinical practice to personalize and monitor treatments and potentially improve the quality of care. The aim of this study is to identify a group of patient-centered outcomes for use in routine endometriosis care which are relevant to all patient profiles. MATERIAL AND METHODS: By means of a modified two-round Delphi study with international representation including healthcare professionals, researchers and patient representatives (51 participants, 16 countries) we developed a set of patient-centered measurements. The participants evaluated 47 Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and 30 Clinician Reported Outcome Measures (CROMs) regarding their feasibility and relevance for their use in routine endometriosis care. After the two rounds of quotation, meetings of the experts were convened to participate in a final discussion to finalize the consensus of the final set of included measures. RESULTS: The final set of patient-centered outcomes includes six PROMs (measuring symptomatic impact, pain, work productivity and quality of life) and 10 CROMs (measuring clinical, imaging and surgical indicators). A supplementary list of outcomes was added to include important dimensions that were considered essential by the expert panel but are not relevant to all patients. In addition the need for development of specific tools (PROMs) measuring the psychological impact and the impact in sexual activity of endometriosis was highlighted. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a set of patient-centered outcomes measures in endometriosis care. The selected outcomes comprise the common features for all patients suffering from endometriosis. adapted for use in routine practice. The list of outcomes has been adapted for use in routine practice from which clinicians can chose, depending on their needs.

Association of an In-Hospital Desirability of Outcomes Ranking Scale With Postdischarge Health-Related Quality of Life: A Secondary Analysis of the Life After Pediatric Sepsis Evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) scale for use in children with septic shock and determine its correlation with a decrease in 3-month postadmission health-related quality of life (HRQL) or death. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of the Life After Pediatric Sepsis Evaluation prospective study. SETTING: Twelve U.S. PICUs, 2013-2017. PATIENTS: Children (1 mo-18 yr) with septic shock. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We applied a 7-point pediatric critical care (PCC) DOOR scale: 7: death; 6: extracorporeal life support; 5: supported by life-sustaining therapies (continuous renal replacement therapy, vasoactive, or invasive ventilation); 4: hospitalized with or 3: without organ dysfunction; 2: discharged with or 1: without new morbidity to patients by assigning the highest applicable score on specific days post-PICU admission. We analyzed Spearman rank-order correlations (95% CIs) between proximal outcomes (PCC-DOOR scale on days 7, 14, and 21, ventilator-free days, cumulative 28-day Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction-2 (PELOD-2) scores, and PICU-free days) and 3-month decrease in HRQL or death. HRQL was measured by Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory 4.0 or Functional Status II-R for patients with developmental delay. Patients who died were assigned the worst possible HRQL score. PCC-DOOR scores were applied to 385 patients, median age 6 years (interquartile range 2, 13) and 177 (46%) with a complex chronic condition(s). Three-month outcomes were available for 245 patients (64%) and 42 patients (17%) died. PCC-DOOR scale on days 7, 14, and 21 demonstrated fair correlation with the primary outcome (-0.42 [-0.52, -0.31], -0.47 [-0.56, -0.36], and -0.52 [-0.61, -0.42]), similar to the correlations for cumulative 28-day PELOD-2 scores (-0.51 [-0.59, -0.41]), ventilator-free days (0.43 [0.32, 0.53]), and PICU-free days (0.46 [0.35, 0.55]). CONCLUSIONS: The PCC-DOOR scale is a feasible, practical outcome for pediatric sepsis trials and demonstrates fair correlation with decrease in HRQL or death at 3 months.

Patient-centered outcomes and outcome measurements for people aged 65 years and older-a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: The aging population is a challenge for the healthcare system that must identify strategies that meet their needs. Practicing patient-centered care has been shown beneficial for this patient-group. The effect of patient-centered care is called patient-centered outcomes and can be appraised using outcomes measurements. OBJECTIVES: The main aim was to review and map existing knowledge related to patient-centered outcomes and patient-centered outcomes measurements for older people, as well as identify key-concepts and knowledge-gaps. The research questions were: How can patient-centered outcomes for older people be measured, and which patient-centered outcomes matters the most for the older people? STUDY DESIGN: Scoping review. METHODS: Search for relevant publications in electronical databases, grey literature databases and websites from year 2000 to 2021. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, followed by full text review and extraction of data using a data extraction framework. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included, of which six with involvement of patients and/or experts in the process on determine the outcomes. Outcomes that matter the most to older people was interpreted as: access to- and experience of care, autonomy and control, cognition, daily living, emotional health, falls, general health, medications, overall survival, pain, participation in decision making, physical function, physical health, place of death, social role function, symptom burden, and time spent in hospital. The most frequently mentioned/used outcomes measurements tools were the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT), EQ-5D, Gait Speed, Katz- ADL index, Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ9), SF/RAND-36 and 4-Item Screening Zarit Burden Interview. CONCLUSIONS: Few studies have investigated the older people's opinion of what matters the most to them, which forms a knowledge-gap in the field. Future research should focus on providing older people a stronger voice in what they think matters the most to them.

How well can the clinician appraise the patient's perception of the severity and impact of their back problem?

PURPOSE: A main concern of patients with back problems is pain and its impact on function and quality of life. These are subjective phenomena, and should be probed during the clinical consultation so that the physician can ascertain the extent of the problem. This study evaluated the agreement between clinicians' and patients' independent ratings of patient status on the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI). METHODS: This was an analysis of the data from 5 spine specialists and 108 patients, in two centres. Prior to the consultation, the patient completed the COMI. After the consultation, the clinician (blind to the patient's version) also completed a COMI. Concordance was assessed by % agreement, Kappa values, Bland-Altman plots, Spearman rank, Intraclass Correlation Coefficients and comparisons of mean values, as appropriate. RESULTS: Agreement regarding the "main problem" (back pain, leg/buttock pain, sensory disturbances, other) was 83%, Kappa = 0.70 (95%CI 0.58-0.81). Moderate/strong correlations were found between the doctors' and patients' COMI-item ratings (0.48-0.74; p < 0.0001), although compared with the patients' ratings the doctors systematically underestimated absolute values for leg pain (p = 0.002) and dissatisfaction with symptom state (p = 0.002), and overestimated how much the patient's function was impaired (p = 0.029). CONCLUSION: The doctors were able to ascertain the location of the main problem and the multidimensional outcome score with good accuracy, but some individual domains were systematically underestimated (pain, symptom-specific well-being) or overestimated (impairment of function). More detailed/direct questioning on these domains during the consultation might deliver a better appreciation of the impact of the back problem on the patient's daily life.

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.