A review of core outcome sets (COS) developed for different settings finds there is a subset of outcomes relevant for both research and routine care.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the outcomes selected for the same condition in core outcome sets (COSs) for research with those in COS for the routine care setting. METHODS: A sample of COS was created from the most frequent five health areas within previous systematic reviews of COS for research and COS for routine care. Outcomes were extracted and categorized using an outcome taxonomy. Frequency of outcome domains included within COS were analyzed in subgroups according to research or care setting, patient involvement in COS development and health area. Matched sets of COS were created, where at least one research COS and one routine care COS exist for the same health condition, to identify the outcomes that were recommended for both settings. A similar process was used for a subset of paired COS matched in scope for both intervention and population as well as health condition. RESULTS: The sample of COS comprised: 246 COS for research only, 76 COS for routine care only and 55 COS for both research and routine care. Across the 18 sets matched by health condition the median number (range) of outcomes included in both research COS and routine care COS was 6 (3-15), with differences noted across health areas. For the 11 paired COS matched by scope and health condition, the corresponding figures were 2 (2-8). Across all settings, COS that did not include patients as participants were less likely to include life impact outcomes. CONCLUSION: Within a given health condition, a small number of core outcomes were found to be relevant for both research and care, offering a meaningful starting point for linking research and real-world evaluation.

The use of healthcare systems data for RCTs.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems data (HSD) has the potential to optimise the efficiency of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), by decreasing trial-specific data demands. Therefore, the use of HSD in trials is expected to increase. In 2019, it was estimated that 47% of NIHR-funded trials were planning to use HSD. We aim to understand the extent and nature of its current use and its evolution over time. METHODS: We identified a cohort of RCTs within the NIHR Journals Library that commenced after 2019 and were described as being in progress on 6 June 2022. Details on the source and use of HSD were extracted from eligible RCTs. The use of HSD was categorised according to whether it was used as the sole data source for outcomes and whether the outcomes were primary or secondary. HSD is often insufficient for patient-reported outcomes (PROs). We aimed to determine methods used by trialists for collecting PRO data alongside HSD. RESULTS: Of the 84 eligible studies, 52 (62%) planned to use HSD and 79 (94%) planned to collect PROs. The number of RCTs planning to use HSD for at least one outcome was 28 (54%) with 24 of these planning to use HSD as the sole data source for at least one outcome. The number of studies planning to use HSD for primary and secondary outcomes was 10 (20%) and 21 (40%) respectively. The sources of HSD were National Health Service (NHS) Digital (n = 37, 79%), patient registries (n = 7, 29%), primary care (n = 5, 21%), The Office for National Statistics (ONS) (n = 3, 13%) and other (n = 2, 8%). PROs were collected for 92% of the trials planning to use HSD. Methods for collection of PROs included in-person (n = 26, 54%), online (n = 22, 46%), postal (n = 18, 38%), phone (n = 14, 29%) and app (n = 2, 4%). CONCLUSIONS: HSD is being used in around two thirds of the studies but cannot yet be used to support PRO data collection within the cohort we examined. Comparison with an earlier cohort demonstrates an increase in the number of RCTs planning to use HSD.

Representation of published core outcome sets in practice guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: A core outcome set (COS) is an agreed standardized set of outcomes that should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in specific areas of health or health care. A COS is developed through a consensus process to ensure health care outcomes to be measured are relevant to decision-makers, including patients and health-care professionals. Use of COS in guideline development is likely to increase the relevance of the guideline to those decision-makers. Previous work has looked at the uptake of COS in trials, systematic reviews, health technology assessments and regulatory guidance but to date there has been no evaluation of the use of COS in practice guideline development. The objective of this study was to investigate the representation of core outcomes in a set of international practice guidelines. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched for clinical guidelines relevant to ten high-quality COS (with focus on the United Kingdom, Germany, China, India, Canada, Denmark, United States and World Health Organisation). We matched scope between COS and guideline in terms of condition, population and outcome. We calculated the proportion of guidelines mentioning or referencing COS and the proportion of COS domains specifically, or generally, matching to outcomes specified in each guideline populations, interventions, comparators and outcome (PICO) statement. RESULTS: We found 38 guidelines that contained 170 PICO statements matching the scope of the ten COS and of sufficient quality to allow data extraction. None of the guidelines reviewed explicitly mentioned or referenced the relevant COS. The median (range) of the proportion of core outcomes covered either specifically or generally by the guideline PICO was 30% (0%-100%). CONCLUSION: There is no evidence that COS are being used routinely to inform the guideline development process, and concordance between outcomes in published guidelines and those in COS is limited. Further work is warranted to explore barriers and facilitators in the use of COS when developing clinical guidelines.

Study found increasing use of core outcome sets in Cochrane systematic reviews and identified facilitators and barriers.

OBJECTIVES: In 2019, only 7% of Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) cited a core outcome set (COS) in relation to choosing outcomes, even though a relevant COS existed but was not mentioned (or cited) for a further 29% of SRs. Our objectives for the current work were to (1) examine the extent to which authors are currently considering COS to inform outcome choice in Cochrane protocols and completed SRs, and (2) understand author facilitators and barriers to using COS. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We examined all completed Cochrane SRs published in the last 3 months of 2022 and all Cochrane protocols published in 2022 for the extent to which they: (a) cited a COS, (b) searched for COS, (c) used outcomes from existing COS, and (d) reported outcome inconsistency among included studies and/or noted the need for COS. One investigator extracted information; a second extractor verified all information, discussing discrepancies to achieve consensus. We then conducted an online survey of authors of the included SRs to assess awareness of COS and identify facilitators and barriers to using COS to inform outcome choice. RESULTS: Objective 1: We included 294 SRs of interventions (84 completed SRs and 210 published SR protocols), of which 13% cited specific COS and 5% did not cite but mentioned searching for COS. A median of 83% of core outcomes from cited COS (interquartile range [IQR] 57%-100%) were included in the corresponding SR. We identified a relevant COS for 39% of SRs that did not cite a COS. A median of 50% of core outcomes from noncited COS (IQR 35%-72%) were included in the corresponding SR. Objective 2: Authors of 236 (80%) of the 294 eligible SRs completed our survey. Seventy-seven percent of authors noted being aware of COS before the survey. Fifty-five percent of authors who did not cite COS but were aware of them reported searching for a COS. The most reported facilitators of using COS were author awareness of the existence of COS (59%), author positive perceptions of COS (52%), and recommendation in the Cochrane Handbook regarding COS use (48%). The most reported barriers related to matching of the scope of the COS and the SR: the COS target population was too narrow/broad relative to the SR population (29%) or the COS target intervention was too narrow/broad relative to the SR intervention (21%). Most authors (87%) mentioned that they would consider incorporating missing core outcomes in the SR/update. CONCLUSION: Since 2019, there is increasing consideration and awareness of COS when choosing outcomes for Cochrane SRs of interventions, but uptake remains low and can be improved further. Use of COS in SRs is important to improve outcome standardization, reduce research waste, and improve evidence syntheses of the relevant effects of interventions across health research.

Identification of heart failure hospitalization from NHS Digital data: comparison with expert adjudication.

AIMS: Population-wide, person-level, linked electronic health record data are increasingly used to estimate epidemiology, guide resource allocation, and identify events in clinical trials. The accuracy of data from NHS Digital (now part of NHS England) for identifying hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), a key HF standard, is not clear. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of NHS Digital data for identifying HHF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients experiencing at least one HHF, as determined by NHS Digital data, and age- and sex-matched patients not experiencing HHF, were identified from a prospective cohort study and underwent expert adjudication. Three code sets commonly used to identify HHF were applied to the data and compared with expert adjudication (I50: International Classification of Diseases-10 codes beginning I50; OIS: Clinical Commissioning Groups Outcomes Indicator Set; and NICOR: National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research, used as the basis for the National Heart Failure Audit in England and Wales). Five hundred four patients underwent expert adjudication, of which 10 (2%) were adjudicated to have experienced HHF. Specificity was high across all three code sets in the first diagnosis position {I50: 96.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 94.1-97.7%]; NICOR: 93.3% [CI 90.8-95.4%]; OIS: 95.6% [CI 93.3-97.2%]} but decreased substantially as the number of diagnosis positions expanded. Sensitivity [40.0% (CI 12.2-73.8%)] and positive predictive value (PPV) [highest with I50: 17.4% (CI 8.1-33.6%)] were low in the first diagnosis position for all coding sets. PPV was higher for the National Heart Failure Audit criteria, albeit modestly [36.4% (CI 16.6-62.2%)]. CONCLUSIONS: NHS Digital data were not able to accurately identify HHF and should not be used in isolation for this purpose.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a web-based cardiac rehabilitation programme for people with chronic stable angina: protocol for the ACTIVATE (Angina Controlled Trial Investigating the Value of the 'Activate your heart' Therapeutic E-intervention) randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic stable angina is common and disabling. Cardiac rehabilitation is routinely offered to people following myocardial infarction or revascularisation procedures and has the potential to help people with chronic stable angina. However, there is insufficient evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for its routine use in this patient group. The objectives of this study are to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the 'Activate Your Heart' cardiac rehabilitation programme for people with chronic stable angina compared with usual care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: ACTIVATE is a multicentre, parallel-group, two-arm, superiority, pragmatic randomised controlled trial, with recruitment from primary and secondary care centres in England and Wales and a target sample size of 518 (1:1 allocation; allocation sequence by minimisation programme with built-in random element). The study uses secure web-based allocation concealment. The two treatments will be optimal usual care (control) and optimal usual care plus the 'Activate Your Heart' web-based cardiac rehabilitation programme (intervention). Outcome assessment and statistical analysis will be performed blinded; participants will be unblinded. Outcomes will be measured at baseline and at 6 and 12 months' follow-up. Primary outcome will be the UK version of Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ-UK), physical limitations domain at 12 months' follow-up. Secondary outcomes will be the remaining two domains of SAQ-UK, dyspnoea, anxiety and depression, health utility, self-efficacy, physical activity and the incremental shuttle walk test. All safety events will be recorded, and serious adverse events assessed to determine whether they are related to the intervention and expected. Concurrent economic evaluation will be cost-utility analysis from health service perspective. An embedded process evaluation will determine the mechanisms and processes that explain the implementation and impacts of the cardiac rehabilitation programme. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: North of Scotland National Health Service Research Ethics Committee approval, reference 21/NS/0115. Participants will provide written informed consent. Results will be disseminated by peer-reviewed publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10054455.

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.