A blueprint for patient and public involvement in the development of a reporting guideline for systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, projects to develop reporting guidelines have attempted to integrate the perspectives of patients and public members. Best practices for patient and public involvement (PPI) in such projects have not yet been established. We recently developed an extension of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), to be used for systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) for OMIs 2024. Patients and public members formed a small but impactful stakeholder group. We critically evaluated the PPI component in this project and developed recommendations for conducting PPI when developing reporting guidelines. MAIN TEXT: A patient partner was an integral research team member at the project development and grant application stage. Once the project started, five patient and public contributors (PPCs) were recruited to participate in the Delphi study; three PPCs contributed to subsequent steps. We collected quantitative feedback through surveys; qualitative feedback was garnered through a focus group discussion after the Delphi study and through debrief meetings after subsequent project activities. Feedback was thematically combined with reflections from the research team, and was predominantly positive. The following themes emerged: importance of PPI partnership, number of PPCs involved, onboarding, design of Delphi surveys, flexibility in the process, complexity of PPI in methodological research, and power imbalances. Impacts of PPI on the content and presentation of the reporting guideline were evident, and reciprocal learning between PPCs and the research team occurred throughout the project. Lessons learned were translated into 17 recommendations for future projects. CONCLUSION: Integrating PPI in the development of PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 was feasible and considered valuable by PPCs and the research team. Our approach can be applied by others wishing to integrate PPI in developing reporting guidelines.

Assessing the quality and value of metabolic chart data for capturing core outcomes for pediatric medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase (MCAD) deficiency.

BACKGROUND: Generating rigorous evidence to inform care for rare diseases requires reliable, sustainable, and longitudinal measurement of priority outcomes. Having developed a core outcome set for pediatric medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase (MCAD) deficiency, we aimed to assess the feasibility of prospective measurement of these core outcomes during routine metabolic clinic visits. METHODS: We used existing cohort data abstracted from charts of 124 children diagnosed with MCAD deficiency who participated in a Canadian study which collected data from birth to a maximum of 11 years of age to investigate the frequency of clinic visits and quality of metabolic chart data for selected outcomes. We recorded all opportunities to collect outcomes from the medical chart as a function of visit rate to the metabolic clinic, by treatment centre and by child age. We applied a data quality framework to evaluate data based on completeness, conformance, and plausibility for four core MCAD outcomes: emergency department use, fasting time, metabolic decompensation, and death. RESULTS: The frequency of metabolic clinic visits decreased with increasing age, from a rate of 2.8 visits per child per year (95% confidence interval, 2.3-3.3) among infants 2 to 6 months, to 1.0 visit per child per year (95% confidence interval, 0.9-1.2) among those ≥ 5 years of age. Rates of emergency department visits followed anticipated trends by child age. Supplemental findings suggested that some emergency visits occur outside of the metabolic care treatment centre but are not captured. Recommended fasting times were updated relatively infrequently in patients' metabolic charts. Episodes of metabolic decompensation were identifiable but required an operational definition based on acute manifestations most commonly recorded in the metabolic chart. Deaths occurred rarely in these patients and quality of mortality data was not evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Opportunities to record core outcomes at the metabolic clinic occur at least annually for children with MCAD deficiency. Methods to comprehensively capture emergency care received at outside institutions are needed. To reduce substantial heterogeneous recording of core outcome across treatment centres, improved documentation standards are required for recording of recommended fasting times and a consensus definition for metabolic decompensations needs to be developed and implemented.

Source-based morphometry reveals structural brain pattern abnormalities in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome.

22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11DS) is the most frequently occurring microdeletion in humans. It is associated with a significant impact on brain structure, including prominent reductions in gray matter volume (GMV), and neuropsychiatric manifestations, including cognitive impairment and psychosis. It is unclear whether GMV alterations in 22q11DS occur according to distinct structural patterns. Then, 783 participants (470 with 22q11DS: 51% females, mean age [SD] 18.2 [9.2]; and 313 typically developing [TD] controls: 46% females, mean age 18.0 [8.6]) from 13 datasets were included in the present study. We segmented structural T1-weighted brain MRI scans and extracted GMV images, which were then utilized in a novel source-based morphometry (SBM) pipeline (SS-Detect) to generate structural brain patterns (SBPs) that capture co-varying GMV. We investigated the impact of the 22q11.2 deletion, deletion size, intelligence quotient, and psychosis on the SBPs. Seventeen GMV-SBPs were derived, which provided spatial patterns of GMV covariance associated with a quantitative metric (i.e., loading score) for analysis. Patterns of topographically widespread differences in GMV covariance, including the cerebellum, discriminated individuals with 22q11DS from healthy controls. The spatial extents of the SBPs that revealed disparities between individuals with 22q11DS and controls were consistent with the findings of the univariate voxel-based morphometry analysis. Larger deletion size was associated with significantly lower GMV in frontal and occipital SBPs; however, history of psychosis did not show a strong relationship with these covariance patterns. 22q11DS is associated with distinct structural abnormalities captured by topographical GMV covariance patterns that include the cerebellum. Findings indicate that structural anomalies in 22q11DS manifest in a nonrandom manner and in distinct covarying anatomical patterns, rather than a diffuse global process. These SBP abnormalities converge with previously reported cortical surface area abnormalities, suggesting disturbances of early neurodevelopment as the most likely underlying mechanism.

A multimethods randomized trial found that plain language versions improved adults understanding of health recommendations.

OBJECTIVES: To make informed decisions, the general population should have access to accessible and understandable health recommendations. To compare understanding, accessibility, usability, satisfaction, intention to implement, and preference of adults provided with a digital "Plain Language Recommendation" (PLR) format vs. the original "Standard Language Version" (SLV). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: An allocation-concealed, blinded, controlled superiority trial and a qualitative study to understand participant preferences. An international on-line survey. 488 adults with some English proficiency. 67.8% of participants identified as female, 62.3% were from the Americas, 70.1% identified as white, 32.2% had a bachelor's degree as their highest completed education, and 42% said they were very comfortable reading health information. In collaboration with patient partners, advisors, and the Cochrane Consumer Network, we developed a plain language format of guideline recommendations (PLRs) to compare their effectiveness vs. the original standard language versions (SLVs) as published in the source guideline. We selected two recommendations about COVID-19 vaccine, similar in their content, to compare our versions, one from the World Health Organization (WHO) and one from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The primary outcome was understanding, measured as the proportion of correct responses to seven comprehension questions. Secondary outcomes were accessibility, usability, satisfaction, preference, and intended behavior, measured on a 1-7 scale. RESULTS: Participants randomized to the PLR group had a higher proportion of correct responses to the understanding questions for the WHO recommendation (mean difference [MD] of 19.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 14.7-24.9%; P < 0.001) but this difference was smaller and not statistically significant for the CDC recommendation (MD of 3.9%, 95% CI -0.7% to 8.3%; P = 0.096). However, regardless of the recommendation, participants found the PLRs more accessible, (MD of 1.2 on the seven-point scale, 95% CI 0.9-1.4%; P < 0.001) and more satisfying (MD of 1.2, 95% CI 0.9-1.4%; P < 0.001). They were also more likely to follow the recommendation if they had not already followed it (MD of 1.2, 95% CI 0.7-1.8%; P < 0.001) and share it with other people they know (MD of 1.9, 95% CI 0.5-1.2%; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the preference between the two formats (MD of -0.3, 95% CI -0.5% to 0.03%; P = 0.078). The qualitative interviews supported and contextualized these findings. CONCLUSION: Health information provided in a PLR format improved understanding, accessibility, usability, and satisfaction and thereby has the potential to shape public decision-making behavior.

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.

Systematic Review: The Measurement Properties of the Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire and Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire-Jr.

OBJECTIVE: The Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire (SIQ) and the Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire-Junior (SIQ-Jr) were designed to capture suicidal ideation in adolescents and are often used in clinical trials. Our aim was to identify and appraise the published literature with respect to the validity, reliability, responsiveness, and interpretability of the SIQ and SIQ-Jr. METHOD: We conducted a systematic review following COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines to identify, appraise, and synthesize published literature on measurement properties and interpretability of the SIQ and SIQ-Jr. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to May 16, 2023, to identify sources relevant to our aim. RESULTS: We identified 15 sources meeting our eligibility criteria. The body of literature did not meet COSMIN standards to make recommendations for use with regard to these measurement instruments. CONCLUSION: Further research is needed, with a focus on content validity and structural validity, prior to recommending the SIQ and SIQ-Jr for use in clinical practice and in clinical trials. No specific grant funding was used for this review.

A framework for the definition and interpretation of the use of surrogate endpoints in interventional trials.

Background: Interventional trials that evaluate treatment effects using surrogate endpoints have become increasingly common. This paper describes four linked empirical studies and the development of a framework for defining, interpreting and reporting surrogate endpoints in trials. Methods: As part of developing the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) and SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) extensions for randomised trials reporting surrogate endpoints, we undertook a scoping review, e-Delphi study, consensus meeting, and a web survey to examine current definitions and stakeholder (including clinicians, trial investigators, patients and public partners, journal editors, and health technology experts) interpretations of surrogate endpoints as primary outcome measures in trials. Findings: Current surrogate endpoint definitional frameworks are inconsistent and unclear. Surrogate endpoints are used in trials as a substitute of the treatment effects of an intervention on the target outcome(s) of ultimate interest, events measuring how patients feel, function, or survive. Traditionally the consideration of surrogate endpoints in trials has focused on biomarkers (e.g., HDL cholesterol, blood pressure, tumour response), especially in the medical product regulatory setting. Nevertheless, the concept of surrogacy in trials is potentially broader. Intermediate outcomes that include a measure of function or symptoms (e.g., angina frequency, exercise tolerance) can also be used as substitute for target outcomes (e.g., all-cause mortality)-thereby acting as surrogate endpoints. However, we found a lack of consensus among stakeholders on accepting and interpreting intermediate outcomes in trials as surrogate endpoints or target outcomes. In our assessment, patients and health technology assessment experts appeared more likely to consider intermediate outcomes to be surrogate endpoints than clinicians and regulators. Interpretation: There is an urgent need for better understanding and reporting on the use of surrogate endpoints, especially in the setting of interventional trials. We provide a framework for the definition of surrogate endpoints (biomarkers and intermediate outcomes) and target outcomes in trials to improve future reporting and aid stakeholders' interpretation and use of trial surrogate endpoint evidence. Funding: SPIRIT-SURROGATE/CONSORT-SURROGATE project is Medical Research Council Better Research Better Health (MR/V038400/1) funded.

Youth and family involvement in the development of a plain language trial results communication tool: CommuniKIDS.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric trials are possible through voluntary participation of children, youth (age ≤ 18 years), and their families. Despite important arguments for trialists to provide trial progress or results, and evidence that participants desire it, this information remains rarely shared with youth and their families. Little guidance exists on how trialists can best communicate trial results back to participants and their families. Guided by Liabo et al.'s framework, we describe how we developed a pediatric-specific, "plain language summary" clinical trial results template called CommuniKIDS with an adult patient partner, family partner (parent), youth advisors, and parent advisors, taking into account their unique knowledge needs and preferences. MAIN TEXT: Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) was integrated in the development of the CommuniKIDS template. In collaboration with Clinical Trials Ontario, we used a generic trial results template as a starting point. The core project leadership team included a patient partner and a family partner from project inception to completion. Five youth (ages 13-18 years) and eight parent advisors were consulted at each point of the development process through three virtual workshops conducted separately; youth workshops were led by a youth facilitator. During these workshops, advisors agreed on the importance and value of sharing trial results, and expressed their preferences on content, format, and timing of sharing trial results. PPI-led improvements included the addition of three new sections to the CommuniKIDS template: "at a glance," "side effects," and "next steps." We reflect on our PPI strategy in the context of five "values" and six "practicalities" identified as good PPI principles, and summarize lessons learned when collaborating with youth and families from this project. CONCLUSION: Involvement of a patient partner, a family partner, youth advisors, and parent advisors in the development of CommuniKIDS was critical to create a clinical trial results template that is useful and relevant to its end-users. To our knowledge, CommuniKIDS is the first to meaningfully engage youth and parents as advisors and partners in developing a plain language summary results template for pediatric trial participants and their families. Our experience of co-developing CommuniKIDS demonstrates that meaningful PPI can be achieved in trial results communication and knowledge translation practices. This report provides resources for those seeking to involve youth and families in their initiatives and in meaningfully sharing trial results.

The voluntary participation of youth aged 18 and under in clinical trials makes it possible for researchers and healthcare providers to study medications and other treatments. However, most youth and their families who take part in clinical trials do not get any information on the trial's progress or results, leaving many to wonder if anything useful came from their participation. There is an ethical obligation to give this information back to youth and their families, who might take risks by participating in trials. The aim of the CommuniKIDS project was to develop a "plain language summary" results template to share trial results back to youth and their families. Working with a patient partner, a family partner, five youth advisors (ages 13­18), and eight parent advisors, we set out to understand what youth and parents would like to see in a plain language summary of clinical trial results. The needs and preferences discussed with the advisors were included to create a child/youth health-specific template. The CommuniKIDS project is the first to involve youth and parents as advisors in developing a plain language summary results template for child/youth health trials. Here, we describe how we involved youth and parents in the development of CommuniKIDS, how the template was customized to be youth and family-friendly and reflect on lessons learned.

Heterogeneity and Gaps in Reporting Primary Outcomes From Neonatal Trials.

OBJECTIVES: Clear outcome reporting in clinical trials facilitates accurate interpretation and application of findings and improves evidence-informed decision-making. Standardized core outcomes for reporting neonatal trials have been developed, but little is known about how primary outcomes are reported in neonatal trials. Our aim was to identify strengths and weaknesses of primary outcome reporting in recent neonatal trials. METHODS: Neonatal trials including ≥100 participants/arm published between 2015 and 2020 with at least 1 primary outcome from a neonatal core outcome set were eligible. Raters recruited from Cochrane Neonatal were trained to evaluate the trials' primary outcome reporting completeness using relevant items from Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Outcomes 2022 pertaining to the reporting of the definition, selection, measurement, analysis, and interpretation of primary trial outcomes. All trial reports were assessed by 3 raters. Assessments and discrepancies between raters were analyzed. RESULTS: Outcome-reporting evaluations were completed for 36 included neonatal trials by 39 raters. Levels of outcome reporting completeness were highly variable. All trials fully reported the primary outcome measurement domain, statistical methods used to compare treatment groups, and participant flow. Yet, only 28% of trials fully reported on minimal important difference, 24% on outcome data missingness, 66% on blinding of the outcome assessor, and 42% on handling of outcome multiplicity. CONCLUSIONS: Primary outcome reporting in neonatal trials often lacks key information needed for interpretability of results, knowledge synthesis, and evidence-informed decision-making in neonatology. Use of existing outcome-reporting guidelines by trialists, journals, and peer reviewers will enhance transparent reporting of neonatal trials.

Strengthening Reporting of Neonatal Trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is variability in the selection and reporting of outcomes in neonatal trials with key information frequently omitted. This can impact applicability of trial findings to clinicians, families, and caregivers, and impair evidence synthesis. The Neonatal Core Outcomes Set describes outcomes agreed as clinically important that should be assessed in all neonatal trials, and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-Outcomes 2022 is a new, harmonized, evidence-based reporting guideline for trial outcomes. We reviewed published trials using CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 guidance to identify exemplars of neonatal core outcome reporting to strengthen description of outcomes in future trial publications. METHODS: Neonatal trials including >100 participants per arm published between 2015 to 2020 with a primary outcome included in the Neonatal Core Outcome Set were identified. Primary outcome reporting was reviewed using CONSORT 2010 and CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 guidelines by assessors recruited from Cochrane Neonatal. Examples of clear and complete outcome reporting were identified with verbatim text extracted from trial reports. RESULTS: Thirty-six trials were reviewed by 39 assessors. Examples of good reporting for CONSORT 2010 and CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 criteria were identified and subdivided into 3 outcome categories: "survival," "short-term neonatal complications," and "long-term developmental outcomes" depending on the core outcomes to which they relate. These examples are presented to strengthen future research reporting. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified examples of good trial outcome reporting. These illustrate how important neonatal outcomes should be reported to meet the CONSORT 2010 and CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 guidelines. Emulating these examples will improve the transmission of information relating to outcomes and reduce associated research waste.

Plain Language vs Standard Format for Youth Understanding of COVID-19 Recommendations: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: To ensure that youths can make informed decisions about their health, it is important that health recommendations be presented for understanding by youths. Objective: To compare understanding, accessibility, usability, satisfaction, intention to implement, and preference of youths provided with a digital plain language recommendation (PLR) format vs the original standard language version (SLV) of a health recommendation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pragmatic, allocation-concealed, blinded, superiority randomized clinical trial included individuals from any country who were 15 to 24 years of age, had internet access, and could read and understand English. The trial was conducted from May 27 to July 6, 2022, and included a qualitative component. Interventions: An online platform was used to randomize youths in a 1:1 ratio to an optimized digital PLR or SLV format of 1 of 2 health recommendations related to the COVID-19 vaccine; youth-friendly PLRs were developed in collaboration with youth partners and advisors. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was understanding, measured as the proportion of correct responses to 7 comprehension questions. Secondary outcomes were accessibility, usability, satisfaction, preference, and intended behavior. After completion of the survey, participants indicated their interest in completing a 1-on-1 semistructured interview to reflect on their preferred digital format (PLR or SLV) and their outcome assessment survey response. Results: Of the 268 participants included in the final analysis, 137 were in the PLR group (48.4% female) and 131 were in the SLV group (53.4% female). Most participants (233 [86.9%]) were from North and South America. No significant difference was found in understanding scores between the PLR and SLV groups (mean difference, 5.2%; 95% CI, -1.2% to 11.6%; P = .11). Participants found the PLR to be more accessible and usable (mean difference, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.05-0.63) and satisfying (mean difference, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.06-0.73) and had a stronger preference toward the PLR (mean difference, 4.8; 95% CI, 4.5-5.1 [4.0 indicated a neutral response]) compared with the SLV. No significant difference was found in intended behavior (mean difference, 0.22 (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.74). Interviewees (n = 14) agreed that the PLR was easier to understand and generated constructive feedback to further improve the digital PLR. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, compared with the SLV, the PLR did not produce statistically significant findings in terms of understanding scores. Youths ranked it higher in terms of accessibility, usability, and satisfaction, suggesting that the PLR may be preferred for communicating health recommendations to youths. The interviews provided suggestions for further improving PLR formats. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05358990.

Measurement Properties of Patient Reported Outcome Scales: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Recently a standard set for overall pediatric health outcomes in routine care was developed, which includes patient (or proxy) reported outcome measures (PROMs) for global health, cognitive functioning, and self-efficacy. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the following PROMs have sufficient measurement properties to be used in pediatric routine care: PROMIS Pediatric and Parent Proxy Scale - Global Health 7+2, PROMIS Parent Proxy Short Form - Cognitive Function 7a, and NIH Toolbox Self-Efficacy CAT Ages 13 to 17. DATA SOURCES: Embase, Psych INFO, and Web of Science were searched from year of inception of each PROM to May 25, 2020; Medline to October 24, 2022. STUDY SELECTION: English, full-text peer-reviewed articles that evaluated measurement properties of included PROMs were eligible. DATA EXTRACTION: The COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews was used to appraise eligible studies and synthesize the overall evidence. RESULTS: Screening >4000 titles yielded 4 to 6 eligible empirical studies for each PROM. The PROMIS instruments had sufficient content validity with low-quality evidence and at least low-quality evidence for sufficient structural validity and internal consistency. The NIH Toolbox lacked essential evidence for content validity. LIMITATIONS: Assessments of measurement properties were based on information reported in the included studies; underreporting might have led to less favorable ratings. CONCLUSIONS: The PROMIS instruments assessed in this review measure their intended construct for their targeted age group; clinicians can use these PROMs in pediatric routine care. Additional studies evaluating measurement properties, including content validity, are needed for the NIH Toolbox before it should be recommended for use in clinical practice.

A multimethods randomized trial found that plain language versions improved parents' understanding of health recommendations.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of plain language compared with standard language versions of COVID-19 recommendations specific to child health. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Pragmatic, allocation-concealed, blinded, superiority randomized controlled trial with nested qualitative component. Trial was conducted online, internationally. Parents or legal guardians (≥18 years) of a child (<18 years) were eligible. Participants were randomized to receive a plain language recommendation (PLR) or standard (SLV) verison of a COVID-19 recommendation specific to child health. Primary outcome was understanding. Secondary outcomes included: preference, accessibility, usability, satisfaction, and intended behavior. Interviews explored perceptions and preferences for each format. RESULTS: Between July and August 2022, 295 parents were randomized; 241 (81.7%) completed the study (intervention n = 121, control n = 120). Mean understanding scores were significantly different between groups (PLR 3.96 [standard deviation (SD) 2.02], SLV 3.33 [SD 1.88], P = 0.014). Overall participants preferred the PLR version: mean rating 5.05/7.00 (95% CI 4.81, 5.29). Interviews (n = 12 parents) highlighted their preference for the PLR and provided insight on elements to enhance future knowledge mobilization of health recommendations. CONCLUSION: Compared to SLVs, parents preferred PLRs and better understood the recommendation. Guideline developers should strive to use plain language to increase understanding, uptake, and implementation of evidence by the public.

Definitions, acceptability, limitations, and guidance in the use and reporting of surrogate end points in trials: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the current literature on the use of surrogate end points, including definitions, acceptability, and limitations of surrogate end points and guidance for their design/reporting, into trial reporting items. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Literature was identified through searching bibliographic databases (until March 1, 2022) and gray literature sources (until May 27, 2022). Data were thematically analyzed into four categories: (1) definitions, (2) acceptability, (3) limitations and challenges, and (4) guidance, and synthesized into reporting guidance items. RESULTS: After screening, 90 documents were included: 79% (n = 71) had data on definitions, 77% (n = 69) on acceptability, 72% (n = 65) on limitations and challenges, and 61% (n = 55) on guidance. Data were synthesized into 17 potential trial reporting items: explicit statements on the use of surrogate end point(s) and justification for their use (items 1-6); methodological considerations, including whether sample size calculations were informed by surrogate validity (items 7-9); reporting of results for composite outcomes containing a surrogate end point (item 10); discussion and interpretation of findings (items 11-14); plans for confirmatory studies, collecting data on the surrogate end point and target outcome, and data sharing (items 15-16); and informing trial participants about using surrogate end points (item 17). CONCLUSION: The review identified and synthesized items on the use of surrogate end points in trials; these will inform the development of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials-SURROGATE and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-SURROGATE extensions.

Paper I: Heterogeneous use of registry data for participant identification and primary outcome ascertainment is found in registry-based randomized controlled trials: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: Registry-based randomized controlled trials (RRCTs) have potential to address limitations of traditional clinical trials. To describe their current use, information on planned and published RRCTs was identified and synthesized. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A scoping review of published RRCT protocols and reports was conducted. Articles published between 2010 and 2021 identified from electronic database searching, a recent review of RRCTs, and targeted searching for recent RRCT protocols (2018-2021) were screened. Data on trial data sources, types of primary outcomes, and how these primary outcomes were described, selected, and reported were extracted. RESULTS: Ninety RRCT articles (77 reports; 13 protocols) were included. Forty nine (54%) used or planned to rely on registry data for their trial, 26 (29%) used both registry and additional data, and 15 (17%) used the registry solely for recruitment. Primary outcomes were routinely collected from the registry for 66 articles (73%). Only 28 articles (31%) described any methods to promote outcome data quality during or after data collection. Core outcome sets were not used in any of the trials. CONCLUSION: With improvements in registry design, outcome selection, measurement, and reporting, future RRCTs may deliver on promises of efficient, high-quality trials that address clinically relevant questions.

Paper II: thematic framework analysis of registry-based randomized controlled trials provided insights for designing trial ready registries.

OBJECTIVES: Registry-based randomized controlled trials (RRCTs) are increasingly used, promising to address challenges associated with traditional randomized controlled trials. We identified strengths and limitations reported in planned and completed RRCTs to inform future RRCTs. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted an environmental scan of literature discussing conceptual or methodological strengths and limitations of using registries for trial design and conduct (n = 12), followed by an analysis of RRCT protocols (n = 13) and reports (n = 77) identified from a scoping review. Using framework analysis, we developed and refined a conceptual framework of RRCT-specific strengths and limitations. We mapped and interpreted strengths and limitations discussed by authors of RRCT articles using framework codes and quantified the frequencies at which these were mentioned. RESULTS: Our conceptual framework identified six main RRCT strengths and four main RRCT limitations. Considering implications for RRCT conduct and design, we formulated ten recommendations for registry designers, administrators, and trialists planning future RRCTs. CONCLUSION: Consideration and application of empirically underpinned recommendations for future registry design and trial conduct may help trialists utilize registries and RRCTs to their full potential.

Study Preregistration: Measuring What Matters: Development and Dissemination of a Core Outcome Set for Pediatric Anxiety Disorders Clinical Trials.

Pediatric anxiety disorders (AD) are prevalent disorders with an impact on all aspects of a child's life and functioning.1 Although evidence supports commonly used treatments, there are notable concerns with the research to date.2 Heterogeneity in outcome selection, measurement, analysis, and reporting is a contributing factor to the hinderance of the translation of research into clinical practice.3 Recognition for outcome standardization in pediatric mental health disorders is evolving and there are several initiatives of importance, including the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM), which has developed standardized outcome sets for use in the routine clinical mental health treatment of children and adolescents.4 Similarly, the International Alliance of Mental Health Research Funders5 advocate for use of 1 specific outcome measurement instrument (OMI) in the youth mental health research that they fund. Development of a Core Outcome Set (COS), a minimal set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in clinical trials, has been a solution in other areas of medicine to address heterogeneity in outcome selection and measurement across trials.6 The Core Outcomes and Measures in Pediatric Anxiety Clinical Trials (COMPACT) Initiative will develop a harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based COS that is meaningful to youth and families for use in future trials in pediatric AD.

Ethical and practical considerations related to data sharing when collecting patient-reported outcomes in care-based child health research.

PURPOSE: The collection and use of patient reported outcomes (PROs) in care-based child health research raises challenging ethical and logistical questions. This paper offers an analysis of two questions related to PROs in child health research: (1) Is it ethically obligatory, desirable or preferable to share PRO data collected for research with children, families, and health care providers? And if so, (2) What are the characteristics of a model best suited to guide the collection, monitoring, and sharing of these data? METHODS: A multidisciplinary team of researchers, providers, patient and family partners, and ethicists examined the literature and identified a need for focus on PRO sharing in pediatric care-based research. We constructed and analyzed three models for managing pediatric PRO data in care-based research, drawing on ethical principles, logistics, and opportunities to engage with children and families. RESULTS: We argue that it is preferable to share pediatric PRO data with providers, but to manage expectations and balance the risks and benefits of research, this requires a justifiable data sharing model. We argue that a successful PRO data sharing model will allow children and families to have access to and control over their own PRO data and be engaged in decision-making around how PROs collected for research may be integrated into care, but require support from providers. CONCLUSION: We propose a PRO data sharing model that can be used across diverse research settings and contributes to improved transparency, communication, and patient-centered care and research.

Knowledge mobilization activities to support decision-making by youth, parents, and adults using a systematic and living map of evidence and recommendations on COVID-19: protocol for three randomized controlled trials and qualitative user-experience studies.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic underlined that guidelines and recommendations must be made more accessible and more understandable to the general public to improve health outcomes. The objective of this study is to evaluate, quantify, and compare the public's understanding, usability, satisfaction, intention to implement, and preference for different ways of presenting COVID-19 health recommendations derived from the COVID-19 Living Map of Recommendations and Gateway to Contextualization (RecMap). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a protocol for a multi-method study. Through an online survey, we will conduct pragmatic allocation-concealed, blinded superiority randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in three populations to test alternative formats of presenting health recommendations: adults, parents, and youth, with at least 240 participants in each population. Prior to initiating the RCT, our interventions will have been refined with relevant stakeholder input. The intervention arm will receive a plain language recommendation (PLR) format while the control arm will receive the corresponding original recommendation format as originally published by the guideline organizations (standard language version). Our primary outcome is understanding, and our secondary outcomes are accessibility and usability, satisfaction, intended behavior, and preference for the recommendation formats. Each population's results will be analyzed separately. However, we are planning a meta-analysis of the results across populations. At the end of each survey, participants will be invited to participate in an optional one-on-one, virtual semi-structured interview to explore their user experience. All interviews will be transcribed and analyzed using the principles of thematic analysis and a hybrid inductive and deductive approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Through Clinical Trials Ontario, the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board has reviewed and approved this protocol (Project ID: 3856). The University of Alberta has approved the parent portion of the trial (Project ID:00114894). Findings from this study will be disseminated through open-access publications in peer-reviewed journals and using social media. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05358990 . Registered on May 3, 2022.