Defining a core outcome set for hypermobility spectrum disorders and hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome: A Delphi consensus study.

The reported prevalence of hypermobility spectrum disorders (HSD) and hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (hEDS) is unclear due to complex presentations and lack of awareness amongst professionals, contributing to diagnostic and management uncertainties. Standardising an outcome measure to assess symptoms most important to patients should help determine the impact of interventions. This Delphi study aims to reach a consensus with stakeholders on the core outcome set for children and adults with HSD/hEDS. A three-round modified Delphi consensus study with a follow-up consensus meeting was used. Stakeholder groups consisted of (1) individuals with HSD/hEDS; (2) family/friends/carers and (3) healthcare professionals. Participants could belong to more than one stakeholder group. They rated 74 symptoms using a 9-point Likert scale: 1 "not important to 9 "critically important". Symptoms achieving a consensus rating of ≥ 70.0% critical importance across all groups were included. In Round 1, 766 responses were received from 600 participants, reducing to 566 responses from 438 participants by Round 3, with 53 participating in the consensus meeting. Overall, 30 symptoms met the ≥ 70.0% critically important threshold to be included in the final core outcome set. These were categorised under the specialties of musculoskeletal and orthopaedics, social, pain, gynaecology and urology, negative affect, neurological, gastrointestinal and "other". This study is the first to identify by consensus the core outcome set to be measured for patients with HSD/hEDS. The importance of these outcomes was confirmed by individuals living with the condition, their family, friends, carers and relevant healthcare professionals. Trial registration: IRAS ID: 326,855; East Midlands - Leicester South REC (reference: 23/EM/0143); Protocol registered with the COMET Initiative. Key Points • There is a lack of standardised outcome measure for HSD/hEDS research studies due to the heterogeneity of symptom presentations. • Symptoms across musculoskeletal and orthopaedics, social, pain, gynaecology and urology, negative affect, neurological, gastrointestinal and "other" specialties were identified as the core outcome set defined as ≥ 70.0% critically important to measure for individuals with HSD/hEDS. • There were a significant number of symptoms, widely recognised in the literature to be comorbid to HSD/hEDS, that reached a critical importance threshold of 50.0-69.9%, restricting the core outcome set to only those that met 70% or above may be limiting.

Establishing a Core Outcome Set for Creatine Transporter Deficiency and Guanidinoacetate Methyltransferase Deficiency.

Creatine transporter (CTD) and guanidinoacetate methyltransferase (GAMT) deficiencies are rare inborn errors of creatine metabolism, resulting in cerebral creatine deficiency. Patients commonly exhibit intellectual and developmental disabilities, often accompanied by behavior problems, delayed speech, seizures, and motor impairments. There is currently no efficacious treatment for CTD, while the current management for GAMT requires lifelong treatment with a protein restricted diet and intake of high amounts of oral supplements. Efforts to develop effective, sustainable treatments for these disorders are limited by the lack of clinical and patient-derived meaningful outcomes. A core outcome set (COS) can facilitate consensus about outcomes for inclusion in studies. Unfortunately, patient and caregiver perspectives have historically been overlooked in the COS development process, thus limiting their input into the outcome selection. We partnered with caregivers and health professionals to establish the first COS for CTD and GAMT. The COS developed includes seven outcomes ("Adaptive Functioning", "Cognitive Functioning", "Emotional Dysregulation", "MRS Brain Creatine", "Seizure/Convulsions", "Expressive Communication", and "Fine Motor Functions") for both CTD and GAMT, and an additional outcome for GAMT ("Serum/Plasma Guanidinoacetate") that are important to stakeholders and consequently should be considered for measurement in every clinical trial. Caregivers were valued partners throughout the COS development process, which increased community engagement and facilitated caregiver empowerment. We expect this COS will ensure a patient-centered approach for accelerating drug development for CTD and GAMT, make clinical trial results comparable, minimize bias in clinical trial outcome selection, and promote efficient use of resources.

Outcome reporting in studies on pregnant women with cardiac disease: a systematic review: Outcomes in studies on pregnancy and heart disease.

BACKGROUND: Although considerable variation in the reporting and definition of outcomes in cardio-obstetric studies is known, the extent of this variation has not been documented. The primary objective of this systematic review was to highlight this variation and inform the development of a Core Outcome Set for studies on Cardiac disease in Pregnancy (COSCarP). METHODS: Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Central databases were searched from 1980 to 2018 to identify all English-language publications on pregnancy and heart disease. Title/abstract screening and data extraction which included details on the study, patient population, and all reported outcomes, was performed in duplicate by two reviewers. As the aim of the review was to identify variation in outcome reporting, risk-of-bias assessment was not performed. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42016038218). RESULTS: The final analysis included 422 cardio-obstetric studies. Maternal mortality or survival were reported in 232/422 studies, with inconsistency in terms of cause of death [all-cause (n=65), cardiac (n=55) or obstetric (n=10)] or timeframe (ranging from in-hospital mortality (n=11) to mortality 5 years following pregnancy). In 95/232 studies (41%), the cause and timeframe were not specified. Similar inconsistencies in reporting and definitions were noted for outcomes such as heart failure (n=298), perinatal loss (n=296), fetal growth (n=221), bleeding (n=205), arrhythmias (n=202), preterm birth (n=191), thromboembolism (n=153) and hypertensive disorders (n=122). Functioning / life-impact and adverse effects of treatment were sparingly reported in cardio-obstetric studies. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review hopes to create awareness among cardio-obstetric teams about the inconsistencies in reporting and defining outcomes which makes it difficult to compare studies and perform meta-analyses. COSCarP which is being developed through international consensus between patients and care-providers will provide cardio-obstetrics teams with a minimal set of outcomes to be reported in future cardio-obstetric studies.

OMERACT systemic lupus erythematosus domain survey.

BACKGROUND: Since the development of the OMERACT Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Core Outcome Set (COS) in 1998, many new SLE domains have been identified and measures developed, creating a need to update the SLE COS. To revisit the 1998 SLE COS and research agenda domains, and generate new candidate domains, we conducted this study of patients with SLE and collaborators. OBJECTIVE: (1) To evaluate existing candidate SLE domains for inclusion in the SLE COS. (2) To generate additional candidate SLE domains for COS consideration. (3) To engage SLE collaborators, including patients, in developing the updated SLE COS. METHODS: The OMERACT SLE Working Group's steering committee developed a survey to assess the importance of candidate SLE domains and generate additional domains for consideration towards the SLE COS. Patients with SLE followed at the University of Toronto Lupus Clinic (patient group) and members of the OMERACT SLE Working Group (collaborator group) were invited to complete the survey between August 2022 and February 2023. RESULTS: A total of 175 patients were invited and 100 completed the survey. Of 178 collaborators invited, 145 completed the survey. Patients tended to prioritize life-impact domains while collaborators prioritized clinical domains. Both patients and collaborators recommended additional domains to those included in the 1998 SLE COS and research agenda. CONCLUSION: The domain inclusion and importance results demonstrate that patients and collaborators prioritize different domains, so capturing the perspectives of both groups is essential to ensure a holistic assessment of SLE. The results of the study identify domains that already have a high level of agreement for potential inclusion in the SLE COS, domains that require further explanation, and novel domains that warrant consideration.

Systematic Review of Outcome Reporting for Interventions to Treat Patients with Acute Lower Limb Ischaemia.

OBJECTIVE: Inconsistencies in outcome data of therapeutic strategies for acute lower limb ischaemia (ALI) have hindered the synthesis of findings. A core outcome set (COS) may offer a solution to this problem by defining a minimum set of outcomes that are considered essential to all stakeholders involved. The first step in developing a COS is to review the previously reported outcomes on various treatment strategies for ALI. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to August 2023. REVIEW METHODS: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative framework, adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and was pre-registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022320073). Abstracts were independently screened by two authors for full text review. All outcomes and their definitions were extracted from selected papers. Outcomes with different terminologies were then categorised into an agreed outcome term. The list of agreed outcomes was given a standardised outcome domain and core area using a 38 item standardised taxonomy. RESULTS: Of 6 184 articles identified, 176 relevant studies were included, yielding 1 325 verbatim outcomes. After deduplication, 72 unique verbatim outcomes were categorised into five broad outcome domains. Outcomes considered key to the evaluation of treatment of ALI were further categorised as delivery of care (19.4%), vascular outcomes (13.8%), and adverse events (12.5%). The three most frequently reported agreed outcomes were amputation (14.1%), death (12.3%), and general bleeding (11.6%). CONCLUSION: This systematic review provides an overview of currently reported outcomes in the literature of interventions for ALI. After categorisation into agreed outcome terms, 72 outcomes were identified that can be used in the development of a COS.

Content comparison of utility and effectiveness instruments to the Prosthetic Interventions Core Outcome Set: a step to inform the benefits measured in lower-limb prosthetic health economic evaluations.

PURPOSE: Health Economic Evaluations (HEEs) calculate a cost-benefit ratio using utility and effectiveness instruments. It is unknown whether existing instruments measure the items of the Prosthetic Interventions Core Outcome Set (PI-COS) that represent the benefits most important to lower-limb prosthesis users and funders. Comparing the content of existing instruments against the PI-COS will support instrument selection for future prosthetic HEEs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Utility and effectiveness instruments used to evaluate prosthetic interventions were identified and their International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health framework (ICF) linking results were extracted. Content of each instrument was compared to the PI-COS through three metrics: content density, content diversity and bandwidth. RESULTS: Of the 130 utility and effectiveness instruments, 24 had previously been linked to the ICF. The instrument with the greatest bandwidth (i.e., broadest content coverage of the PI-COS) was the SF-36 given it linked to 6 of the 14 items of the PI-COS. Combining PROMIS subscales and short-forms allow measurement of a greater range of the PI-COS items. CONCLUSIONS: There is no perfect fit instrument providing coverage of the PI-COS using the metrics of content density, content diversity and bandwidth. The PROMIS instrument may provide increase coverage of the PI-COS in future HEEs.

Existing utility and effectiveness instruments provide varying levels of coverage of the Prosthetic Interventions Core Outcome Set (PI-COS), which describes the outcomes most important to prosthetic users and funders.Rehabilitation professionals can use the content mapping in this study to guide the selection of an instrument that best measures the benefits of a lower-limb prosthetic intervention given the purpose of study.Future health economic evaluations of lower-limb prosthetic interventions should use utility and effectiveness instruments that provide the greatest coverage of the PI-COS and as such, we recommend the 42 questions of the combined PROMIS-29 + 2 and the PROMIS Physical Function with Mobility Aid short-form.

Development of a core outcome set for physiotherapy trials in adults with bronchiectasis (the COS-PHyBE study): A Delphi study and consensus meeting.

Background: Physiotherapy is recommended for bronchiectasis management, but there is disparity in evidence supporting its use. This is partly because of inconsistency and poor reporting of outcomes in available studies. A Core Outcome Set (COS) may improve trial consistency and decrease reporting bias. This study aimed to develop a COS for physiotherapy clinical trials in adults with bronchiectasis. Methods: A comprehensive list of outcomes was developed using a systematic review and qualitative semi-structured interviews with patients with bronchiectasis and physiotherapists.An international two-round online Delphi survey was conducted. Outcomes scored 7-9 (crucial) by ≥ 70 % of participants and 1-3 (not that important) by ≤ 15 % of participants from each stakeholder in the Likert scale were nominated for inclusion in the COS. Nominated outcomes and those considered crucial by only one of the stakeholders' groups were further discussed and voted in an international consensus meeting. Results: A list of 137 outcomes was generated; 104 from literature and 33 from interviews. A Delphi survey containing 59 outcomes was completed by 171 participants from 20 countries. After the consensus meeting, representatives agreed on seven outcomes: health-related quality of life, respiratory symptoms, physical functioning, emotional and psychological functioning, fatigue, adherence to treatment, and functional exercise capacity. Conclusion: A minimum set of seven outcomes are recommended to be included as measurements in future trials evaluating physiotherapy interventions for bronchiectasis.

Core outcomes in nerve surgery: development of a core outcome set for common peroneal (fibular) neuropathy.

OBJECTIVE: Common peroneal (fibular) neuropathy is the most common mononeuropathy of the lower extremity. Despite this, there are surprisingly few studies on the topic, and a knowledge gap remains in the literature. As one attempts to address this knowledge gap, a core outcome set (COS) is needed to guide the planning phases of future studies to allow synthesis and comparability of these studies. The objective of this study was to develop the COS-common peroneal neuropathy (CoPe) using a modified Delphi approach. METHODS: A 5-stage approach was used to develop the COS-CoPe: 1) stage 1, consortium development; 2) stage 2, a literature review to identify potential outcome measures; 3) stage 3, a Delphi survey to develop consensus on outcomes for inclusion; 4) stage 4, a Delphi survey to develop definitions; and 5) stage 5, a consensus meeting to finalize COS and definitions. The study followed the COS-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) recommendations. RESULTS: The Core Outcomes in Nerve Surgery (COINS) Consortium comprised 23 participants, all neurological surgeons, representing 13 countries. The final COS-CoPe consisted of 31 data points/outcomes covering domains of demographics, diagnostics, patient-reported outcomes, motor/sensory outcomes, and complications. Appropriate instruments, methods of testing, and definitions were set. The consensus minimum duration of follow-up was 12 months. The consensus optimal time points for assessment were preoperatively and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: The COINS Consortium developed a consensus COS and provided definitions, methods of implementation, and time points for assessment. The COS-CoPe should serve as a minimum set of data that should be collected in all future neurosurgical studies on common peroneal neuropathy. Incorporation of this COS should help improve consistency in reporting, data synthesis, and comparability, and should minimize outcome reporting bias.

Development of a core outcome set for maternal and perinatal health research and surveillance in light of emerging and ongoing epidemic threats.

Background: Maternal and perinatal health is often directly and indirectly affected during infectious disease epidemics. Yet, a lack of evidence on epidemics' impact on women and their offspring delays informed decision-making for healthcare providers, pregnant women, women in the post-pregnancy period and policy-makers. To rapidly generate evidence in these circumstances, we aim to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for maternal and perinatal health research and surveillance in light of emerging and ongoing epidemic threats. Methods: We will conduct a Systematic Review and a four-stage modified Delphi expert consensus. The systematic literature will aim to inform experts on outcomes reported in maternal and perinatal research and surveillance during previous epidemics. The expert consensus will involve two individual, anonymous online surveys to rate outcomes' importance and suggest new ones, one virtual meeting to discuss disagreements, and one in-person meeting to agree on the final COS, outcomes definitions and measurement methods. Four panels will be established to participate in the modified Delphi with expertise in (a) maternal and perinatal health, (b) neonatal health, (c) public health and emergency response, and (d) representation of civil society. We will recruit at least 20 international experts for each stakeholder group, with diverse backgrounds and gender, professional, and geographic balance. Only highly-rated outcomes (with at least 80% of ratings being 7-9 on a 9-point Likert scale) and no more than 10% of low ratings (1-3) will be included in the final COS. Conclusions: Implementing this COS in future maternal and perinatal research and surveillance, especially in the context of emerging and ongoing epidemic threats, will facilitate the rapid and systematic generation of evidence. It will also enhance the ability of policy-makers, healthcare providers, pregnant women and women in the post-pregnancy period and their families to make well-informed choices in challenging circumstances.

Involving different stakeholders in prioritising outcomes to assess healthcare systems response for type 1 diabetes management: Using co-creation approaches in Peru.

BACKGROUND: Engaging diverse stakeholders in developing core outcome sets (COSs) can produce more meaningful metrics as well as research responsive to patient needs. The most common COS prioritisation method, Delphi surveys, has limitations related to selection bias and participant understanding, while qualitative methods like group discussions are less frequently used. This study aims to test a co-creation approach to COS development for type 1 diabetes (T1DM) in Peru. METHODS: Using a co-creation approach, we aimed to prioritise outcomes for T1DM management in Peru, incorporating perspectives from people with T1DM, caregivers, healthcare professionals, and decision-makers. A set of outcomes were previously identified through a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis. Through qualitative descriptive methods, including in-person workshops, each group of stakeholders contributed to the ranking of outcomes. Decision-makers also discussed the feasibility of measuring these outcomes within the Peruvian healthcare system. RESULTS: While priorities varied among participant groups, all underscored the significance of monitoring healthcare system functionality over mortality. Participants recognized the interconnected nature of healthcare system performance, clinical outcomes, self-management, and quality of life. When combining the rankings from all the groups, metrics related to economic impact on the individual and structural support, policies promoting health, and protecting those living with T1DM were deemed more important in comparison to measuring clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: We present the first COS for T1DM focused on low-and-middle-income countries and show aspects of care that are relevant in this setting. Diverse prioritisation among participant groups underscores the need of inclusive decision-making processes. By incorporating varied perspectives, healthcare systems can better address patient needs and enhance overall care quality.

What to Measure in Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Haemorrhage Research-An International Delphi Survey.

Aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH) is a devastating condition with high mortality and morbidity. The outcome measures used in aSAH clinical research vary making it challenging to compare and combine different studies. Additionally, there may be a mismatch between the outcomes prioritized by patients, caregivers, and health care providers and those selected by researchers. We conducted an international, online, multiple round Delphi study to develop consensus on domains (where a domain is a health concept or aspect) prioritized by key stakeholders including those with lived experience of aSAH, health care providers, and researchers, funders, or industry professionals. One hundred seventy-five people participated in the survey, 59% of whom had lived experience of aSAH. Over three rounds, 32 domains reached the consensus threshold pre-defined as 70% of participants rating the domain as being critically important. During the fourth round, participants ranked the importance of each of these 32 domains. The top ten domains ranked highest to lowest were (1) Cognition and executive function, (2) Aneurysm obliteration, (3) Cerebral infarction, (4) Functional outcomes including ability to walk, (5) Delayed cerebral ischemia, (6) The overall quality of life as reported by the SAH survivor, (7) Changes to emotions or mood (including depression), (8) The basic activities of daily living, (9) Vasospasm, and (10) ICU complications. Our findings confirm that there is a mismatch between domains prioritized by stakeholders and outcomes used in clinical research. Our future work aims to address this mismatch through the development of a core outcome set in aSAH research.

A Systematic Review of Reported Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials Targeting Early Interventions in Moderate-to-Severe Traumatic Brain Injury.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the cornerstone to evaluate the efficacy of an intervention. To assess the methodology of clinical research, we performed a systematic review that evaluated the different outcomes used in RCTs targeting the early phase of moderate-to-severe adult TBI from 1983 to October 31, 2023. We extracted each outcome and organized them according to the COMET and OMERACT framework (core area, broad domains, target domains, and finally outcomes). A total of 190 RCTs were included, including 52,010 participants. A total of 557 outcomes were reported and classified between the following core areas: pathophysiological manifestations [169 RCTs (88.9%)], life impact [117 RCTs (61.6%)], death [94 RCTs (49.5%)], resource use [72 RCTs (37.9%)], and adverse events [41 RCTs (21.6%)]. We identified 29 broad domains and 89 target domains. Among target domains, physical functioning [111 (58.4%)], mortality [94 (49.5%)], intracranial pressure target domain [68 (35.8%)], and hemodynamics [53 (27.9%)] were the most frequent. Outcomes were mostly clinician-reported [177 (93.2%)], while patient-reported outcomes were rarely reported [11 (5.8%)]. In our review, there was significant heterogeneity in the choice of end-points in TBI clinical research. There is an urgent need for consensus and homogeneity to improve the quality of clinical research in this area.

Inclusion of harm outcomes in core outcome sets requires careful consideration.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine the proportion of all published core outcome set (COS) studies that include an adverse event or harm outcome, to determine the proportion of individual vs pooled harms, and to investigate characteristics that influence their inclusion. METHODS: We examined the extent to which a sample of 100 published COS studies (from January 2021 to January 2023) include both pooled and individual harms in the final COS. One investigator extracted the information from the COS studies, which was cross-checked against previous COS investigational research, and where possible verified with COS authors or a pharmacologist. Using Qualtrics™, we conducted a personalized online survey of developers of the 100 COS to ask them about the importance, their experiences, and methodological approaches for dealing with harms within their COS development studies. RESULTS: One hundred COS were identified from 91 separate COS studies, the majority of which considered most of the minimum standards for development. Two-thirds (65%) of the COS included at least 1 harm outcome. In total, 1104 core outcomes were identified across the 100 COS, of which 184 (17%) were harm outcomes (154 individual vs 56 pooled). Individual harms were more likely to be included in a final COS if they were developed for single treatment interventions (50%) compared to those being developed for multitreatment modalities (39%). Some COS developers adopted outcome frameworks as part of their COS development process to facilitate the inclusion of harm outcomes in their final COS. A third (33%) of respondents felt that harm outcomes should be included in all COS but over half (56%) thought this would be dependent on some aspect of the scope of the COS and improved methodology and awareness of how to deal with harm outcomes in the COS development process. CONCLUSION: Harm outcomes are already included in many COS either as individual or pooled harms. It is evident that there are some challenges with regards to both the methodology and necessity to include harms within a COS (pooled or individual. COS developers should carefully consider the need to include important harms outcomes in relation to the scope of the COS that they are developing.

Glottic insufficiency caused by vocal fold atrophy with or without sulcus: systematic review of outcome measurements.

PURPOSE: Identifying outcome measurements instruments (OMIs) to evaluate treatment efficacy in patients with vocal fold atrophy and/or sulcus. METHODS: Systematic review of records published before March 2021 by searching Pubmed and EMBASE. Included studies reported on adults (> 18 year) with dysphonia caused by glottic insufficiency due to vocal fold atrophy with or without sulcus, who were enrolled into a randomized controlled trial, a non-randomized controlled trial, a case-controlled study or a cohort study. All included studies described an intervention with at least one outcome measurement. RESULTS: A total of 5456 studies were identified. After removing duplicates, screening title and abstract and full text screening of selected records, 34 publications were included in final analysis. From these 50 separate OMIs were recorded and categorized according to the ELS protocol by DeJonckere et al. (Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 258: 77-82, 2001). With most OMIs being used in multiple studies the total number of OMIs reported was 265. Nineteen (19) individual OMIs accounted for 80% of reports. The most frequently used OMIs according to category were: VHI and VHI-10 (subjective evaluation); G of GRBAS (perceptual evaluation); F0, Jitter and Shimmer (acoustic evaluation); MPT and MFR (aerodynamic evaluation) and glottic closure and mucosal wave (endoscopic evaluation). Of these OMIs VHI had a high percentage of significance of 90%. CONCLUSION: This systematic review identifies the most used OMIs in patients with glottic incompetency due to vocal fold atrophy and/or sulcus as a step toward defining a Core Outcome Set (COS) for this population. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: 238274.

Toward a core outcome set for faecal incontinence-A systematic review of outcomes reported in the literature.

AIM: Faecal incontinence (FI) is a prevalent issue which can have a detrimental impact on the patient's quality of life. Current international guidelines lack strong treatment recommendations due to few studies in the field, in combination with the heterogeneity in outcome reporting. To address this, a core outcome set (COS) is proposed to standardize outcome reporting in FI studies, facilitating meta-analyses and enhancing therapeutic recommendations. Through several steps outlined by COMET 'what' to measure will be determined prior to determining 'how' to measure these outcomes. This systematic review aims to identify 'what' outcomes have been used in FI intervention studies so far in adult patients as a starting phase for the development of a future COS for FI. METHOD: Medline, Embase and the Cochrane library were searched to identify all outcomes reported in comparative effectiveness trials assessing one or more treatment option in adult patients suffering from FI. The outcomes were categorized according to the Core Outcome Measurement in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) taxonomy to standardize outcome terminology, assess completeness, and inform subsequent steps in COS development. RESULTS: A total of 109 studies were included, which revealed 51 unique outcomes classified into 38 domains within four core areas. On average four outcomes were reported per study (range 1-11). The most commonly reported outcomes were "severity of FI" (83%), "quality of life" (64%), "number of FI episodes" (40%), "anorectal motor function" (39%), and "frequency of bowel movements" (16%). CONCLUSION: This systematic review offers an overview of outcomes reported in FI studies, highlighting the heterogeneity between studies. This heterogeneity emphasizes the need for standardizing outcome reporting which can be established through the creation of a COS.

Developing a core outcome set for acetabular fractures: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials investigating acetabular fractures are heterogeneous in their investigated outcomes and their corresponding measurements. Standardization may facilitate comparability and pooling of research results, which would lead to an increase in knowledge about the optimal treatment of acetabular fractures, resulting in long-term evidence-based treatment decisions and improvements in patient care. The aim of this systematic review is to identify the reported outcomes and their measurements from studies on treatments for acetabular fractures to develop a core outcome set which contains the most relevant outcome measures to be included in future studies. METHODS: Studies published in English and German including patients aged 16 years and older, with a surgically treated acetabular fracture, will be included. Studies with nonsurgical treatment, pathologic fractures, polytraumatized patients, and patients younger than 16 years of age will be excluded because other outcomes may be of interest in these cases. Any prospective and retrospective study will be included. Systematic reviews will be excluded, but their included studies will be screened for eligibility. The literature will be searched on MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP. Risk of selective reporting of outcomes will be assessed using the Outcome Reporting Bias in Trials classification system. Heterogeneously defined outcomes that measure the same outcome will be grouped and subsequently categorized into outcome domains using the taxonomy of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative. DISCUSSION: It is expected that a high number of studies will be included, and many outcomes will be identified using different definitions and measurement instruments. A limitation of this systematic review is that only previously investigated outcomes will be detected, thus disregarding potentially relevant outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022357644.

Development of the Korean Medicine Core Outcome Set for Facial Palsy: herbal medicine treatment of patients with facial palsy in primary clinics.

Introduction: Facial palsy (FP) significantly affects the quality of life of patients and poses a treatment challenge in primary healthcare settings. This study aimed to develop a Korean medicine (KM) core outcome set (COS) for FP, with a focus on evaluating the effectiveness of herbal medicine (HM) treatments in KM primary clinics. Methods: Outcomes and effect modifiers related to FP treatments were initially identified through related review articles. Subsequently, experts in the field took part in three rounds of modified Delphi consensus exercises to refine and prioritize these outcomes and effect modifiers. Additionally, primary KM clinicians were involved in a Delphi consensus round to assess the suitability and feasibility of the proposed COS in real-world clinical settings. Results: The initial review of related literature identified 44 relevant studies, resulting in an initial selection of 23 outcomes and 10 effect modifiers. The expert consensus process refined these to 8 key outcomes and 6 effect modifiers, which established the foundation of the COS-FP-KM. Subsequently, primary KM clinicians confirmed the practicality and applicability of the COS, endorsing its suitability for use in KM primary clinics. Conclusion: The COS-FP-KM establishes a standardized approach for assessing HM treatment effectiveness in FP patients in KM primary clinics. The COS-FP-KM encourages consistent outcome reporting and enhances patient care quality. Future work should aim to integrate broader stakeholder perspectives to refine and validate the COS further.

Outcomes of interventions in neonatal sepsis: A systematic review of qualitative research.

BACKGROUND: While a systematic review exists detailing neonatal sepsis outcomes from clinical trials, there remains an absence of a qualitative systematic review capturing the perspectives of key stakeholders. OBJECTIVES: Our aim is to identify outcomes from qualitative research on any intervention to prevent or improve the outcomes of neonatal sepsis that are important to parents, other family members, healthcare providers, policymakers, and researchers as a part of the development of a core outcome set (COS) for neonatal sepsis. SEARCH STRATEGY: A literature search was carried out using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycInfo databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Publications describing qualitative data relating to neonatal sepsis outcomes were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Drawing on the concepts of thematic synthesis, texts related to outcomes were coded and grouped. These outcomes were then mapped to the domain headings of an existing model. MAIN RESULTS: Out of 6777 records screened, six studies were included. Overall, 19 outcomes were extracted from the included studies. The most frequently reported outcomes were those in the domains related to parents, healthcare workers and individual organ systemas such as gastrointestinal system. The remaining outcomes were classified under the headings of general outcomes, miscellaneous outcomes, survival, and infection. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes identified in this review are different from those reported in neonatal sepsis clinical trials, thus highlighting the importance of incorporating qualitative studies into COS development to encapsulate all relevant stakeholders' perspectives.

Surgical Handover Core Outcome Measures (SH-CORE): a protocol for the development of a core outcome set for trials in surgical handover.

BACKGROUND: Surgical handover is associated with a significant risk of care failures. Existing research displays methodological deficiencies and little consensus on the outcomes that should be used to evaluate interventions in this area. This paper reports a protocol to develop a core outcome set (COS) to support standardisation, comparability, and evidence synthesis in future studies of surgical handover between doctors. METHODS: This study adheres to the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative guidance for COS development, including the COS-Standards for Development (COS-STAD) and Reporting (COS-STAR) recommendations. It has been registered prospectively on the COMET database and will be led by an international steering group that includes surgical healthcare professionals, researchers, and patient and public partners. An initial list of reported outcomes was generated through a systematic review of interventions to improve surgical handover (PROSPERO: CRD42022363198). Findings of a qualitative evidence synthesis of patient and public perspectives on handover will augment this list, followed by a real-time Delphi survey involving all stakeholder groups. Each Delphi participant will then be invited to take part in at least one online consensus meeting to finalise the COS. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (RCSI) Research Ethics Committee (202309015, 7th November 2023). Results will be presented at surgical scientific meetings and submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. A plain English summary will be disseminated through national websites and social media. The authors aim to integrate the COS into the handover curriculum of the Irish national surgical training body and ensure it is shared internationally with other postgraduate surgical training programmes. Collaborators will be encouraged to share the findings with relevant national health service functions and national bodies. DISCUSSION: This study will represent the first published COS for interventions to improve surgical handover, the first use of a real-time Delphi survey in a surgical context, and will support the generation of better-quality evidence to inform best practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative 2675.  http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2675 .