Collating the knowledge base for core outcome set development: developing and appraising the search strategy for a systematic review

Background: The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative is developing a publicly accessible online resource to collate the knowledge base for core outcome set development (COS) and the applied work from different health conditions. Ensuring that the database is as comprehensive as possible and keeping it up to date are key to its value for users. This requires the development and application of an optimal, multi-faceted search strategy to identify relevant material. This paper describes the challenges of designing and implementing such a search, outlining the development of the search strategy for studies of COS development, and, in turn, the process for establishing a database of COS.

Methods: We investigated the performance characteristics of this strategy including sensitivity, precision and numbers needed to read. We compared the contribution of databases towards identifying included studies to identify the best combination of methods to retrieve all included studies.

Results: Recall of the search strategies ranged from 4% to 87%, and precision from 0.77% to 1.13%. MEDLINE performed best in terms of recall, retrieving 216 (87%) of the 250 included records, followed by Scopus (44%). The Cochrane Methodology Register found just 4% of the included records. MEDLINE was also the database with the highest precision. The number needed to read varied between 89 (MEDLINE) and 130 (SCOPUS).

Conclusions: We found that two databases and hand searching were required to locate all of the studies in this review. MEDLINE alone retrieved 87% of the included studies, but actually 97% of the included studies were indexed on MEDLINE. The Cochrane Methodology Register did not contribute any records that were not found in the other databases, and will not be included in our future searches to identify studies developing COS. SCOPUS had the lowest precision rate (0.77) and highest number needed to read (130). In future COMET searches for COS a balance needs to be struck between the work involved in screening large numbers of records, the frequency of the searching and the likelihood that eligible studies will be identified by means other than the database searches.

Aspirin therapy in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is associated with reduced intensive care unit mortality: a prospective analysis

INTRODUCTION: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a common clinical syndrome with high mortality and long-term morbidity. To date there is no effective pharmacological therapy. Aspirin therapy has recently been shown to reduce the risk of developing ARDS, but the effect of aspirin on established ARDS is unknown.

METHODS: In a single large regional medical and surgical ICU between December 2010 and July 2012, all patients with ARDS were prospectively identified and demographic, clinical, and laboratory variables were recorded retrospectively. Aspirin usage, both pre-hospital and during intensive care unit (ICU) stay, was included. The primary outcome was ICU mortality. We used univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses to assess the impact of these variables on ICU mortality.

RESULTS: In total, 202 patients with ARDS were included; 56 (28%) of these received aspirin either pre-hospital, in the ICU, or both. Using multivariate logistic regression analysis, aspirin therapy, given either before or during hospital stay, was associated with a reduction in ICU mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.38 (0.15 to 0.96) P = 0.04). Additional factors that predicted ICU mortality for patients with ARDS were vasopressor use (OR 2.09 (1.05 to 4.18) P = 0.04) and APACHE II score (OR 1.07 (1.02 to 1.13) P = 0.01). There was no effect upon ICU length of stay or hospital mortality.

CONCLUSION: Aspirin therapy was associated with a reduced risk of ICU mortality. These data are the first to demonstrate a potential protective role for aspirin in patients with ARDS. Clinical trials to evaluate the role of aspirin as a pharmacological intervention for ARDS are needed.

Core Outcomes in Ventilation Trials (COVenT): protocol for a core outcome set using a Delphi survey with a nested randomised trial and observational cohort study

Background
Among clinical trials of interventions that aim to modify time spent on mechanical ventilation for critically ill patients there is considerable inconsistency in chosen outcomes and how they are measured. The Core Outcomes in Ventilation Trials (COVenT) study aims to develop a set of core outcomes for use in future ventilation trials in mechanically ventilated adults and children.

Methods/design
We will use a mixed methods approach that incorporates a randomised trial nested within a Delphi study and a consensus meeting. Additionally, we will conduct an observational cohort study to evaluate uptake of the core outcome set in published studies at 5 and 10 years following core outcome set publication. The three-round online Delphi study will use a list of outcomes that have been reported previously in a review of ventilation trials. The Delphi panel will include a range of stakeholder groups including patient support groups. The panel will be randomised to one of three feedback methods to assess the impact of the feedback mechanism on subsequent ranking of outcomes. A final consensus meeting will be held with stakeholder representatives to review outcomes.

Discussion
The COVenT study aims to develop a core outcome set for ventilation trials in critical care, explore the best Delphi feedback mechanism for achieving consensus and determine if participation increases use of the core outcome set in the long term.

Consensus on Outcome Measures for Glaucoma Effectiveness Trials: Results From a Delphi and Nominal Group Technique Approaches

PURPOSE: Comparing the relative effectiveness of interventions across glaucoma trials can be problematic due to differences in definitions of outcomes. We sought to identify a key set of clinical outcomes and reach consensus on how best to measure them from the perspective of glaucoma experts.

METHODS: A 2-round electronic Delphi survey was conducted. Round 1 involved 25 items identified from a systematic review. Round 2 was developed based on information gathered in round 1. A 10-point Likert scale was used to quantify importance and consensus of outcomes (7 outcomes) and ways of measuring them (44 measures). Experts were identified through 2 glaucoma societies membership-the UK and Eire Glaucoma Society and the European Glaucoma Society. A Nominal Group Technique (NGT) followed the Delphi process. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS: A total of 65 participants completed round 1 out of 320; of whom 56 completed round 2 (86%). Agreement on the importance of outcomes was reached on 48/51 items (94%). Intraocular pressure (IOP), visual field (VF), safety, and anatomic outcomes were classified as highly important. Regarding methods of measurement of IOP, "mean follow-up IOP" using Goldmann applanation tonometry achieved the highest importance, whereas for evaluating VFs "global index mean deviation/defect (MD)" and "rate of VF progression" were the most important. Retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness measured by optical coherence tomography (OCT) was identified as highly important. The NGT results reached consensus on "change of IOP (mean of 3 consecutive measurements taken at fixed time of day) from baseline," change of VF-MD values (3 reliable VFs at baseline and follow-up visit) from baseline, and change of RNFL thickness (2 good quality OCT images) from baseline.

CONCLUSIONS: Consensus was reached among glaucoma experts on how best to measure IOP, VF, and anatomic outcomes in glaucoma randomized controlled trials.

COS-STAR: a reporting guideline for studies developing core outcome sets (protocol)

BACKGROUND: Core outcome sets can increase the efficiency and value of research and, as a result, there are an increasing number of studies looking to develop core outcome sets (COS). However, the credibility of a COS depends on both the use of sound methodology in its development and clear and transparent reporting of the processes adopted. To date there is no reporting guideline for reporting COS studies. The aim of this programme of research is to develop a reporting guideline for studies developing COS and to highlight some of the important methodological considerations in the process.

METHODS/DESIGN: The study will include a reporting guideline item generation stage which will then be used in a Delphi study. The Delphi study is anticipated to include two rounds. The first round will ask stakeholders to score the items listed and to add any new items they think are relevant. In the second round of the process, participants will be shown the distribution of scores for all stakeholder groups separately and asked to re-score. A final consensus meeting will be held with an expert panel and stakeholder representatives to review the guideline item list. Following the consensus meeting, a reporting guideline will be drafted and review and testing will be undertaken until the guideline is finalised. The final outcome will be the COS-STAR (Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting) guideline for studies developing COS and a supporting explanatory document.

DISCUSSION: To assess the credibility and usefulness of a COS, readers of a COS development report need complete, clear and transparent information on its methodology and proposed core set of outcomes. The COS-STAR guideline will potentially benefit all stakeholders in COS development: COS developers, COS users, e.g. trialists and systematic reviewers, journal editors, policy-makers and patient groups.

Core outcome sets and trial registries

Some reasons for registering trials might be considered as self-serving, such as satisfying the requirements of a journal in which the researchers wish to publish their eventual findings or publicising the trial to boost recruitment. Registry entries also help others, including systematic reviewers, to know about ongoing or unpublished studies and contribute to reducing research waste by making it clear what studies are ongoing. Other sources of research waste include inconsistency in outcome measurement across trials in the same area, missing data on important outcomes from some trials, and selective reporting of outcomes. One way to reduce this waste is through the use of core outcome sets: standardised sets of outcomes for research in specific areas of health and social care. These do not restrict the outcomes that will be measured, but provide the minimum to include if a trial is to be of the most use to potential users. We propose that trial registries, such as ISRCTN, encourage researchers to note their use of a core outcome set in their entry. This will help people searching for trials and those worried about selective reporting in closed trials. Trial registries can facilitate these efforts to make new trials as useful as possible and reduce waste. The outcomes section in the entry could prompt the researcher to consider using a core outcome set and facilitate the specification of that core outcome set and its component outcomes through linking to the original core outcome set. In doing this, registries will contribute to the global effort to ensure that trials answer important uncertainties, can be brought together in systematic reviews, and better serve their ultimate aim of improving health and well-being through improving health and social care.

Towards core outcome set (COS) development: a follow-up descriptive survey of outcomes in Cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND: A core outcome set (COS) can address problems of outcome heterogeneity and outcome reporting bias in trials and systematic reviews, including Cochrane reviews, helping to reduce waste. One of the aims of the international Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative is to link the development and use of COS with the outcomes specified and reported in Cochrane reviews, including the outcomes listed in the summary of findings (SoF) tables. As part of this work, an earlier exploratory survey of the outcomes of newly published 2007 and 2011 Cochrane reviews was performed. This survey examined the use of COS, the variety of specified outcomes, and outcome reporting in Cochrane reviews by Cochrane Review Group (CRG). To examine changes over time and to explore outcomes that were repeatedly specified over time in Cochrane reviews by CRG, we conducted a follow-up survey of outcomes in 2013 Cochrane reviews.

METHODS: A descriptive survey of outcomes in Cochrane reviews that were first published in 2013. Outcomes specified in the methods sections and reported in the results section of the Cochrane reviews were examined by CRG. We also explored the uptake of SoF tables, the number of outcomes included in these, and the quality of the evidence for the outcomes.

RESULTS: Across the 50 CRGs, 375 Cochrane reviews that included at least one study specified a total of 3142 outcomes. Of these outcomes, 32 % (1008) were not reported in the results section of these reviews. For 23 % (233) of these non-reported outcomes, we did not find any reason in the text of the review for this non-report. Fifty-seven percent (216/375) of reviews included a SoF table.

CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of specified outcomes that were reported in Cochrane reviews had increased in 2013 (68 %) compared to 2007 (61 %) and 2011 (65 %). Importantly, 2013 Cochrane reviews that did not report specified outcomes were twice as likely to provide an explanation for why the outcome was not reported. There has been an increased uptake of SoF tables in Cochrane reviews. Outcomes that were repeatedly specified in Cochrane reviews by CRG in 2007, 2011, and 2013 may assist COS development.

Hospitalization in Geriatric Wards: Considerations on the Evaluation of the Outcome

Within a defined law framework, the Italian central health system dictates the standards for hospitalization to local care units, which are in turn allowed to establish their own effectiveness criteria. The appropriateness of the hospitalization decision is therefore predetermined at patients admission, whereas its effectiveness relies on the ex post patient well-being as a result of the complex system of reciprocal relations between patients and healthcare agents at the ward level. We consider the outcomes in geriatric wards referring to the national health system, with respect both to patients traits at the individual level and wards/hospital settings. The risk that models the healthcare outcome is accordingly adjusted for covariates at the different levels of analysis (Goldstein & Spiegelhalter, 1996), thus allowing to differentiate among outcomes in terms of the hospitalization structure and, when appropriate, of territorial aggregation.

The Cyclin D1 (CCND1) A870G polymorphism predicts clinical outcome to lapatinib and capecitabine in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer

BACKGROUND: Lapatinib plus capecitabine emerged as an efficacious therapy in metastatic breast cancer (mBC). We aimed to identify germline single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes involved in capecitabine catabolism and human epidermal receptor signaling that were associated with clinical outcome to assist in selecting patients likely to benefit from this combination.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: DNA was extracted from 240 of 399 patients enrolled in EGF100151 clinical trial (NCT00078572; clinicaltrials.gov) and SNPs were successfully evaluated in 234 patients. The associations between SNPs and clinical outcome were analyzed using Fisher's exact test, Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, likelihood ratio test within logistic or Cox regression model, as appropriate.

RESULTS: There were significant interactions between CCND1 A870G and clinical outcome. Patients carrying the A-allele were more likely to benefit from lapatinib plus capecitabine versus capecitabine when compared with patients harboring G/G (P = 0.022, 0.024 and 0.04, respectively). In patients with the A-allele, the response rate (RR) was significantly higher with lapatinib plus capecitabine (35%) compared with capecitabine (11%; P = 0.001) but not between treatments in patients with G/G (RR = 24% and 32%, respectively; P = 0.85). Time to tumor progression (TTP) was longer in patients with the A-allele treated with lapatinib plus capecitabine compared with capecitabine (median TTP = 7.9 and 3.4 months; P < 0.001), but not in patients with G/G (median TTP = 6.1 and 6.6 months; P = 0.92).

CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that CCND1A870G may be useful in predicting clinical outcome in HER2-positive mBC patients treated with lapatinib plus capecitabine.

The cyclin D1 (CCND1) rs9344 G>A polymorphism predicts clinical outcome in colon cancer patients treated with adjuvant 5-FU-based chemotherapy

Recent evidence indicates a potential prognostic and predictive value for germline polymorphisms in genes involved in cell cycle control. We investigated the effect of cyclin D1 (CCND1) rs9344 G>A in stage II/III colon cancer patients and validated the findings in an independent study cohort. For evaluation and validation set, a total of 264 and 234 patients were included. Patients treated with 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy, carrying the CCND1 rs9344 A/A genotype had significantly decreased time-to-tumor recurrence (TTR) in univariate analysis and multivariate analysis (hazard ratio (HR) 2.47; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16-5.29; P=0.019). There was no significant association between CCND1 rs9344 G>A and TTR in patients with curative surgery alone. In the validation set, the A allele of CCND1 rs9344 G>A remained significantly associated with decreased TTR in univariate and multivariate analyses (HR 1.94; 95% CI 1.05-3.58; P=0.035). CCND1 rs9344 G>A may be a predictive and/or prognostic biomarker in stage II/III colon cancer patients, however, prospective trials are warranted to confirm our findings.

The influence of area level social deprivation on preoperative disease severity and postoperative outcomes following unicompartmental knee joint replacement

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the effect of socioeconomic deprivation on preoperative disease and outcome following unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR).

METHODS: 307 Oxford UKRs implanted between 2008 and 2013 under the care of one surgeon using the same surgical technique were analysed. Deprivation was quantified using the Northern Ireland Multiple Deprivation Measure. Preoperative disease severity and postoperative outcome were measured using the Oxford Knee Score (OKS).

RESULTS: There was no difference in preoperative OKS between deprivation groups. Preoperative knee range of motion (ROM) was significantly reduced in more deprived patients with 10° less ROM than least deprived patients. Postoperatively there was no difference in OKS improvement between deprivation groups (p=0.46), with improvements of 19.5 and 21.0 units in the most and least deprived groups respectively. There was no significant association between deprivation and OKS improvement on unadjusted or adjusted analysis. Preoperative OKS, Short Form 12 mental component score and length of stay were significant independent predictors of OKS improvement. A significantly lower proportion of the most deprived group (15%) reported being able to walk an unlimited distance compared to the least deprived group (41%) one year postoperatively.

CONCLUSION: More deprived patients can achieve similar improvements in OKS to less deprived patients following UKR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b - retrospective cohort study of prognosis.