Frequency of Prenatal Care Visits: Protocol to Develop a Core Outcome Set for Prenatal Care Schedules.

BACKGROUND: Prenatal care, one of the most common preventive care services in the United States, endeavors to improve pregnancy outcomes through evidence-based screenings and interventions. Despite the prevalence of prenatal care and its importance to maternal and infant health, there are several debates about the best methods of prenatal care delivery, including the most appropriate schedule frequency and content of prenatal visits. Current US national guidelines recommend that low-risk individuals receive a standard schedule of 12 to 14 in-office visits, a care delivery model that has remained unchanged for almost a century. OBJECTIVE: In early 2020, to mitigate individuals' exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, prenatal care providers implemented new paradigms that altered the schedule frequency, interval, and modality (eg, telemedicine) of how prenatal care services were offered. In this paper, we describe the development of a core outcome set (COS) that can be used to evaluate the effect of the frequency of prenatal care schedules on maternal and infant outcomes. METHODS: We will systematically review the literature to identify previously reported outcomes important to individuals who receive prenatal care and the people who care for them. Stakeholders with expertise in prenatal care delivery (ie, patients or family members, health care providers, and public health professionals and policy makers) will rate the importance of identified outcomes in a web-based survey using a 3-round Delphi process. A digital consensus meeting will be held for a group of stakeholder representatives to discuss and vote on the outcomes to include in the final COS. RESULTS: The Delphi survey was initiated in July 2022 with invited 71 stakeholders. A digital consensus conference was conducted on October 11, 2022. Data are currently under analysis with plans to submit them in a subsequent manuscript. CONCLUSIONS: More research about the optimal schedule frequency and modality for prenatal care delivery is needed. Standardizing outcomes that are measured and reported in evaluations of the recommended prenatal care schedules will assist evidence synthesis and results reported in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Overall, this COS will expand the consistency and patient-centeredness of reported outcomes for various prenatal care delivery schedules and modalities, hopefully improving the overall efficacy of recommended care delivery for pregnant people and their families. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/43962.

Outcome measures from international older adult care home intervention research: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Care homes are increasingly important settings for intervention research to enhance evidence-informed care. For such research to demonstrate effectiveness, it is essential that measures are appropriate for the population, setting and practice contexts. OBJECTIVE: To identify care home intervention studies and describe the resident outcome measures used. DESIGN: Scoping review. METHODS: We reviewed international care home research published from 2015 to August 2022. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and ASSIA. We included any intervention study conducted in a care home, reporting resident outcomes. We extracted resident outcome measures, organised these using the domains of an adapted framework and described their use. RESULTS: From 7,330 records screened, we included 396 datasets reported in 436 publications. These included 12,167 care homes and 836,842 residents, with an average of 80 residents per study. The studies evaluated 859 unique resident outcomes 2,030 times using 732 outcome measures. Outcomes were evaluated between 1 and 112 times, with 75.1% of outcomes evaluated only once. Outcome measures were used 1-120 times, with 68.4% of measures used only once. Only 14 measures were used ≥20 times. Functional status, mood & behaviour and medications were the commonest outcome domains assessed. More than half of outcomes were assessed using scales, with a fifth using existing records or administrative data. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant heterogeneity in the choice and assessment of outcomes for intervention research in care homes. There is an urgent need to develop a consensus on useful and sensitive tools for care homes, working with residents, families and friends and staff.

The Core Rehabilitation Outcome Set for Single-Sided Deafness (CROSSSD) study: International consensus on outcome measures for trials of interventions for adults with single-sided deafness.

BACKGROUND: Single-sided deafness (SSD) has functional, psychological, and social consequences. Interventions for adults with SSD include hearing aids and auditory implants. Benefits and harms (outcome domains) of these interventions are until now reported inconsistently in clinical trials. Inconsistency in reporting outcome measures prevents meaningful comparisons or syntheses of trial results. The Core Rehabilitation Outcome Set for Single-Sided Deafness (CROSSSD) international initiative used structured communication techniques to achieve consensus among healthcare users and professionals working in the field of SSD. The novel contribution is a set of core outcome domains that experts agree are critically important to assess in all clinical trials of SSD interventions. METHODS: A long list of candidate outcome domains compiled from a systematic review and published qualitative data, informed the content of a two-round online Delphi survey. Overall, 308 participants from 29 countries were enrolled. Of those, 233 participants completed both rounds of the survey and scored each outcome domain on a 9-point scale. The set of core outcome domains was finalised via a web-based consensus meeting with 12 participants. Votes involved all stakeholder groups, with an approximate 2:1 ratio of professionals to healthcare users participating in the Delphi survey, and a 1:1 ratio participating in the consensus meeting. RESULTS: The first round of the survey listed 44 potential outcome domains, organised thematically. A further five outcome domains were included in Round 2 based on participant feedback. The structured voting at round 2 identified 17 candidate outcome domains which were voted on at the consensus meeting. Consensus was reached for a core outcome domain set including three outcome domains: spatial orientation, group conversations in noisy social situations, and impact on social situations. Seventy-seven percent of the remaining Delphi participants agreed with this core outcome domain set. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of the internationally agreed core outcome domain set would promote consistent assessment and reporting of outcomes that are meaningful and important to all relevant stakeholders. This consistency will in turn enable comparison of outcomes reported across clinical trials comparing SSD interventions in adults and reduce research waste. Further research will determine how those outcome domains should best be measured.

Review finds core outcome set uptake in new studies and systematic reviews needs improvement.

OBJECTIVES: To review evidence about the uptake of core outcome sets (COS). A COS is an agreed standardized set of outcomes that should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all clinical trials in a specific area of health or healthcare. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This article provides an analysis of what is known about the uptake of COS in research. Similarities between COS and outcomes recommended by stakeholders in the evidence ecosystem is reviewed and actions taken by them to facilitate COS uptake described. RESULTS: COS uptake is low in most research areas. Common facilitators relate to trialist awareness and understanding. Common barriers were not including in the development process all specialties that might use the COS and the lack of recommendations for how to measure the outcomes. Increasingly, COS developers are considering strategies for promoting uptake earlier in the process, including actions beyond traditional dissemination approaches. An overlap between COS and outcomes in regulatory documents and health technology assessments is good. An increasing number and variety of organizations are recommending COS be considered. CONCLUSION: We suggest actions for various stakeholders for improving COS uptake. Research is needed to assess the impact of these actions to identify effective evidence-based strategies.

Development of a core outcome set for the evaluation of interventions to prevent COVID-19 in care homes (COS-COVID-PCARE Study).

BACKGROUND: People living in care homes have experienced devastating impact from COVID-19. As interventions to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 are developed and evaluated, there is an urgent need for researchers to agree on the outcomes used when evaluating their effectiveness. Having an agreed set of outcomes that are used in all relevant trials can ensure that study results can be compared. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to develop a core outcome set (COS) for trials assessing the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for preventing COVID-19 infection and transmission in care homes. METHODS: The study used established COS methodology. A list of candidate outcomes was identified by reviewing registered trials to evaluate interventions to prevent COVID-19 in care homes. Seventy key stakeholders participated in a Delphi survey, rating the candidate outcomes on a nine-point scale over two rounds, with the opportunity to propose additional outcomes. Stakeholders included care home representatives (n = 19), healthcare professionals (n = 20), people with personal experience of care homes (n = 7), researchers (n = 15) and others (n = 9). Outcomes were eligible for inclusion if they met an a priori threshold. A consensus meeting with stakeholders resulted in agreement of the final outcome set. RESULTS: Following the Delphi and consensus meeting, twenty-four outcomes were recommended for inclusion. These are grouped across four domains of infection, severity of illness, mortality, and 'other' (intervention specific or life impact). Due to the considerable heterogeneity between care homes, residents, and interventions, the relevance and importance of outcomes may differ between trial contexts. Intervention-specific outcomes would be included only where relevant to a given trial, thus reducing the measurement burden. CONCLUSION: Using a rapid response approach, a COS for COVID-19 prevention interventions in care homes has been developed. Future work should focus on identifying instruments for measuring these outcomes, and the interpretation and application of the COS across different trial contexts. Beyond COVID-19, the outcomes identified in this COS may have relevance to other infectious diseases in care homes, and the rapid response approach may be useful as preparation for future pandemics.

NLP-Assisted Pipeline for COVID-19 Core Outcome Set Identification Using ClinicalTrials.gov.

Core outcome sets (COS) are necessary to ensure the systematic collection, metadata analysis and sharing the information across studies. However, development of an area-specific clinical research is costly and time consuming. ClinicalTrials.gov, as a public repository, provides access to a vast collection of clinical trials and their characteristics such as primary outcomes. With the growing number of COVID-19 clinical trials, identifying COSs from outcomes of such trials is crucial. This paper introduces a semi-automatic pipeline that can efficiently identify, aggregate and rank the COS from the primary outcomes of COVID-19 clinical trials. Using Natural language processing (NLP) techniques, our proposed pipeline successfully downloads and processes 5090 trials from all over the world and identifies COVID-19-specific outcomes that appeared in more than 1% of the trials. The top-of-the-list outcomes identified by the pipeline are mortality due to COVID-19, COVID-19 infection rate and COVID-19 symptoms.

Outcomes of importance to children and young adults with cerebral palsy, their parents and health professionals following lower limb orthopaedic surgery: A qualitative study to inform a Core Outcome Set

IntroductionAlthough several outcomes are commonly measured to assess the effect of surgery for young people with cerebral palsy (CP), these are selected mainly by health professionals and researchers. Including the perspectives of a broader range of stakeholders is an essential step towards determining important outcomes for assessment. This qualitative study involves the development of a core outcome set (COS) for lower limb orthopaedic surgery for ambulant children with CP.ObjectiveThis study aimed to identify outcomes that matter to children and young people with CP, their parents and healthcare professionals following lower limb orthopaedic surgery.MethodsSemi‐structured interviews were conducted with 10 healthcare professionals, 10 children and young people with CP and 8 parents. Interview data were analysed by content analysis supported by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF‐CY) supplemented by thematic analysis.FindingsThirty‐one outcomes were identified in total, which were linked to eleven second‐level ICF‐CY categories. There were differences between stakeholder groups in preferences and expectations from surgical outcomes. Healthcare professionals and children with their parents identified 31 and 25 outcomes, respectively. Health outcomes valued by participants were lower limb alignment and symmetry, flexibility and muscle strength, mental health, fatigue, pain, function in life, mobility, participation, being independent, quality of life and adverse events. Compared to previous published trials, 10 new outcomes were revealed by this study.ConclusionThe researchers identified outcomes that are important to all stakeholders following lower limb orthopaedic surgery for ambulant CP. Including these outcomes in future studies would promote patient‐centred care for children and young adults with CP. Findings will be used to inform an international Delphi survey and develop a COS in this field.Patient and Public ContributionThis study was informed by an advisory group including a young adult with CP and a parent of a child with CP. This group engaged in the design of the study and the information material to support the interview (information sheet and interview topic guide).

Studying the post-COVID-19 condition: research challenges, strategies, and importance of Core Outcome Set development.

BACKGROUND: A substantial portion of people with COVID-19 subsequently experience lasting symptoms including fatigue, shortness of breath, and neurological complaints such as cognitive dysfunction many months after acute infection. Emerging evidence suggests that this condition, commonly referred to as long COVID but also known as post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) or post-COVID-19 condition, could become a significant global health burden. MAIN TEXT: While the number of studies investigating the post-COVID-19 condition is increasing, there is no agreement on how this new disease should be defined and diagnosed in clinical practice and what relevant outcomes to measure. There is an urgent need to optimise and standardise outcome measures for this important patient group both for clinical services and for research and to allow comparing and pooling of data. CONCLUSIONS: A Core Outcome Set for post-COVID-19 condition should be developed in the shortest time frame possible, for improvement in data quality, harmonisation, and comparability between different geographical locations. We call for a global initiative, involving all relevant partners, including, but not limited to, healthcare professionals, researchers, methodologists, patients, and caregivers. We urge coordinated actions aiming to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for post-COVID-19 condition in both the adult and paediatric populations.

PROSPERO's systematic review protocols of traditional Chinese medicine for COVID-19: An overview.

BACKGROUND: A large number of protocols for Systematic Reviews (SR) of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). This study aimed to analyze the innovativeness and rigorousness of the SR protocols and make recommendations for the design and implementation of future SRs on TCM for COVID-19. This effort is likely to enhance the value of the produced information and prevent the futility of the research. METHODS: PROSPERO was searched comprehensively for identifying SRs of TCM for COVID-19 from the inception of the database to August 2020. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted the data, and cross-checked the retrieved information for consistency. The following details were recorded: database, registration time, organizations, types of research included, participants, interventions, and outcome measures. All extracted data were analyzed by an overview. The "P - participants, I - interventions, C - controls, and O - outcomes (PICO)" included in the protocols were compared for similarity. The outcomes of the included SR protocols were compared with the newly published Core Outcome Sets (COSs). RESULTS: A total of 80 protocols of SR related to TCM for COVID-19 were obtained after a primary search, and finally 71 protocols were included. The majority of the protocols were from China. Thirty-two organizations participated in the protocol registrations, including 11 hospitals and 21 universities/colleges. However, some protocols were not innovative or rigorous enough, as the PICO of some protocols were similar and non-specific, and the searched literature was incomprehensive. In addition, COS is not commonly adopted. CONCLUSIONS: Registering a protocol of SR is an effective way to ensure the usefulness of the produced information, and to avoid the duplication of research and the wastage of resources. In future SR protocols, it is important to focus on and solve the methodological problems such as non-specific PICO, incomprehensive literature retrieval, and improper outcome measures.

The Scoliosis Research Society adult spinal deformity standard outcome set.

PURPOSE: Symptomatic adult spinal deformity (ASD) with an extremely variable presentation with pain, with and without neurogenic leg pain, and/or disturbed sagittal and coronal balance, causes a significant societal burden of disease. It is an important consequence of the aging adult population, generating a plethora of spine-related interventions with variable treatment efficacy and consistently high costs. Recent years have witnessed more than a threefold increase in the prevalence and treatment of ASD, and further increases over the coming decades are expected with the growing elderly population worldwide. The ability to monitor and assess clinical outcomes has not kept pace with these developments. This paper addresses the pressing need to provide a set of common outcome metrics for this growing group of patients with back pain and other disabilities due to an adult spinal deformity. METHODS: The standard outcome set was created by a panel with global representation, using a thorough modified Delphi procedure. The three-tiered outcome hierarchy (Porter) was used as a framework to capture full cycle of care. The standardized language of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (WHO-ICF) was used. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on a core set of 25 WHO-ICF outcome domains ('What to measure'); on the accompanying globally available clinician and patient reported measurement instruments and definitions ('How to measure'), and on the timing of the measurements ('When to measure'). The current work has brought to light domains not routinely reported in the spinal literature (such as pulmonary function, return to work, social participation), and domains for which no adequate instruments have yet been identified (such as how to clinically quantify in routine practice lumbar spinal stenosis, neurogenic claudication, radicular pain, and loss of lower extremity motor function). CONCLUSION: A standard outcome set was developed for patients undergoing treatment for adult spinal deformity using globally available outcome metrics. The current framework can be considered a reference for further work, and may provide a starting point for routine methodical and systematic monitoring of outcomes. Post-COVID e-health may accelerate the routine capture of these types of data.

Development of a core outcome set for clinical trials aimed at improving antimicrobial stewardship in care homes.

BACKGROUND: Diverse outcomes reported in clinical trials of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions in care homes have hindered evidence synthesis. Our main objective was to develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in trials aimed at improving AMS in care homes. METHODS: A refined inventory of outcomes for AMS interventions in care homes, compiled from a previous study, was rated in a three-round international Delphi survey with 82 participants, using a nine-point Likert scale (from 1, unimportant, to 9, critical). This was followed by an online consensus exercise with 12 participants from Northern Ireland to finalise the COS content. Subsequently, a suitable outcome measurement instrument (OMI) was selected for each outcome in the COS by: identifying existing OMIs through a literature search and experts' suggestions, assessing the quality of OMIs, and selecting one OMI for each core outcome via a two-round international Delphi survey with 59 participants. RESULTS: Of 14 outcomes initially presented, consensus was reached for inclusion of five outcomes in the COS after the three-round Delphi survey and the online consensus exercise, comprising the total number of antimicrobial courses prescribed, appropriateness of antimicrobial prescribing, days of therapy per 1000 resident-days, rate of antimicrobial resistance, and mortality related to infection. Of 17 potential OMIs identified, three were selected for the two-round Delphi exercise after the quality assessment. Consensus was reached for selection of two OMIs for the COS. CONCLUSION: This COS is recommended to be used in clinical trials aimed at improving AMS in care homes.

Chinese medical drugs for coronavirus disease 2019: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Integration of Chinese medical drugs (CMD) and western medicine (WM) has been widely used in the treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CMD for COVID-19. METHOD: A literature search was performed in six databases from injection to June 2020. Both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs were considered as eligible. The quality of included RCTs were assessed by Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and Review Manager 5.3 software was used to do meta-analysis. RESULT: Eleven studies with 1259 patients were included in this study. CMD included herbal decoction and Chinese patent medicine. The methodological quality was evaluated as generally unclear. The results of meta-analysis showed that the integration of CMD and WM had better efficacy than WM in number of patients turned to severe and critical type (RR = 0.47, 95% CI=[0.32, 0.69], P < 0.0001), length of hospital stay (MD= -7.95, 95% CI=[-14.66, -1.24], P = 0.02), defervescence time (MD= -1.20, 95% CI=[-2.03, -0.38], P = 0.004), cough resolution rate (RR = 1.37, 95% CI=[1.15, 1.64], P = 0.0004), fatigue resolution rate (RR = 1.37, 95% CI=[1.02, 1.83], P = 0.04), and tachypnea resolution rate (RR = 2.20, 95% CI=[1.11, 4.39], P = 0.02). As for safety, there was no significant difference between two groups. CONCLUSION: CMD may bring potential benefit to patients suffered from COVID-19. However, the quality of included trials is not good enough. High quality study with core outcome set are still required.

Core Outcome Set for Clinical Trials of COVID-19 Based on Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine.

BACKGROUND: Development of a core outcome set (COS) for clinical trials for COVID-19 is urgent because of the pandemic wreaking havoc worldwide and the heterogeneity of outcomes in clinical trials. METHODS: A preliminary list of outcomes was developed after a systematic review of protocols of clinical trials for COVID-19. Then, two rounds of the Delphi survey were conducted. Stakeholders were traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) experts, Western medicine (WM) experts, nurses, and the public. Patients with confirmed COVID-19 were also invited to participate in a questionnaire written in understandable language. Then different stakeholders participated in a consensus meeting by video conference to vote. RESULTS: Ninety-seven eligible study protocols were identified from 160 clinical trials. Seventy-six outcomes were identified from TCM clinical trials and 126 outcomes were identified from WM clinical trials. Finally, 145 outcomes were included in the first round of the Delphi survey. Then, a COS for clinical trials of TCM and WM was developed. The COS included clinical outcomes (recovery/improvement/progression/death), etiology (SARS-CoV-2 nucleic-acid tests, viral load), inflammatory factor (C-reactive protein), vital signs (temperature, respiration), blood and lymphatic-system parameters (lymphocytes, virus antibody), respiratory outcomes (pulmonary imaging, blood oxygen saturation, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, arterial blood gas analysis, mechanical ventilation, oxygen intake, pneumonia severity index), clinical efficacy (prevalence of preventing patients with mild-to-moderate disease progressing to severe disease), and symptoms (clinical symptom score). Outcomes were recommended according to different types of disease. Outcome measurement instruments/definitions were also recommended. CONCLUSION: Though there are some limitations for the research, such as insufficient patients and the public involvement, and the unbalanced stakeholders' region, the COS for COVID-19 may improve consistency of outcome reporting in clinical trials. It also should be updated with research progression.

Core Outcome Set for Clinical Trials on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COS-COVID).

Since its outbreak in December 2019, a series of clinical trials on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been registered or carried out. However, the significant heterogeneity and less critical outcomes of such trials may be leading to a waste of research resources. This study aimed to develop a core outcome set (COS) for clinical trials on COVID-19 in order to tackle the outcome issues. The study was conducted according to the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Handbook: Version 1.0, a guideline for COS development. A research group was set up that included experts in respiratory and critical medicine, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), evidence-based medicine, clinical pharmacology, and statistics, in addition to medical journal editors. Clinical trial registry websites (www.chictr.org.cn and clinicaltrials.gov) were searched to retrieve clinical trial protocols and outcomes in order to form an outcome pool. A total of 78 clinical trial protocols on COVID-19 were included and 259 outcomes were collected. After standardization, 132 outcomes were identified within seven different categories, of which 58 were selected to develop a preliminary outcome list for further consensus. After two rounds of Delphi survey and one consensus meeting, the most important outcomes for the different clinical classifications of COVID-19 were identified and determined to constitute the COS for clinical trials on COVID-19 (COS-COVID). The COS-COVID includes one outcome for the mild type (time to 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negativity), four outcomes for the ordinary type (length of hospital stay, composite events, score of clinical symptoms, and time to 2019-nCoV RT-PCR negativity), five outcomes for the severe type (composite events, length of hospital stay, arterial oxygen partial pressure (PaO2)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2), duration of mechanical ventilation, and time to 2019-nCoV RT-PCR negativity), one outcome for critical type (all-cause mortality), and one outcome for rehabilitation period (pulmonary function). The COS-COVID is currently the most valuable and practical clinical outcome set for the evaluation of intervention effect, and is useful for evidence assessment and decision-making. With a deepening understanding of COVID-19 and application feedback, the COS-COVID should be continuously updated.