A Core Outcome Set for inflammatory bowel diseases: development and recommendations for implementation in clinical practice through an international multi-stakeholder consensus process.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Standardising health outcome measurements supports delivery of care, enables data-driven learning systems, and secondary data use for research. As part of the Health Outcomes Observatory initiative and building on existing knowledge, a core outcome set (COS) for inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) was defined through an international modified Delphi method. METHODS: Stakeholders rated 90 variables on a 9-point importance scale twice, allowing score modification based on feedback displayed per stakeholder group. Two consecutive consensus meetings were held to discuss results and formulate recommendations for measurement in clinical practice. Variables scoring 7 or higher by ≥80% of the participants, or based on consensus meeting agreement, were included in the final set. RESULTS: In total, 136 stakeholders (45 IBD patients (advocates), 74 healthcare professionals/researchers, 13 industry representatives and 4 regulators), from 20 different countries participated. The final set includes 18 case-mix variables, 3 biomarkers (haemoglobin to detect anaemia, C-reactive protein and faecal calprotectin to detect inflammation) for completeness and 28 outcomes (including 16 patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and 1 patient-reported experience). The PRO-2 and IBD-Control questionnaires were recommended to collect disease-specific PROs at every contact with an IBD practitioner, and the Subjective Health Experience model questionnaire, PROMIS Global Health and Self-Efficacy short form to collect generic PROs annually. CONCLUSIONS: A COS for IBD, including a recommendation for use in clinical practice, was defined. Implementation of this set will start in Vienna, Berlin, Barcelona, Leuven and Rotterdam, empowering patients to better manage their care. Additional centres will follow worldwide.

A Narrative Literature Review of Bias in Collecting Patient Reported Outcomes Measures (PROMs).

There is a growing interest in the collection and use of patient reported outcomes because they not only provide clinicians with crucial information, but can also be used for economic evaluation and enable public health decisions. During the collection phase of PROMs, there are several factors that can potentially bias the analysis of PROM data. It is crucial that the collected data are reliable and comparable. The aim of this paper was to analyze the type of bias that have already been taken into consideration in the literature. A literature review was conducted by the authors searching on PubMed database, after the selection process, 24 studies were included in this review, mostly regarding orthopedics. Seven types of bias were identified: Non-response bias, collection method related bias, fatigue bias, timing bias, language bias, proxy response bias, and recall bias. Regarding fatigue bias and timing bias, only one study was found; for non-response bias, collection mode related bias, and recall bias, no agreement was found between studies. For these reasons, further research on this subject is needed in order to assess each bias type in relation to each medical specialty, and therefore find correction methods for reliable and comparable data for analysis.