Composite outcome measures in high-impact critical care randomised controlled trials: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The use of composite outcome measures (COM) in clinical trials is increasing. Whilst their use is associated with benefits, several limitations have been highlighted and there is limited literature exploring their use within critical care. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the use of COM in high-impact critical care trials, and compare study parameters (including sample size, statistical significance, and consistency of effect estimates) in trials using composite versus non-composite outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review of 16 high-impact journals was conducted. Randomised controlled trials published between 2012 and 2022 reporting a patient important outcome and involving critical care patients, were included. RESULTS: 8271 trials were screened, and 194 included. 39.1% of all trials used a COM and this increased over time. Of those using a COM, only 52.6% explicitly described the outcome as composite. The median number of components was 2 (IQR 2-3). Trials using a COM recruited fewer participants (409 (198.8-851.5) vs 584 (300-1566, p = 0.004), and their use was not associated with increased rates of statistical significance (19.7% vs 17.8%, p = 0.380). Predicted effect sizes were overestimated in all but 6 trials. For studies using a COM the effect estimates were consistent across all components in 43.4% of trials. 93% of COM included components that were not patient important. CONCLUSIONS: COM are increasingly used in critical care trials; however effect estimates are frequently inconsistent across COM components confounding outcome interpretations. The use of COM was associated with smaller sample sizes, and no increased likelihood of statistically significant results. Many of the limitations inherent to the use of COM are relevant to critical care research.

Multimorbidity prevalence and health outcome prediction: assessing the impact of lookback periods, disease count, and definition criteria in health administrative data at the population-based level.

BACKGROUND: Health administrative databases play a crucial role in population-level multimorbidity surveillance. Determining the appropriate retrospective or lookback period (LP) for observing prevalent and newly diagnosed diseases in administrative data presents challenge in estimating multimorbidity prevalence and predicting health outcome. The aim of this population-based study was to assess the impact of LP on multimorbidity prevalence and health outcomes prediction across three multimorbidity definitions, three lists of diseases used for multimorbidity assessment, and six health outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a population-based study including all individuals ages > 65 years on April 1st, 2019, in Québec, Canada. We considered three lists of diseases labeled according to the number of chronic conditions it considered: (1) L60 included 60 chronic conditions from the International Classification of Diseases (ICD); (2) L20 included a core of 20 chronic conditions; and (3) L31 included 31 chronic conditions from the Charlson and Elixhauser indices. For each list, we: (1) measured multimorbidity prevalence for three multimorbidity definitions (at least two [MM2+], three [MM3+] or four (MM4+) chronic conditions); and (2) evaluated capacity (c-statistic) to predict 1-year outcomes (mortality, hospitalisation, polypharmacy, and general practitioner, specialist, or emergency department visits) using LPs ranging from 1 to 20 years. RESULTS: Increase in multimorbidity prevalence decelerated after 5-10 years (e.g., MM2+, L31: LP = 1y: 14%, LP = 10y: 58%, LP = 20y: 69%). Within the 5-10 years LP range, predictive performance was better for L20 than L60 (e.g., LP = 7y, mortality, MM3+: L20 [0.798;95%CI:0.797-0.800] vs. L60 [0.779; 95%CI:0.777-0.781]) and typically better for MM3 + and MM4 + definitions (e.g., LP = 7y, mortality, L60: MM4+ [0.788;95%CI:0.786-0.790] vs. MM2+ [0.768;95%CI:0.766-0.770]). CONCLUSIONS: In our databases, ten years of data was required for stable estimation of multimorbidity prevalence. Within that range, the L20 and multimorbidity definitions MM3 + or MM4 + reached maximal predictive performance.

Machine learning models for abstract screening task - A systematic literature review application for health economics and outcome research.

OBJECTIVE: Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) are critical for life-science research. However, the manual selection and retrieval of relevant publications can be a time-consuming process. This study aims to (1) develop two disease-specific annotated corpora, one for human papillomavirus (HPV) associated diseases and the other for pneumococcal-associated pediatric diseases (PAPD), and (2) optimize machine- and deep-learning models to facilitate automation of the SLR abstract screening. METHODS: This study constructed two disease-specific SLR screening corpora for HPV and PAPD, which contained citation metadata and corresponding abstracts. Performance was evaluated using precision, recall, accuracy, and F1-score of multiple combinations of machine- and deep-learning algorithms and features such as keywords and MeSH terms. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The HPV corpus contained 1697 entries, with 538 relevant and 1159 irrelevant articles. The PAPD corpus included 2865 entries, with 711 relevant and 2154 irrelevant articles. Adding additional features beyond title and abstract improved the performance (measured in Accuracy) of machine learning models by 3% for HPV corpus and 2% for PAPD corpus. Transformer-based deep learning models that consistently outperformed conventional machine learning algorithms, highlighting the strength of domain-specific pre-trained language models for SLR abstract screening. This study provides a foundation for the development of more intelligent SLR systems.

Development of a core outcome set for use in research evaluations of interventions for venous leg ulceration: International eDelphi consensus.

INTRODUCTION: Venous leg ulceration (VLU) is a chronic, recurring condition with associated pain, malodour, impaired mobility and susceptibility to infection which in turn significantly impacts an individual's health-related quality of life. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aim to determine the efficacy of interventions to improve outcomes. To be useful, these outcomes should be consistently and fully reported across RCTs. A core outcome set (COS) is an agreed-upon standardised set of outcomes which should be, at a minimum, reported in all RCTs for a given indication including that of VLU. AIM: To gain consensus on which outcome domains and outcomes should be considered as core and therefore included in all RCTs of interventions in VLU treatment. METHOD: Two sequential, two round e-Delphi surveys were completed. The first gained consensus on core outcome domains and the second on core outcomes within those domains. Participants included: people with direct experience of having VLUs and their carers, healthcare professionals whose practice included VLU care and researchers within wound care (clinical, academic, industry). RESULTS: Five outcome domains; healing, pain, quality of life, resource use and adverse events, and 11 outcomes were rated as core by participants. The patient and not the limb or ulcer was the preferred unit of analysis for reporting. RECOMMENDATIONS: We recommend investigators report on all five outcome domains, regardless of the type of intervention being evaluated. Future research is needed to identify measurement methods for the 11 identified outcomes. We also recommend investigators follow the CONSORT guidelines (http://www.consort-statement.org/).

Protocol for the development of a core outcome set and reporting guidelines for locoregional treatment in neoadjuvant systemic breast cancer treatment trials: the PRECEDENT project.

INTRODUCTION: Neoadjuvant systemic anticancer therapy (neoSACT) is increasingly used in the treatment of early breast cancer. Response to therapy is prognostic and allows locoregional and adjuvant systemic treatments to be tailored to minimise morbidity and optimise oncological outcomes and quality of life. Accurate information about locoregional treatments following neoSACT is vital to allow the translation of downstaging benefits into practice and facilitate meaningful interpretation of oncological outcomes, particularly locoregional recurrence. Reporting of locoregional treatments in neoSACT studies, however, is currently poor. The development of a core outcome set (COS) and reporting guidelines is one strategy by which this may be improved. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A COS for reporting locoregional treatment (surgery and radiotherapy) in neoSACT trials will be developed in accordance with Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) and Core Outcome Set-Standards for Development guidelines. Reporting guidance will be developed concurrently.The project will have three phases: (1) generation of a long list of relevant outcome domains and reporting items from a systematic review of published neoSACT studies and interviews with key stakeholders. Identified items and domains will be categorised and formatted into Delphi consensus questionnaire items. (2) At least two rounds of an international online Delphi survey in which at least 250 key stakeholders (surgeons/oncologists/radiologists/pathologists/trialists/methodologists) will score the importance of reporting each outcome. (3) A consensus meeting with key stakeholders to discuss and agree the final COS and reporting guidance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the consensus process will be obtained from the Queen's University Belfast Faculty Ethics Committee. The COS/reporting guidelines will be presented at international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. Dissemination materials will be produced in collaboration with our steering group and patient advocates so the results can be shared widely. REGISTRATION: The study has been prospectively registered on the COMET website (https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2854).

Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of point-of-care outcome assessment tools in Chinese palliative care clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: A standardized national approach to routinely assessing palliative care patients helps improve patient outcomes. However, a quality improvement program-based on person centered outcomes within palliative care is lacking in Mainland China. The well-established Australian Palliative Care Outcome Collaboration (PCOC) national model improves palliative care quality. This study aimed to culturally adapt and validate three measures that form part of the PCOC program for palliative care clinical practice in China: The PCOC Symptom Assessment Scale (PCOC SAS), Palliative Care Problem Severity Scale (PCPSS), Palliative Care Phase. METHODS: A study was conducted on cross-cultural adaptation and validation of PCOC SAS, PCPSS and Palliative Care Phase, involving translation methods, cognitive interviewing, and psychometric testing through paired assessments. RESULTS: Cross-cultural adaptation highlighted the need to strengthen the link between the patient's care plan and the outcome measures to improve outcomes, and the concept of distress in PCOC SAS. Analysis of 368 paired assessments (n = 135 inpatients, 22 clinicians) demonstrated that the PCOC SAS and PCPSS had good and acceptable coherence (Cronbach's a = 0.85, 0.75 respectively). Palliative Care Phase detected patients' urgent needs. PCOC SAS and PCPSS showed fair discriminant and concurrent validity. Inter-rater reliability was fair for Palliative Care Phase (k = 0.31) and PCPSS (k = 0.23-0.30), except for PCPSS-pain, which was moderate (k = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: The Chinese version of PCOC SAS, PCPSS, and Palliative Care Phase can be used to assess outcomes as part of routine clinical practice in Mainland China. Comprehensive clinical education regarding the assessment tools is necessary to help improve the inter-rater reliability.

The impact of blinding on estimated treatment effects in randomized clinical trials on acupuncture: A meta-epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the sole impact of blinding patients and outcome assessors in acupuncture randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on treatment effects while considering the type of outcome measures. METHODS: We searched databases for the meta-analyses on acupuncture with both blinded and non-blinded RCTs. Mixed-effects meta-regression models estimated the average ratio of odds ratios (ROR) and differences in standardized mean differences (dSMD) for non-blinded RCTs versus blinded mixed-effects meta-regression model. RESULTS: The study included 96 meta-analyses (1012 trials). The average ROR for lack of patient blinding was 1.08 (95% confidence intervals 0.79-1.49) in 18 meta-analyses with binary patient-reported outcomes. The average ROR for lack of outcome assessor blinding was 0.98 (0.77-1.24) in 43 meta-analyses with binary subjective outcomes. The average dSMD was -0.38 (-0.96 to 0.20) in 10 meta-analyses with continuous patient-reported outcomes. The average dSMD was -0.13 (-0.45 to 0.18) in 25 meta-analyses with continuous subjective outcomes. The results of the subgroup analysis were consistent with the primary analysis findings. CONCLUSIONS: Blinding of participants and outcome assessors does not significantly influence acupuncture treatment efficacy. It underscores the practical difficulties of blinding in acupuncture RCTs and the necessity to distinguish between trials with and without successful blinding to understand treatment expectations' effects. Enhancing blinding procedures' quality and assessment in future research is crucial for improving RCTs' internal validity and reliability.

Study protocol: a core outcome set for perioperative exercise clinical effectiveness trials for lung cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Outcome assessment in perioperative exercise trials for lung cancer is heterogeneous, often omitting those that are important and patient-relevant. This heterogeneity hinders the synthesis of evidence. To address this issue, a core outcome set, an agreed-upon standardized set of outcomes to be measured and reported, is required to reduce heterogeneity among outcome measurements. This study protocol describes the methodology, aiming to develop a core outcome set for perioperative exercise intervention trials for lung cancer in clinical practice. METHODS: The project will follow the standard methodology recommended by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative, which is divided into four steps. Stage I: Conducting a scoping review of outcomes reported in clinical trials and protocols to develop a list of potential outcome domains. Stage II: Conducting semi-structured interviews to obtain important outcomes for patients. Stage III: Choosing the most important outcomes by conducting two rounds of the Delphi exercise. Stage IV: Achieving a consensus in a face-to-face meeting to discuss the final core outcome set. DISCUSSION: This is the first project identified for the core outcome set of perioperative exercise trials in lung cancer, which will enhance the quality, comparability, and usability of future trials and positively impact perioperative exercise and the care of patients with lung cancer. TRIALS REGISTRATION: Core Outcome Measurement in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative database registration: https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2091.

The use of routinely collected healthcare records for outcome assessment in clinical trials: a UK perspective.

The use of routinely collected electronic healthcare records (EHR) for outcome assessment in clinical trials has been described as a 'disruptive' new technique more than a decade ago. Despite this potential, significant methodological issues and regulatory barriers have hampered the progress in this area. This article discusses the key considerations that trialists should take into account when incorporating EHR into their trials. These include considerations of the clinical relevance of the outcome, data timeliness and quality, ethical and regulatory issues, and some practical considerations for clinical trials units. In addition, this article describes the benefits of using EHR which include cost, reduced trial burden for participants and staff, follow up efficiencies, and improved health economic evaluation procedures. We also describe the major regulatory and start up costs of using EHR in clinical trials. This article focuses on the UK specific EHR landscape in clinical trials and would help researchers and trials units considering the use of this method of outcome data collection in their next trial. If the issues described are mitigated, this method will be a formidable tool for conducting pragmatic clinical trials.

Development of a core set of outcome measures to be applied toward breast cancer-related lymphedema core outcome domains.

PURPOSE: For breast cancer survivors (BCS) living with breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL), what outcome measures (OMs) are recommended to be used to measure standardized outcome domains to fully assess the burden of the disease and efficacy of interventions? An integral component of a standardized core outcome set (COS) are the OMs used to measure the COS. METHODS: A supplemental online survey was linked to a Delphi study investigating a COS for BCRL. OMs were limited to a maximum of 10 options for each outcome domain (OD). There were 14 ODs corresponding to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) framework and respondents rated the OMs with a Likert level of recommendation. The feasibility of the listed OMs was also investigated for most outpatient, inpatient, and research settings. RESULTS: This study identified 27 standardized OMs with a few ODs having 2-3 highly recommended OMs for proper measurement. A few of the recommended OMs have limitations with reliability due to being semi-quantitative measures requiring the interpretation of the rater. CONCLUSION: Narrowing the choices of OMs to 27 highly recommended by BCRL experts may reduce selective reporting, inconsistency in clinical use, and variability of reporting across interdisciplinary healthcare fields which manage or research BCRL. There is a need for valid, reliable, and feasible OMs that measure tissue consistency. Measures of upper extremity activity and motor control need further research in the BCS with BCRL population.

Developing a core outcome set for the health outcomes for children and adults with congenital oesophageal atresia and/or tracheo-oesophageal fistula: OCELOT task group study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Heterogeneity in reported outcomes of infants with oesophageal atresia (OA) with or without tracheo-oesophageal fistula (TOF) prevents effective data pooling. Core outcome sets (COS) have been developed for many conditions to standardise outcome reporting, facilitate meta-analysis and improve the relevance of research for patients and families. Our aim is to develop an internationally-agreed, comprehensive COS for OA-TOF, relevant from birth through to transition and adulthood. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A long list of outcomes will be generated using (1) a systematic review of existing studies on OA-TOF and (2) qualitative research with children (patients), adults (patients) and families involving focus groups, semistructured interviews and self-reported outcome activity packs. A two-phase Delphi survey will then be completed by four key stakeholder groups: (1) patients (paediatric and adult); (2) families; (3) healthcare professionals; and (4) researchers. Phase I will include stakeholders individually rating the importance and relevance of each long-listed outcome using a 9-point Likert scale, with the option to suggest additional outcomes not already included. During phase II, stakeholders will review summarised results from phase I relative to their own initial score and then will be asked to rescore the outcome based on this information. Responses from phase II will be summarised using descriptive statistics and a predefined definition of consensus for inclusion or exclusion of outcomes. Following the Delphi process, stakeholder experts will be invited to review data at a consensus meeting and agree on a COS for OA-TOF. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was sought through the Health Research Authority via the Integrated Research Application System, registration no. 297026. However, approval was deemed not to be required, so study sponsorship and oversight were provided by Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust. The study has been prospectively registered with the COMET Initiative. The study will be published in an open access forum.

Sustainability of an outcome measure in outpatient stroke rehabilitation: A realist evaluation.

RATIONALE: Only half of newly implemented evidence-based practices are sustained. Though poor sustainment can lead to negative consequences for clinical teams, organizations and patients, the causal explanations of sustainment are largely unknown. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: We aimed to ascertain how (mechanisms) and in what circumstances (context) a newly implemented outcome measure in rehabilitation was sustained or not (outcome). METHODOLOGY: Informed by an integrated knowledge translation approach, we conducted a realist evaluation using a mixed method, embedded single case study design with data collection up to 18 months following the implementation of the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory - version 4 (MPAI-4), a rehabilitation outcome measure. Quantitative data (survey and patient charts) was analysed using descriptive statistics, then integrated with qualitative data (interviews with 10 key informants) and analysed using inductive and deductive retroduction. We integrated the data to develop a case description and ultimately, to refine the programme theory to better understand the sustainability of the MPAI-4. RESULTS: We linked context, mechanisms and outcomes, and also emphasized sustainability strategies in 18 explanations of how sustainability works. These explanations provide evidence for four overarching patterns: (1) implementation and sustainability phases are interconnected, (2) outcomes build on each other recursively, with patient benefits as the keystone outcome, (3) sustainment is achieved to varying levels across different sustainability outcomes [e.g., high level (e.g., rate of MPAI-4 scoring: 77.7%) to low level (e.g., rate of MPAI-4 application to clinical decision-making: 3.7%)] and (4) the work of sustaining the MPAI-4 is shared amongst different stakeholders. CONCLUSION: Implementation teams can draw from this programme theory to improve the sustainment of outcomes measures while researchers could continue to refine the theory. Continued investigation of sustainability, including diverse and continuous sustainability outcomes, is needed to understand how to maintain improvements in quality of care and patient outcomes.

Development of a core outcome set for breast cancer-related lymphedema: a Delphi study.

PURPOSE: For breast cancer survivors (BCS) living with breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL), what outcome domains (OD) should be measured to assess the burden of the disease and efficacy of interventions? A Core Outcome Set (COS) that promotes standardized measurement of outcomes within the constraints of time influenced by work environments is essential for patients and the multidisciplinary professionals that manage and research BCRL. METHODS: Using Delphi methodology, a multidisciplinary group of BCRL experts (physical and occupational therapists, physicians, researchers, physical therapist assistants, nurses, and massage therapist) completed two waves of online surveys. BCRL expert respondents that completed the first survey (n = 78) had an average of 26.5 years in practice, whereas, respondents who completed the second survey (n = 33) had an average of 24.9 years. ODs were included in the COS when consensus thresholds, ranging from 70% to 80%, were met. RESULTS: A total of 12 ODs made up the COS. Reaching a minimum consensus of 70%; volume, tissue consistency, pain, patient-reported upper quadrant function, patient-reported health-related quality of life, and upper extremity activity and motor control were recommended at different phases of the BCRL continuum in a time-constrained environment. Joint function, flexibility, strength, sensation, mobility and balance, and fatigue met an 80% consensus to be added when time and resources were not constrained. CONCLUSION: The COS developed in this study thoroughly captures the burden of BCRL. Using this COS may reduce selective reporting, inconsistency in clinical use, and variability of reporting across interdisciplinary healthcare fields, which manage or research BCRL.

Limited English Proficiency and Outcomes in the Intensive Care Unit: An Integrated Review.

INTRODUCTION: Language barriers place patients at risk of substandard care. Hospitalized patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) face unique challenges, especially in the intensive care unit (ICU). The purpose of this review is to critique and synthesize quantitative evidence on LEP and ICU outcomes. METHODOLOGY: Quantitative studies published in English between 1999 and 2022 were queried using intentional terminology. RESULTS: Searches yielded 138 results, with 12 meeting inclusion criteria. The analysis resulted in the extrapolation of five themes pertinent to outcomes of ICU patients or families with LEP: (a) knowledge deficit relating to conditions and care; (b) lack of language-appropriate care; (c) alienation from care process; (d) decreased confidence and ownership of care; and (e) relationship to clinical quality indicators. DISCUSSION: Outcomes associated with LEP were largely negative and revealed unmet needs for ICU patients with LEP. More research is needed to improve linguistically and culturally congruent care in the ICU.

Development of a Core Outcome Set for Dysphagia Interventions in Parkinson's disease (COS-DIP): study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Current clinical trials on swallowing disorders (dysphagia) in Parkinson's disease (PD) apply a high variety of outcomes and different outcome measures making comparative effectiveness research challenging. Furthermore, views of patients and dysphagia clinicians when selecting trial outcomes have not been considered in the past, thus study results may have little importance to them. This study aims to develop an agreed standardised Core Outcome Set for Dysphagia Interventions in Parkinson's disease (COS-DIP), systematically measured and reported as a minimum for all clinical trials. It will also comprise guidance on outcome definitions, outcome measures and time points of measurement. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The COS-DIP development will comprise five stages following established methodology: (1) a recent scoping review on all applied outcomes, their definitions, methods and time points of measurement in clinical trials in dysphagia in PD, (2) online surveys and focus groups with clinicians, patients, caregivers and family members to identify outcomes that are important to them, (3) an identified list of outcomes based on results of stage 1 and 2, (4) three round online Delphi survey with up to 200 key stakeholders to determine core outcomes and (5) two online consensus meetings with up to 40 representative key stakeholders to agree on all outcomes, definitions, methods and time points of measurement in the final COS-DIP. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Full ethical approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee, School of Linguistic, Speech and Communication Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, on 15 May 2023 (HT27). Dissemination of the COS-DIP will be enhanced through presentations at (inter-) national conferences and through peer-reviewed, open access publications of related manuscripts. Lay and professional information sheets and infographics will be circulated through relevant patient and professional organisations and networks. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The COS-DIP study was registered prospectively with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database on 24 September 2021 (www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1942).

Beating the empty pelvis syndrome: the PelvEx Collaborative core outcome set study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The empty pelvis syndrome is a significant source of morbidity following pelvic exenteration surgery. It remains poorly defined with research in this field being heterogeneous and of low quality. Furthermore, there has been minimal engagement with patient representatives following pelvic exenteration with respect to the empty pelvic syndrome. 'PelvEx-Beating the empty pelvis syndrome' aims to engage both patient representatives and healthcare professionals to achieve an international consensus on a core outcome set, pathophysiology and mitigation of the empty pelvis syndrome. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A modified-Delphi approach will be followed with a three-stage study design. First, statements will be longlisted using a recent systematic review, healthcare professional event, patient and public engagement, and Delphi piloting. Second, statements will be shortlisted using up to three rounds of online modified Delphi. Third, statements will be confirmed and instruments for measurable statements selected using a virtual patient-representative consensus meeting, and finally a face-to-face healthcare professional consensus meeting. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Southampton Faculty of Medicine ethics committee has approved this protocol, which is registered as a study with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative. Publication of this study will increase the potential for comparative research to further understanding and prevent the empty pelvis syndrome. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05683795.

Core Descriptor Sets for Rectal Prolapse Outcomes Research Using a Modified Delphi Consensus.

BACKGROUND: There is wide variation in prolapse care. OBJECTIVE: To determine core descriptor sets for rectal prolapse to enhance outcomes research. DESIGN: Descriptors for patients undergoing rectal prolapse surgery were generated through a systematic review and expert opinion. Stakeholders were recruited internationally via listserv and social media. Experts were encouraged to consider the minimum descriptors that could be considered during clinical care, and descriptors were grouped into core descriptor sets. Consensus was defined as greater than 70% agreement. SETTING: A 3-round Delphi process using a 9-point Likert scale based on expert results was distributed via survey. The final interactive meeting used a polling platform. PARTICIPANTS: The Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium interdisciplinary group convened to advance the clinical care of pelvic floor disorders. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To achieve expert consensus for core descriptor sets for rectal prolapse using a modified Delphi method. RESULTS: A total of 206 providers participated, with survey response rates of 82% and 88%, respectively. Responders were from North America (56%), Europe (29%), and Latin America, Asia, Australia, New Zealand, and Africa (15%). Ninety-one percent of participants identified as colorectal surgeons and 80% reported >5 years of experience (35% reported >15 years). Fifty-seven attendees participated in the final meeting and voted on core descriptor sets. Ninety-three percent of participants agreed that descriptors such as age, BMI, frailty, nutrition, and the American Society of Anesthesiology score correlated to physiologic status. One hundred percent of participants agreed to include baseline bowel function. One hundred percent of participants reported willingness to complete a synoptic operative report. Follow-up intervals 1, 3, and 5 years after surgery (76%) with a collection of recurrence and functional outcomes at those time periods reached an agreement. LIMITATIONS: Individual bias, self-identification of experts, and paucity of knowledge related to rectal prolapse. CONCLUSIONS: This represents the first steps toward international consensus to unify language and data collection processes for rectal prolapse. See Video Abstract . CONJUNTOS DE DESCRIPTORES BSICOS PARA LA INVESTIGACIN DE RESULTADOS DE PROLAPSO RECTAL MEDIANTE UN CONSENSO DELPHI MODIFICADO: ANTECEDENTES:Existe una amplia variación en la atención del prolapso.OBJETIVO:Determinar conjuntos de descriptores básicos para el prolapso rectal para mejorar los resultados de la investigación.DISEÑO:Los descriptores para pacientes sometidos a cirugía de prolapso rectal se generaron a través de una revisión sistemática y la opinión de expertos. Las partes interesadas fueron reclutadas internacionalmente a través de listas de servicio y redes sociales. Se animó a los expertos a considerar los descriptores mínimos que podrían considerarse durante la atención clínica, y los descriptores se agruparon en conjuntos de descriptores básicos. El consenso se definió como > 70% de acuerdo.AJUSTE:Se distribuyó mediante encuesta un proceso Delphi de tres rondas que utiliza una escala Likert de 9 puntos basada en resultados de expertos. La reunión interactiva final utilizó una plataforma de votación.PARTICIPANTES:El grupo interdisciplinario del Consorcio de Trastornos del Suelo Pélvico se reunió para avanzar en la atención clínica de los trastornos del suelo pélvico.MEDIDAS PRINCIPALES DE RESULTADOS:Lograr el consenso de expertos para los conjuntos de descriptores básicos para el prolapso rectal utilizando un método Delphi modificado.RESULTADOS:Participaron 206 proveedores con tasas de respuesta a la encuesta del 82% y 88% respectivamente. Los encuestados procedían de América del Norte (56%), Europa (29%) y América Latina, Asia, Australia, Nueva Zelanda y África (15%). El noventa y uno por ciento se identificó como cirujanos colorrectales y el 80% reportó más de 5 años de experiencia (35% > 15 años). Cincuenta y siete asistentes participaron en la reunión final y votaron sobre conjuntos de descriptores básicos. El noventa y tres por ciento estuvo de acuerdo en que descriptores como edad, índice de masa corporal, fragilidad, nutrición y puntuación de la Sociedad Estadounidense de Anestesiología se correlacionaban con el estado fisiológico. El cien por ciento estuvo de acuerdo en incluir la función intestinal inicial. El 100% refirió disposición para realizar un informe operativo sinóptico. Los intervalos de seguimiento 1,3,5 años después de la cirugía (76%) con un conjunto de recurrencias y los resultados funcionales en esos períodos de tiempo coincidieron.LIMITACIONES:Sesgo individual, autoidentificación de los expertos y escasez de conocimientos relacionados con el prolapso rectal.CONCLUSIONES:Esto representa los primeros pasos hacia un consenso internacional para unificar el lenguaje y los procesos de recolección de datos para el prolapso rectal. (Traducción-Yesenia Rojas-Khalil ).