Explore the vast range of titles available.

The selection of appropriate outcomes is crucial when designing clinical trials in order to compare the effects of different interventions directly. For the findings to influence policy and practice, the outcomes need to be relevant and important to key stakeholders including patients and the public, health care professionals and others making decisions about health care. It is now widely acknowledged that insufficient attention has been paid to the choice of outcomes measured in clinical trials. Researchers are increasingly addressing this issue through the development and use of a core outcome set, an agreed standardised collection of outcomes which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all trials for a specific clinical area. Accumulating work in this area has identified the need for guidance on the development, implementation, evaluation and updating of core outcome sets. This Handbook, developed by the COMET Initiative, brings together current thinking and methodological research regarding those issues. We recommend a four-step process to develop a core outcome set. The aim is to update the contents of the Handbook as further research is identified.

Central reading, that is, independent, off-site, blinded review or reading of imaging endpoints, has been identified as a crucial component in the conduct and analysis of inflammatory bowel disease clinical trials. Central reading is the final step in a workflow that has many parts, all of which can be improved. Furthermore, the best reading algorithm and the most intensive central reader training cannot make up for deficiencies in the acquisition stage (clinical trial endoscopy) or improve on the limitations of the underlying score (outcome instrument). In this review, academic and industry experts review scoring systems, and propose a theoretical framework for central reading that predicts when improvements in statistical power, affecting trial size and chances of success, can be expected: Multireader models can be conceptualised as statistical or non-statistical (social). Important organisational and operational factors, such as training and retraining of readers, optimal bowel preparation for colonoscopy, video quality, optimal or at least acceptable read duration times and other quality control matters, are addressed as well. The theory and practice of central reading and the conduct of endoscopy in clinical trials are interdisciplinary topics that should be of interest to many, regulators, clinical trial experts, gastroenterology societies and those in the academic community who endeavour to develop new scoring systems using traditional and machine learning approaches.

ObjectiveOver half of patients with IBS have either diarrhoea (IBS-D) or a mixed stool pattern (IBS-M). The relative efficacy of licenced pharmacological therapies is unclear in the absence of head-to-head trials. We conducted a network meta-analysis to resolve this uncertainty.DesignWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, Embase Classic, the Cochrane central register of controlled trials, and Clinicaltrials.gov through January 2019 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of licenced pharmacological therapies (alosetron, eluxadoline, ramosetron and rifaximin) in adults with IBS-D or IBS-M. Trials included in the analysis reported a dichotomous assessment of overall response to therapy, and data were pooled using a random effects model. Efficacy and safety of all pharmacological therapies were reported as a pooled relative risk with 95% CIs to summarise the effect of each comparison tested. Treatments were ranked according to their p score.ResultsWe identified 18 eligible RCTs (seven alosetron, five ramosetron, two rifaximin and four eluxadoline), containing 9844 patients. All were superior to placebo for the treatment of IBS-D or IBS-M at 12 weeks, according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-recommended endpoint for trials in IBS. Alosetron 1 mg twice daily was ranked first for efficacy, based on the FDA-recommended composite endpoint of improvement in both abdominal pain and stool consistency, effect on global symptoms of IBS and effect on stool consistency. Ramosetron 2.5µg once daily was ranked first for effect on abdominal pain. Total numbers of adverse events were significantly greater with alosetron 1 mg twice daily and ramosetron 2.5µg once daily, compared with placebo. Rifaximin 550 mg three times daily ranked first for safety. Constipation was significantly more common with all drugs, except rifaximin 550 mg three times daily.ConclusionIn a network meta-analysis of RCTs of pharmacological therapies for IBS-D and IBS-M, we found all drugs to be superior to placebo, but alosetron and ramosetron appeared to be the most effective.

Background Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are used to evaluate social and psychological interventions and inform policy decisions about them. Accurate, complete, and transparent reports of social and psychological intervention RCTs are essential for understanding their design, conduct, results, and the implications of the findings. However, the reporting of RCTs of social and psychological interventions remains suboptimal. The CONSORT Statement has improved the reporting of RCTs in biomedicine. A similar high-quality guideline is needed for the behavioural and social sciences. Our objective was to develop an official extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 Statement (CONSORT 2010) for reporting RCTs of social and psychological interventions: CONSORT-SPI 2018. Methods We followed best practices in developing the reporting guideline extension. First, we conducted a systematic review of existing reporting guidelines. We then conducted an online Delphi process including 384 international participants. In March 2014, we held a 3-day consensus meeting of 31 experts to determine the content of a checklist specifically targeting social and psychological intervention RCTs. Experts discussed previous research and methodological issues of particular relevance to social and psychological intervention RCTs. They then voted on proposed modifications or extensions of items from CONSORT 2010. Results The CONSORT-SPI 2018 checklist extends 9 of the 25 items from CONSORT 2010: background and objectives, trial design, participants, interventions, statistical methods, participant flow, baseline data, outcomes and estimation, and funding. In addition, participants added a new item related to stakeholder involvement, and they modified aspects of the flow diagram related to participant recruitment and retention. Conclusions Authors should use CONSORT-SPI 2018 to improve reporting of their social and psychological intervention RCTs. Journals should revise editorial policies and procedures to require use of reporting guidelines by authors and peer reviewers to produce manuscripts that allow readers to appraise study quality, evaluate the applicability of findings to their contexts, and replicate effective interventions.

Background The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement was developed to help biomedical researchers report randomised controlled trials (RCTs) transparently. We have developed an extension to the CONSORT 2010 Statement for social and psychological interventions (CONSORT-SPI 2018) to help behavioural and social scientists report these studies transparently. Methods Following a systematic review of existing reporting guidelines, we conducted an online Delphi process to prioritise the list of potential items for the CONSORT-SPI 2018 checklist identified from the systematic review. Of 384 international participants, 321 (84%) participated in both rating rounds. We then held a consensus meeting of 31 scientists, journal editors, and research funders (March 2014) to finalise the content of the CONSORT-SPI 2018 checklist and flow diagram. Results CONSORT-SPI 2018 extends 9 items (14 including sub-items) from the CONSORT 2010 checklist, adds a new item (with 3 sub-items) related to stakeholder involvement in trials, and modifies the CONSORT 2010 flow diagram. This Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document is a user manual to enhance understanding of CONSORT-SPI 2018. It discusses the meaning and rationale for each checklist item and provides examples of complete and transparent reporting. Conclusions The CONSORT-SPI 2018 Extension, this E&E document, and the CONSORT website ( www.consort-statement.org ) are helpful resources for improving the reporting of social and psychological intervention RCTs.

Background Several hundred core outcome set (COS) projects have been systematically identified to date which, if adopted, ensure that researchers measure and report those outcomes that are most likely to be relevant to users of their research. The uptake of a COS by COS users will depend in part on the transparency and robustness of the methods used in the COS development study, which would be increased by the use of a standardised protocol. This article describes the development of the COS-STAP (Core Outcome Set-STAndardised Protocol Items) Statement for the content of a COS development study protocol. Methods The COS-STAP Statement was developed following the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency Of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network’s methodological framework for guideline development. This included an initial item generation stage, a two-round Delphi survey involving more than 150 participants representing three stakeholder groups (COS developers, journal editors and patient and public involvement researchers interested in COS development), followed by a consensus meeting with eight voting participants. Results The COS-STAP Statement consists of a checklist of 13 items considered essential documentation in a protocol, outlining the scope of the COS, stakeholder involvement, COS development plans and consensus processes. Conclusions Journal editors and peer reviewers can use the guidance to assess the completeness of a COS development study protocol submitted for publication. By providing guidance for key content, the COS-STAP Statement will enhance the drafting of high-quality protocols and determine how the COS development study will be carried out.

Response criteria for paediatric high-grade glioma vary historically and across different cooperative groups. The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology working group developed response criteria for adult high-grade glioma, but these were not created to meet the unique challenges in children with the disease. The Response Assessment in Pediatric Neuro-Oncology (RAPNO) working group, consisting of an international panel of paediatric and adult neuro-oncologists, clinicians, radiologists, radiation oncologists, and neurosurgeons, was established to address issues and unique challenges in assessing response in children with CNS tumours. We established a subcommittee to develop response assessment criteria for paediatric high-grade glioma. Current practice and literature were reviewed to identify major challenges in assessing the response of paediatric high-grade gliomas to various treatments. For areas in which scientific investigation was scarce, consensus was reached through an iterative process. RAPNO response assessment recommendations include the use of MRI of the brain and the spine, assessment of clinical status, and the use of corticosteroids or antiangiogenics. Imaging standards for brain and spine are defined. Compared with the recommendations for the management of adult high-grade glioma, for paediatrics there is inclusion of diffusion-weighted imaging and a higher reliance on T2-weighted fluid-attenuated inversion recovery. Consensus recommendations and response definitions have been established and, similar to other RAPNO recommendations, prospective validation in clinical trials is warranted.

In pivotal clinical effectiveness trials, the primary endpoint needs to be precisely defined and quantified because any misclassification could introduce noise and possible bias, potentially leading to incorrect trial conclusions. The underlying premise is that adjudication will be more accurate, reduce noise, and limit any misclassification by the site investigator, with any residual errors being consistently distributed across the treatment groups. Some observers have been critical of the absence of endpoint adjudication in trials using these data and point to inaccuracies of hospital coding and statistics.25 In systems where payment to the health care service is reliant on coding data, external factors such as reimbursement incentives or local practice variations can cause bias.26 In large international trials, a further concern is the heterogeneity and reporting biases of different health care systems. [...]subsequent follow up for over 20 years has now been done entirely through routinely collected data.34,35 Similar findings have also been found in the more contemporary aspirin for primary prevention in people with diabetes mellitus (ASCEND) trial,36,37 where hospital episode statistics in England, UK were compared with adjudicated clinical endpoints and effect size estimates for the primary outcome were again very similar (personal communication, Jane Armitage, University of Oxford).

Background The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative aims to facilitate the development and application of ‘core outcome sets’ (COS). A COS is an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials of a specific disease or trial population. The overall aim of the Core Outcome Measurement Instrument Selection (COMIS) project is to develop a guideline on how to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a COS. As part of this project, we describe our current efforts to achieve a consensus on the methods for selecting outcome measurement instruments for outcomes to be included in a COS. Methods/Design A Delphi study is being performed by a panel of international experts representing diverse stakeholders with the intention that this will result in a guideline for outcome measurement instrument selection. Informed by a literature review, a Delphi questionnaire was developed to identify potentially relevant tasks on instrument selection. The Delphi study takes place in a series of rounds. In the first round, panelists were asked to rate the importance of different tasks in the selection of outcome measurement instruments. They were encouraged to justify their choices and to add other relevant tasks. Consensus was reached if at least 70% of the panelists considered a task ‘highly recommended’ or ‘desirable’ and if no opposing arguments were provided. These tasks will be included in the guideline. Tasks that at least 50% of the panelists considered ‘not relevant’ will be excluded from the guideline. Tasks that were indeterminate will be taken to the second round. All responses of the first round are currently being aggregated and will be fed back to panelists in the second round. A third round will only be performed if the results of the second round require it. Discussion Since the Delphi method allows a large group of international experts to participate, we consider it to be the preferred consensus-based method for our study. Based upon this consultation process, a guideline will be developed on instrument selection for outcomes to be included in a COS.

The selection of appropriate outcomes or domains is crucial when designing clinical trials in order to compare directly the effects of different interventions in ways that minimize bias. If the findings are to influence policy and practice then the chosen outcomes need to be relevant and important to key stakeholders including patients and the public, health care professionals and others making decisions about health care. There is a growing recognition that insufficient attention has been paid to the outcomes measured in clinical trials. These issues could be addressed through the development and use of an agreed standardized collection of outcomes, known as a core outcome set, which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all trials for a specific clinical area. Accumulating work in this area has identified the need for general guidance on the development of core outcome sets. Key issues to consider in the development of a core outcome set include its scope, the stakeholder groups to involve, choice of consensus method and the achievement of a consensus.