Explore the vast range of titles available.

The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative established a core outcome set (COS) for atopic eczema (AE) clinical trials in 2019. This set encompasses four core outcome domains and corresponding measurement instruments: clinical signs (EASI), patient-reported symptoms (POEM and NRS 11 point for worst itch over the last 24 h), quality of life (DLQI/CDLQI/IDQoLI), and long-term control (Recap or ADCT). Following its roadmap, the HOME initiative is now focused on supporting implementation of the COS. To identify barriers and facilitators to implementation of the COS, and to guide the effort to promote COS uptake, a virtual consensus meeting was held over 2 days (September 25–26, 2021) attended by 55 participants (26 healthcare professionals, 16 methodologists, 5 patients, 4 industry representatives, and 4 students). Implementation themes were identified by a pre-meeting survey distributed to HOME members, presentations, and whole-group discussion. Participants were divided into five multi-professional small groups which ranked their top 3 most important themes, followed by whole-group discussion and anonymous consensus voting (consensus criteria: < 30% disagreement). Three most important implementation themes were identified and agreed upon: (1) awareness and stakeholder engagement, (2) universal applicability of the COS, and (3) ensuring minimum administrative burden. Working groups to address these issues are now a priority for the HOME initiative. The results from this meeting will inform the development of a HOME Implementation Roadmap in an effort to support other COS groups planning for effective implementation of their core sets.

Congenital melanocytic naevi (CMN) are birthmarks that can cover large areas of the body. CMN can significantly impact individuals' lives due to perceived stigma, the risk for melanoma development and neurological complications. To treat and prevent these complications, adequate research and guidelines are needed. In this review, we present a summary of the Dutch multidisciplinary guideline and the lessons learned from the implementation and information developed additionally in collaboration with the patient association. We also introduce the core outcomes of the OCOMEN project to standardize outcomes for both research and care of CMN. The next step is the development of the instruments internationally.

Background The concept of core outcome sets (COS) has been introduced in China for about 10 years. In recent years, some Chinese researchers also committed to developing COS, though the majority of COS are ongoing. However, there were more than 500 published COS for research in the COMET database by 2020. The extent of availability of COS for the top 25 diseases with the highest burden in China is unknown. In addition, the uptake of COS in clinical trials for these diseases is unknown, along with the knowledge, perceptions, and views of the clinical trialist community in China on the use of COS in relation to choosing outcomes for their research. Methods The main burden of disease in China will be identified. Then we will search the COMET database to identify if there are ongoing or completed relevant COS research A COS published since 2012 would be preferred to one published before 2012 for the analysis of COS uptake if one meets the eligibility criteria. We will extract scopes of published eligible COS, including condition, population, interventions, and core outcomes. Then we will search the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry using disease names for each disease that has a published COS. We will assess the overlap in scope between clinical trials and COS. Then we will conduct an online survey and semi-structured interviews to identify the knowledge and perceptions of COS among primary investigators of included clinical trials. Discussion This research will fill in gaps between COS and the burden of disease in China. Understanding clinical trialists'knowledge and perceptions of COS may help dissemination and application of COS in the future. Trial registration This research is registered in Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness: https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2563.

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. 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. 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. 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.

Background In cooperation with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative, the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) initiative aimed to develop a guideline on how to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes (i.e., constructs or domains) included in a “Core Outcome Set” (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. Methods Informed by a literature review to identify potentially relevant tasks on outcome measurement instrument selection, a Delphi study was performed among a panel of international experts, representing diverse stakeholders. In three consecutive rounds, panelists were asked to rate the importance of different tasks in the selection of outcome measurement instruments, to justify their choices, and to add other relevant tasks. Consensus was defined as being achieved when 70 % or more of the panelists agreed and when fewer than 15 % of the panelists disagreed. Results Of the 481 invited experts, 120 agreed to participate of whom 95 (79 %) completed the first Delphi questionnaire. We reached consensus on four main steps in the selection of outcome measurement instruments for COS: Step 1, conceptual considerations; Step 2, finding existing outcome measurement instruments, by means of a systematic review and/or a literature search; Step 3, quality assessment of outcome measurement instruments, by means of the evaluation of the measurement properties and feasibility aspects of outcome measurement instruments; and Step 4, generic recommendations on the selection of outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a COS (consensus ranged from 70 to 99 %). Conclusions This study resulted in a consensus-based guideline on the methods for selecting outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a COS. This guideline can be used by COS developers in defining how to measure core outcomes.

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.

Studies evaluating cosmetic gynecological interventions have followed variable methodology and reported a diversity of outcomes. Such variations limit the comparability of studies and the value of research-based evidence. The development of core outcome sets (COS) and core outcome measures sets (COMS) would help address these issues, ensuring a minimum of outcomes important to all stakeholders, primarily women requesting or having experienced cosmetic gynecological interventions. This protocol describes the methods used in developing a COS and COMS for cosmetic gynecological interventions. An international steering group within CHORUS, including health care professionals, researchers, and women with experience in cosmetic gynecological interventions from 4 continents, will guide the development of COS and COMS. Potential outcome measures and outcomes will be identified through comprehensive literature reviews. These potential COS and COMS will be entered into an international, multi-perspective web-based Delphi survey where Delphi participants judge which domains will be core. A priori thresholds for consensus will get established before each Delphi round. The Delphi survey results will be evaluated quantitatively and qualitatively in subsequent stakeholder group consensus meetings in the process of establishing \"core\" outcomes. Dissemination and implementation of the resulting COS and COMS within an international context will be promoted and reviewed. This protocol presents the steps in developing a COS and COMS for cosmetic gynecological interventions. Embedding the COS and COMS for cosmetic gynecological interventions within future clinical trials, systematic reviews, and practice guidelines could contribute to enhancing the value of research and improving overall patient care. Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) 1592; https://tinyurl.com/n8faysuh. PRR1-10.2196/28032.

The objective of this study was to compare two different rating scales within one Delphi study for defining consensus in core outcome set development and to explore the influence of consensus criteria on the outcome selection. Randomized controlled parallel group trial with 1:1 allocation within the first Delphi round of the Core Outcome Set in the Incontinence-Associated Dermatitis project. Outcomes were rated on a three-point or nine-point Likert scale. Decisions about which outcomes to retain were determined by commonly used consensus criteria (i.e., [combinations of] proportions with restricted ranges, central tendency within a specific range, and decrease in variance). Fifty-seven participants (group 1 = 28, group 2 = 29) rated 58 outcomes. The use of the nine-point scale resulted in almost twice as many outcomes being rated as “critical” compared with the three-point scale (24 vs. 13). Stricter criteria and combining criteria led to less outcomes being identified as “critical”. The format of rating scales in Delphi studies for core outcome set development and the definition of the consensus criteria influence outcome selection. The use of the nine-point scale might be recommended to inform the consensus process for a subsequent rating or face-to-face meeting. The three-point scale might be preferred when determining final consensus.

The Delphi method is commonly used to achieve consensus in core outcome set (COS) development. It is important to try to maximize response rates to Delphi studies and minimize attrition rates and potential for bias. The factors that impact response rates in a Delphi study used for COS development are unknown. The objective of this study was to explore the impact of design characteristics on response rates in Delphi surveys within COS development. Published and ongoing studies that included Delphi to develop a COS were eligible. Second round voting response rates were analyzed, and multilevel linear regression was conducted to investigate whether design characteristics were associated with the response rate. Thirty-one studies were included. Two characteristics were significantly associated with a lower response rate: larger panels and studies with more items included. COS developers should pay attention to methods when designing a COS development study; in particular, the size of the panels and the size of the list of outcomes. We identified other potential design characteristics that might influence response rates but were unable to explore them in this analysis. These should be reported in future reports to allow for further investigation.

There is increasing recognition that insufficient attention has been paid to the choice of outcomes measured in clinical trials. The lack of a standardized outcome classification system results in inconsistencies due to ambiguity and variation in how outcomes are described across different studies. Being able to classify by outcome would increase efficiency in searching sources such as clinical trial registries, patient registries, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database of core outcome sets (COS), thus aiding knowledge discovery. A literature review was carried out to determine existing outcome classification systems, none of which were sufficiently comprehensive or granular for classification of all potential outcomes from clinical trials. A new taxonomy for outcome classification was developed, and as proof of principle, outcomes extracted from all published COS in the COMET database, selected Cochrane reviews, and clinical trial registry entries were classified using this new system. Application of this new taxonomy to COS in the COMET database revealed that 274/299 (92%) COS include at least one physiological outcome, whereas only 177 (59%) include at least one measure of impact (global quality of life or some measure of functioning) and only 105 (35%) made reference to adverse events. This outcome taxonomy will be used to annotate outcomes included in COS within the COMET database and is currently being piloted for use in Cochrane Reviews within the Cochrane Linked Data Project. Wider implementation of this standard taxonomy in trial and systematic review databases and registries will further promote efficient searching, reporting, and classification of trial outcomes.