Developing core outcomes sets: methods for identifying and including patient-reported outcomes (PROs)

Abstract

BackgroundSynthesis of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data is hindered by the range of available PRO measures (PROMs) composed of multiple scales and single items with differing terminology and content. The use of core outcome sets, an agreed minimum set of outcomes to be measured and reported in all trials of a specific condition, may improve this issue but methods to select core PRO domains from the many available PROMs are lacking. This study examines existing PROMs and describes methods to identify health domains to inform the development of a core outcome set, illustrated with an example.MethodsSystematic literature searches identified validated PROMs from studies evaluating radical treatment for oesophageal cancer. PROM scale/single item names were recorded verbatim and the frequency of similar names/scales documented. PROM contents (scale components/single items) were examined for conceptual meaning by an expert clinician and methodologist and categorised into health domains. A patient advocate independently checked this categorisation.ResultsSearches identified 21 generic and disease-specific PROMs containing 116 scales and 32 single items with 94 different verbatim names. Identical names for scales were repeatedly used (for example, ‘physical function’ in six different measures) and others were similar (overlapping face validity) although component items were not always comparable. Based on methodological, clinical and patient expertise, 606 individual items were categorised into 32 health domains.ConclusionThis study outlines a methodology for identifying candidate PRO domains from existing PROMs to inform a core outcome set to use in clinical trials.

Core outcome domains for clinical trials in non-specific low back pain

“…The selection of instruments will be focused on those that have demonstrated adequate measurement properties for these domains with the least participant burden. Recently published methodological guidance on this topic [46,47] will help to conduct the next step for this COS in NSLBP.…”

Botulinum toxin type A versus botulinum toxin type B for cervical dystonia

“…The definition of a set of core outcome measures to be included in future research, via wellestablished methodology to determine the inclusion of patient-reported outcomes (Macefield 2014) …”

Need for Digital Biomarkers in Musculoskeletal Trials

“…Psychometric evaluations reveal that many scores can be used to measure changes in disease status (high sensitivity to change) with high reproducibility in patients (high intraindividual reliability). However, they can be heavily confounded by patient perception and vary significantly between patients (high interindividual variability) [2]. For example, 5,000 steps per day can result in a very high subjective score of an elderly lady shortly after a hip fracture.…”