Outcomes and outcomes measurements used in intervention studies of pelvic girdle pain and lumbopelvic pain: a systematic review

Wuytack, Francesca; O’Donovan, Maggie

doi:10.1186/s12998-019-0279-2

Cited by 14 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 109 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The fifteen patient interviews identified 23 outcomes for inclusion in the round 1 Delphi questionnaire. Fifteen of these outcomes overlapped with outcomes identified from the systematic review, and eight were new outcomes [14]. The patient interview-derived new outcomes were: pain character/type, need for a mobility aid, perceived body imbalance, sexual functioning, family life impact, social life impact, emotional symptoms and frustration.…”

Section: Results 1: Influence Of Patient Interview-derived Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The systematic review and patient interviews generated a list of 53 preliminary outcomes that were used in the Delphi questionnaires [12,13]. The methodological details about the design and analysis of the systematic review, semi-structured interviews and methods for the embedded randomised trial are available in the study protocol [9], the published systematic review [14] and in the PGP-COS main report [12,13]. The preliminary outcomes were entered into a bespoke Delphi questionnaire created in Google forms [15].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Methodology in core outcome set (COS) development: the impact of patient interviews and using a 5-point versus a 9-point Delphi rating scale on core outcome selection in a COS development study.

Remus

Smith

Wuytack

2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background As the development of core outcome sets (COS) increases, guidance for developing and reporting high-quality COS continues to evolve; however, a number of methodological uncertainties still remain. The objectives of this study were: (1) to explore the impact of including patient interviews in developing a COS (2) to examine the impact of using a 5-point versus a 9-point rating scale during Delphi consensus methods on outcome selection and the COS and (3) to inform and contribute to COS development methodology by advancing the evidence base on COS development techniques. Methods Semi-structured patient interviews (i) and a nested randomised controlled parallel group trial (ii) as part of the Pelvic Girdle Pain Core Outcome Set project (PGP-COS). Patient interviews, as an adjunct to a systematic review of outcomes reported in previous studies, were undertaken to identify preliminary outcomes for including in a Delphi consensus survey. In the Delphi survey, participants were randomised (1:1) to a 5-point or 9-point Likert scale for rating the importance of the list of preliminary outcomes. Results None of the outcomes identified from the patient interviews only were included in the final PGP-COS. The 5-point rating scale resulted in twice as many outcomes reaching consensus after the 3-round Delphi survey compared to the 9-point scale. Consensus on all five outcomes included in the final PGP-COS was achieved by participants allocated the 5-point rating scale, whereas consensus on four of these was achieved by those using the 9-point scale. Conclusions Using patient interviews to identify preliminary outcomes as an adjunct to conducting a systematic review of outcomes measured in the literature, does not appear to influence outcome selection in developing a COS. The use of different rating scales in a Delphi survey, however, does appear to impact on outcome selection. The 5-point scale demonstrated greater congruency than the 9-point scale with the outcomes included in the final PGP-COS. Use of a 5-point scale can thus be considered for Delphi surveys in COS development studies. Future research to explore the impact of other rating scales on outcome selection during COS development is still warranted.

show abstract

Section: Results 1: Influence Of Patient Interview-derived Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methodology in core outcome set (COS) development: the impact of patient interviews and using a 5-point versus a 9-point Delphi rating scale on core outcome selection in a COS development study.

Remus

Smith

Wuytack

2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In depth methodological details about the design and analysis of the PGP-COS project, including the systematic review, semi-structured interviews, the Delphi survey and the consensus meeting are available in the study protocol [10], the published systematic review [17] and in the PGP-COS main report [15,16]. For ow and clarity of the summary details of the initial work leading to the Delphi and the embedded randomised trial are described below.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The systematic review searched for and extracted the outcomes reported in all previous intervention studies on PGP and lumbar-pelvic pain. One-hundred and seven studies were included in the review, yielding 45 distinct outcomes [17]. These outcomes were then grouped into core domains using the OMERACT lter 2.0 framework [18].…”

Section: Delphi Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fifteen of these outcomes overlapped with outcomes identi ed from the systematic review, and eight were new outcomes [17]. The patient interview-derived new outcomes were pain character/type, need for a mobility aid, perceived body imbalance, sexual functioning, family life impact, social life impact, emotional symptoms and frustration.…”

Section: Analysis 1: In Uence Of Patient Interview-derived Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Methodology in core outcome set (COS) development: the impact of patient interviews and using a 5-point versus a 9-point Delphi rating scale on core outcome selection in a COS development study.

Remus

Smith

Wuytack

2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: As the development of core outcome sets (COS) increases, guidance for developing and reporting high-quality COS continues to evolve; however, a number of methodological uncertainties still remain. The objectives of this study were: (1) to explore the impact of including patient interviews in developing a COS, (2) to examine the impact of using a 5-point versus a 9-point rating scale during Delphi consensus methods on outcome selection and the COS and (3) to inform and contribute to COS development methodology by advancing the evidence base on COS development techniques.Methods: Semi-structured patient interviews and a nested randomised controlled parallel group trial as part of the Pelvic Girdle Pain Core Outcome Set project (PGP-COS). Patient interviews, as an adjunct to a systematic review of outcomes reported in previous studies, were undertaken to identify preliminary outcomes for including in a Delphi consensus survey. In the Delphi survey, participants were randomised (1:1) to a 5-point or 9-point scale for rating the importance of the list of preliminary outcomes.Results: None of the outcomes identified from the patient interviews were included in the final PGP-COS. The 5-point rating scale resulted in twice as many outcomes reaching consensus after the 3-round Delphi survey compared to the 9-point scale. Consensus on all five outcomes included in the final PGP-COS was achieved by participants allocated the 5-point rating scale, whereas consensus on four of these was achieved by those using the 9-point scale.Conclusions: Using patient interviews to identify preliminary outcomes as an adjunct to conducting a systematic review of outcomes measured in the literature does not appear to influence outcome selection in developing a COS. The use of different rating scales in a Delphi survey, however, does appear to impact on outcome selection. The 5-point scale demonstrated greater congruency than the 9-point scale with the outcomes included in the final PGP-COS. Use of a 5-point scale might be considered for Delphi surveys in COS development studies. Future research to substantiate our findings and to explore the impact of other rating scales on outcome selection during COS development, however, is still warranted.

show abstract

Outcome Measurement Instruments and Evidence-based Recommendations for Measurement of the Pelvic Girdle Pain Core Outcome Set (PGP-COS): A Systematic Review and Consensus Process

Remus

Lempke²,

Wuytack³

et al. 2022

The Journal of Pain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Outcomes and outcomes measurements used in intervention studies of pelvic girdle pain and lumbopelvic pain: a systematic review

Cited by 14 publications

References 109 publications

Methodology in core outcome set (COS) development: the impact of patient interviews and using a 5-point versus a 9-point Delphi rating scale on core outcome selection in a COS development study.

Methodology in core outcome set (COS) development: the impact of patient interviews and using a 5-point versus a 9-point Delphi rating scale on core outcome selection in a COS development study.

Methodology in core outcome set (COS) development: the impact of patient interviews and using a 5-point versus a 9-point Delphi rating scale on core outcome selection in a COS development study.

Outcome Measurement Instruments and Evidence-based Recommendations for Measurement of the Pelvic Girdle Pain Core Outcome Set (PGP-COS): A Systematic Review and Consensus Process

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About