The CONSENSUS study: protocol for a mixed methods study to establish which outcomes should be included in a core outcome set for oropharyngeal cancer

Trials

Terry M Jones³  Bridget Young¹  Catrin Tudur Smith²  Aoife MI Waters³ 

[1] Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Whelan Building, Brownlow Hill, Liverpool L69 3GB, UK;Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, 1st Floor Duncan Building, Daulby Street, Liverpool L69 3GA, UK;Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK

关键词: Head and neck cancer;    Oropharyngeal cancer;    Delphi;    Consensus;    Core outcome set;   

Others  :  806241
DOI  :  10.1186/1745-6215-15-168

 received in 2014-03-04, accepted in 2014-04-17,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The incidence of oropharyngeal cancer is increasing in the developed world. This has led to a large rise in research activity and clinical trials in this area, yet there is no consensus on which outcomes should be measured. As a result, the outcomes measured often differ between trials of comparable interventions, making the combination or comparison of results between trials impossible. Outcomes may also be ‘cherry-picked’, such that favourable results are reported, and less favourable results withheld. The development of a minimum outcome reporting standard, known as a core outcome set, goes some way to addressing these problems. Core outcome sets are ideally developed using a patient-centred approach so that the outcomes measured are relevant to patients and clinical practice. Core outcome sets drive up the quality and relevance of research by ensuring that the right outcomes are consistently measured and reported in trials in specific areas of health or healthcare.

Methods/Design

This is a mixed methods study involving three phases to develop a core outcome set for oropharyngeal cancer clinical trials. Firstly, a systematic review will establish which outcomes are measured in published oropharyngeal cancer randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Secondly, qualitative interviews with patients and carers in the UK and the USA will aim to establish which outcomes are important to these stakeholders. Data from these first two stages will be used to develop a comprehensive list of outcomes to be considered for inclusion in the core outcome set. In the third stage, patients and clinicians will participate in an iterative consensus exercise known as a Delphi study to refine the contents of the core outcome set. This protocol lays out the methodology to be implemented in the CONSENSUS study.

Discussion

A core outcome set defines a minimum outcome reporting standard for clinical trials in a particular area of health or healthcare. Its consistent implementation in oropharyngeal cancer clinical trials will improve the quality and relevance of research.

Trials and registration

This study is registered at the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Research Network (CRN) portfolio, ID 13823 (17 January 2013).

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Waters et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Cancer Research UK: Number of New Cases of Oral Cancer (C00-C06, C09-C10, C12-C14), By Subsite, UK, 2010. 2010. [http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/types/oral/incidence/#source1 webcite]
• [2]Price G, Roche M, Crowther R, Wright R: Profile of head and neck cancers in England: incidence, mortality and survival. Oxford: Oxford Cancer Intelligence Unit; 2010.
• [3]Chaturvedi AK, Anderson WF, Lortet-Tieulent J, Curado MP, Ferlay J, Franceschi S, Rosenberg PS, Bray F, Gillison ML: Worldwide trends in incidence rates for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers. J Clin Oncol 2013, 31(36):4550-4559.
• [4]Shaw R, Robinson M: The increasing clinical relevance of human papillomavirus type 16 (HPV-16) infection in oropharyngeal cancer. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011, 49(6):423-429.
• [5]Ragin CCR, Taioli E: Survival of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck in relation to human papillomavirus infection: review and meta-analysis. Int J Canc 2007, 121(8):1813-1820.
• [6]Sinha IP, Smyth RL, Williamson PR: Using the Delphi technique to determine which outcomes to measure in clinical trials: recommendations for the future based on a systematic review of existing studies. PLoS Med 2011, 8(1):e1000393.
• [7]Kirkham J, Boers M, Tugwell P, Clarke M, Williamson P: Outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis randomised trials over the last 50 years. Trials 2013, 14(1):324. BioMed Central Full Text
• [8]Tugwell P, Boers M, Brooks P, Simon L, Strand V, Idzerda L: OMERACT: an international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology. Trials 2007, 8(1):38. BioMed Central Full Text
• [9]Kirwan JR, de Wit M: What have we learned from a decade of patient involvement in OMERACT and its effect on trial outcome assessments? Trials 2011, 12(Suppl 1):A80. BioMed Central Full Text
• [10]Denegri S, Buckland S: INVOLVE response to Commons Select Committee Inquiry into clinical trials. Eastleigh: INVOLVE; 2013.
• [11]Sanders C, Egger M, Donovan J, Tallon D, Frankel S: Reporting on quality of life in randomised controlled trials: bibliographic study. BMJ 1998, 317(7167):1191-1194.
• [12]Calvert M, Brundage M, Jacobsen P, Schunemann H, Efficace F: The CONSORT Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) extension: implications for clinical trials and practice. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2013, 11(1):184. BioMed Central Full Text
• [13]Williamson P, Clarke M: The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) initiative: its role in improving cochrane reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012, 5:ED000041.
• [14]Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Devane D, Gargon E, Tugwell P: Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials 2012, 13(1):132. BioMed Central Full Text
• [15]Tschiesner U, Rogers S, Dietz A, Yueh B, Cieza A: Development of ICF core sets for head and neck cancer. Head Neck 2010, 32(2):210-220.
• [16]Coyne IT: Sampling in qualitative research: purposeful and theoretical sampling; merging or clear boundaries? J Adv Nurs 1997, 26(3):623-630.
• [17]Molina MA, Cheung MC, Perez EA, Byrne MM, Franceschi D, Moffat FL, Livingstone AS, Goodwin WJ, Gutierrez JC, Koniaris LG: African American and poor patients have a dramatically worse prognosis for head and neck cancer. Cancer 2008, 113(10):2797-2806.
• [18]Catherine P, Sue Z, Nicholas M: Analysing qualitative data. BMJ 2000, 320(7227):114-116.
• [19]Glaser BG: The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Soc Probl 1965, 12(4):436-445.
• [20]Polkinghorne DE: Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. Int J Qual Stud Educ 1995, 8(1):5-23.
• [21]Dalkey N, Helmer O: An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Manag Sci 1963, 9(3):458-467.
• [22]Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Dellinger P, Schünemann H, Levy MM, Kunz R, Norris S, Bion J, GRADE Working Group: Use of GRADE grid to reach decisions on clinical practice guidelines when consensus is elusive. BMJ 2008, 337:a744.
• [23]Oxman, Schünemann H, Brozek J (Eds): GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendation Version 3.2. The GRADE Working Group; 2009.
• [24]Skulmoski GJ, Hartman FT, Krahn J: The Delphi method for graduate research. J Inf Technol Educ 2007, 6:1-21.
• [25]Mease PJ, Arnold LM, Crofford LJ, Williams DA, Russell IJ, Humphrey L, Abetz L, Martin SA: Identifying the clinical domains of fibromyalgia: contributions from clinician and patient Delphi exercises. Arthritis Care Res 2008, 59(7):952-960.
• [26]Macefield R, Blencowe N, Brookes S, Jacobs M, Sprangers M, Williamson P, Blazeby J: Core outcome set development: the effect of Delphi panel composition and feedback on prioritisation of outcomes. Trials 2013, 14(Suppl 1):77.
• [27]Goodman CM: The Delphi technique: a critique. J Adv Nurs 1987, 12(6):729-734.