A Core Outcome Set for Seamless, Standardized Evaluation of Innovative Surgical Procedures and Devices (COHESIVE) A Patient and Professional Stakeholder Consensus Study

被引:20
|
作者
Avery, Kerry N. L. [1 ,2 ]
Wilson, Nicholas [1 ,2 ]
Macefield, Rhiannon [1 ,2 ]
McNair, Angus [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Hoffmann, Christin [1 ,2 ]
Blazeby, Jane M. [1 ,2 ,4 ]
Potter, Shelley [1 ,2 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Bristol, Natl Inst Hlth Res Bristol Biomed Res Ctr, Bristol Ctr, Bristol Med Sch, Bristol, England
[2] Univ Bristol, Populat Hlth Sci, Bristol, Avon, England
[3] North Bristol NHS Trust, Gastrointestinal Surg, Bristol, England
[4] Univ Hosp Bristol NHS Fdn Trust, Bristol Royal Infirm, Div Surg, Bristol, England
[5] Bristol Breast Care Ctr, North Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Rd, Bristol, England
关键词
core outcome set; Delphi technique; device approval; operative; outcome assessment; surgical procedures;
D O I
10.1097/SLA.0000000000004975
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective:To develop a COS, an agreed minimum set of outcomes to measure and report in all studies evaluating the introduction and evaluation of novel surgical techniques. Summary of Background Data:Agreement on the key outcomes to measure and report for safe and efficient surgical innovation is lacking, hindering transparency and risking patient harm. Methods:(I) Generation of a list of outcome domains from published innovation-specific literature, policy/regulatory body documents, and surgeon interviews; (II) Prioritization of identified outcome domains using an international, multi-stakeholder Delphi survey; (III) Consensus meeting to agree the final COS. Participants were international stakeholders, including patients/public, surgeons, device manufacturers, regulators, trialists, methodologists, and journal editors. Results:A total of 7972 verbatim outcomes were identified, categorized into 32 domains, and formatted into survey items/questions. Four hundred ten international participants (220 professionals, 190 patients/public) completed at least one round 1 survey item, of which 153 (69.5%) professionals and 116 (61.1%) patients completed at least one round 2 item. Twelve outcomes were scored "consensus in" ("very important" by >= 70% of patients and professionals) and 20 "no consensus." A consensus meeting, involvingcontext: modifications, unexpected disadvantages, device problems, technical procedure completion success, patients' experience relating to the procedure being innovative, surgeons'/operators' experience. Other domains relate to intended benefits, whether the overall desired effect was achieved and expected disadvantages. Conclusions:The COS is recommended for use in all studies before definitive randomized controlled trial evaluation to promote safe, transparent, and efficient surgical innovation.
引用
收藏
页码:238 / 245
页数:8
相关论文
共 26 条
  • [1] Development of reporting guidance and core outcome sets for seamless, standardised evaluation of innovative surgical procedures and devices: a study protocol for content generation and a Delphi consensus process (COHESIVE study)
    Avery, Kerry
    Blazeby, Jane
    Wilson, Nicholas
    Macefield, Rhiannon
    Cousins, Sian
    Main, Barry
    Blencowe, Natalie S.
    Zahra, Jesmond
    Elliott, Daisy
    Hinchliffe, Robert
    Potter, Shelley
    BMJ OPEN, 2019, 9 (09):
  • [2] A core outcome set for seamless, standardised evaluation and reporting of outcomes throughout the surgical innovation lifecycle: the COHESIVE study
    Avery, Kerry
    Macefield, Rhiannon
    Wilson, Nicholas
    McNair, Angus
    Hoffman, Christin
    Potter, Shelley
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2020, 107 : 13 - 13
  • [3] Core outcome set for surgical trials in gastric cancer (GASTROS study): international patient and healthcare professional consensus
    Alkhaffaf, B.
    Metryka, A.
    Blazeby, J. M.
    Glenny, A. M.
    Adeyeye, A.
    Costa, P. M.
    del Val, I. Diez
    Gisbertz, S. S.
    Guner, A.
    Law, S.
    Lee, H. J.
    Li, Z.
    Nakada, K.
    Reim, D.
    Vorwald, P.
    Baiocchi, G. L.
    Allum, W.
    Chaudry, M. A.
    Griffiths, E. A.
    Williamson, P. R.
    Bruce, I. A.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2021, 108 (10) : 1216 - 1224
  • [4] Development of a core outcome set for informed consent for therapy: An international key stakeholder consensus study
    Convie, Liam J.
    Clements, Joshua M.
    McCain, Scott
    Campbell, Jeffrey
    Kirk, Stephen J.
    Clarke, Mike
    BMC MEDICAL ETHICS, 2022, 23 (01)
  • [5] Development of a core outcome set for informed consent for therapy: An international key stakeholder consensus study
    Liam J. Convie
    Joshua M. Clements
    Scott McCain
    Jeffrey Campbell
    Stephen J. Kirk
    Mike Clarke
    BMC Medical Ethics, 23
  • [6] Core outcome set for three ophthalmic conditions: a healthcare professional and patient consensus on core outcome sets for amblyopia, ocular motility and strabismus (COSAMS Study)
    Al-Jabri, Samiya
    Rowe, Fiona J.
    Kirkham, Jamie J.
    BMJ OPEN, 2021, 11 (05):
  • [7] A core outcome set for seamless, standardised evaluation and reporting of outcomes throughout the surgical device innovation lifecycle
    Wilson, Nicholas
    Macefield, Rhiannon
    Avery, Kerry
    Potter, Shelley
    TRIALS, 2019, 20
  • [8] Outcome selection and reporting for innovative surgical procedures and devices: a review of current ;practice in IDEAL/IDEAL-D studies to inform the development of a core outcome set
    Macefield, Rhiannon Claire
    Wilson, Nicholas
    Avery, Kerry N. L.
    Potter, Shelley
    TRIALS, 2019, 20
  • [9] Outcome selection, measurement and reporting for innovative surgical procedures and devices: a review of current practice in IDEAL/IDEAL-D studies to inform the development of a core outcome set
    Macefield, Rhiannon
    Wilson, Nicholas
    Hoffman, Christin
    McNair, Angus
    Avery, Kerry
    Potter, Shelley
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2020, 107 : 68 - 68
  • [10] Cauda Equina Syndrome Core Outcome Set (CESCOS): An international patient and healthcare professional consensus for research studies
    Srikandarajah, Nisaharan
    Noble, Adam
    Clark, Simon
    Wilby, Martin
    Freeman, Brian J. C.
    Fehlings, Michael G.
    Williamson, Paula R.
    Marson, Tony
    PLOS ONE, 2020, 15 (01):