Cecilia A.C. Prinsen

Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative: protocol for an international Delphi study to achieve consensus on how to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a ‘core outcome set’

BackgroundThe Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative aims to facilitate the development and application of ‘core outcome sets’ (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. The overall aim of the Core Outcome Measurement Instrument Selection (COMIS) project is to develop a guideline on how to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a COS. As part of this project, we describe our current efforts to achieve a consensus on the methods for selecting outcome measurement instruments for outcomes to be included in a COS.Methods/DesignA Delphi study is being performed by a panel of international experts representing diverse stakeholders with the intention that this will result in a guideline for outcome measurement instrument selection. Informed by a literature review, a Delphi questionnaire was developed to identify potentially relevant tasks on instrument selection. The Delphi study takes place in a series of rounds. In the first round, panelists were asked to rate the importance of different tasks in the selection of outcome measurement instruments. They were encouraged to justify their choices and to add other relevant tasks. Consensus was reached if at least 70% of the panelists considered a task ‘highly recommended’ or ‘desirable’ and if no opposing arguments were provided. These tasks will be included in the guideline. Tasks that at least 50% of the panelists considered ‘not relevant’ will be excluded from the guideline. Tasks that were indeterminate will be taken to the second round. All responses of the first round are currently being aggregated and will be fed back to panelists in the second round. A third round will only be performed if the results of the second round require it.DiscussionSince the Delphi method allows a large group of international experts to participate, we consider it to be the preferred consensus-based method for our study. Based upon this consultation process, a guideline will be developed on instrument selection for outcomes to be included in a COS.

The COMET Handbook: Version 1.0

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.

Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), a core instrument to measure symptoms in clinical trials: a Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) statement

The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative has defined four core outcome domains for a core outcome set (COS) to be measured in all atopic eczema (AE) trials to ensure cross‐trial comparison: clinical signs, symptoms, quality of life and long‐term control.

Evaluation of the measurement properties of symptom measurement instruments for atopic eczema: A systematic review

Symptoms have been identified as a core outcome domain for atopic eczema (AE) trials. Various instruments exist to measure symptoms in AE, but they vary in quality and there is a lack of standardization between clinical trials. Our objective was to systematically evaluate the quality of the evidence on the measurement properties of AE symptom instruments, thereby informing consensus discussions within the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative regarding the most appropriate instruments for the core outcome domain symptoms.

Measurement properties of adult quality-of-life measurement instruments for eczema: A systematic review

BACKGROUND The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative has identified quality of life (QoL) as a core outcome domain to be evaluated in every eczema trial. It is unclear which of the existing QoL instruments is most appropriate for this domain. Thus, the aim of this review was to systematically assess the measurement properties of existing measurement instruments developed and/or validated for the measurement of QoL in adult eczema. METHODS We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed and Embase identifying studies on measurement properties of adult eczema QoL instruments. For all eligible studies, we assessed the adequacy of the measurement properties and the methodological quality with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. A best evidence synthesis summarizing findings from different studies was the basis to assign four degrees of recommendation (A-D). RESULTS A total of 15 articles reporting on 17 instruments were included. No instrument fulfilled the criteria for category A. Six instruments were placed in category B, meaning that they have the potential to be recommended depending on the results of further validation studies. Three instruments had poor adequacy in at least one required adequacy criterion and were therefore put in category C. The remaining eight instruments were minimally validated and were thus placed in category D. CONCLUSIONS Currently, no QoL instrument can be recommended for use in adult eczema. The Quality of Life Index for Atopic Dermatitis (QoLIAD) and the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) are recommended for further validation research.

Measurement properties of quality-of-life measurement instruments for infants, children and adolescents with eczema: a systematic review.

Quality of life (QoL) is one of the core outcome domains identified by the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative to be assessed in every eczema trial. There is uncertainty about the most appropriate QoL instrument to measure this domain in infants, children and adolescents.

COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

PurposeThe original COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist was developed to assess the methodological quality of single studies on measurement properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Now it is our aim to adapt the COSMIN checklist and its four-point rating system into a version exclusively for use in systematic reviews of PROMs, aiming to assess risk of bias of studies on measurement properties.MethodsFor each standard (i.e., a design requirement or preferred statistical method), it was discussed within the COSMIN steering committee if and how it should be adapted. The adapted checklist was pilot-tested to strengthen content validity in a systematic review on the quality of PROMs for patients with hand osteoarthritis.ResultsMost important changes were the reordering of the measurement properties to be assessed in a systematic review of PROMs; the deletion of standards that concerned reporting issues and standards that not necessarily lead to biased results; the integration of standards on general requirements for studies on item response theory with standards for specific measurement properties; the recommendation to the review team to specify hypotheses for construct validity and responsiveness in advance, and subsequently the removal of the standards about formulating hypotheses; and the change in the labels of the four-point rating system.ConclusionsThe COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist was developed exclusively for use in systematic reviews of PROMs to distinguish this application from other purposes of assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties, such as guidance for designing or reporting a study on the measurement properties.

Report from the kick-off meeting of the Cochrane Skin Group Core Outcome Set Initiative (CSG-COUSIN).

A major obstacle of evidence‐based clinical decision making is the use of nonstandardized, partly untested outcome measurement instruments. Core Outcome Sets (COSs) are currently developed in different medical fields to standardize and improve the selection of outcomes and outcome measurement instruments in clinical trials, in order to pool results of trials or to allow indirect comparison between interventions. 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. The international, multidisciplinary Cochrane Skin Group Core Outcome Set Initiative (CSG‐COUSIN) aims to develop and implement COSs in dermatology, thus making trial evidence comparable and, herewith, more useful for clinical decision making. The inaugural meeting of CSG‐COUSIN was held on 17–18 March 2015 in Dresden, Germany, as the exclusive theme of the Annual Cochrane Skin Group Meeting. In total, 29 individuals representing a broad mix of different stakeholder groups, professions, skills and perspectives attended. This report provides a description of existing COS initiatives in dermatology, highlights current methodological challenges in COS development, and presents the concept, aims and structure of CSG‐COUSIN.

COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures

PurposeSystematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) differ from reviews of interventions and diagnostic test accuracy studies and are complex. In fact, conducting a review of one or more PROMs comprises of multiple reviews (i.e., one review for each measurement property of each PROM). In the absence of guidance specifically designed for reviews on measurement properties, our aim was to develop a guideline for conducting systematic reviews of PROMs.MethodsBased on literature reviews and expert opinions, and in concordance with existing guidelines, the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) steering committee developed a guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs.ResultsA consecutive ten-step procedure for conducting a systematic review of PROMs is proposed. Steps 1–4 concern preparing and performing the literature search, and selecting relevant studies. Steps 5–8 concern the evaluation of the quality of the eligible studies, the measurement properties, and the interpretability and feasibility aspects. Steps 9 and 10 concern formulating recommendations and reporting the systematic review.ConclusionsThe COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs includes methodology to combine the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties with the quality of the PROM itself (i.e., its measurement properties). This enables reviewers to draw transparent conclusions and making evidence-based recommendations on the quality of PROMs, and supports the evidence-based selection of PROMs for use in research and in clinical practice.

COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study

BackgroundContent validity is the most important measurement property of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) and the most challenging to assess. Our aims were to: (1) develop standards for evaluating the quality of PROM development; (2) update the original COSMIN standards for assessing the quality of content validity studies of PROMs; (3) develop criteria for what constitutes good content validity of PROMs, and (4) develop a rating system for summarizing the evidence on a PROM’s content validity and grading the quality of the evidence in systematic reviews of PROMs.MethodsAn online 4-round Delphi study was performed among 159 experts from 21 countries. Panelists rated the degree to which they (dis)agreed to proposed standards, criteria, and rating issues on 5-point rating scales (‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’), and provided arguments for their ratings.ResultsDiscussion focused on sample size requirements, recording and field notes, transcribing cognitive interviews, and data coding. After four rounds, the required 67% consensus was reached on all standards, criteria, and rating issues. After pilot-testing, the steering committee made some final changes. Ten criteria for good content validity were defined regarding item relevance, appropriateness of response options and recall period, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility of the PROM.DiscussionThe consensus-based COSMIN methodology for content validity is more detailed, standardized, and transparent than earlier published guidelines, including the previous COSMIN standards. This methodology can contribute to the selection and use of high-quality PROMs in research and clinical practice.