Nina Steutel

Reporting outcome measures in trials of infant colic

Objectives: Infant colic (IC), with an estimated prevalence of 5% to 25%, has a high impact on health care costs. Furthermore, reported negative sequelae are disturbed parent–infant interaction, increased susceptibility to abdominal pain, and even child abuse. Its etiology remains unknown, leading to a wide variety in interventions. We hypothesize that definitions and outcome measures in studies on IC will be heterogeneous as well. Our objective is to systematically assess how definitions and outcome measures are reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of IC. Methods: CENTRAL, Embase, and MEDLINE/PubMed were searched from inception to December 2012. English-language systematic reviews (SRs) and RCTs concerning IC in children ages 0 to 9 months were included. Bibliographies of included SRs were searched for additional articles. Quality was assessed using the Delphi list. Results: A total of 1702 studies were found; 55 articles were included (16 SRs, 39 RCTs). In 39 trials, we found 20 different definitions for IC, 11 different definitions for improvement, 28 different interventions, and 19 different outcomes. Fifty-one percent of the trials were of good methodological quality. All of the trials used parental diaries; only 31% stated that their instrument was validated. Conclusions: Too many different definitions and outcome measures for IC are used in RCTs. Only a minority of the trials reported parental perception as primary outcome. Uniform definitions, outcomes, and validated instruments are needed to make a comparison between intervention studies possible.

Variations in Definitions and Outcome Measures in Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Systematic Review

Through systematic review, this study provides an overview of the definitions and outcome measures used in randomized controlled trials in pediatric GERD. CONTEXT: Gastroesophageal reflux (GER) is defined as GER disease (GERD) when it leads to troublesome symptoms and/or complications. We hypothesized that definitions and outcome measures in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on pediatric GERD would be heterogeneous. OBJECTIVES: Systematically assess definitions and outcome measures in RCTs in this population. DATA SOURCES: Data were obtained through Cochrane, Embase, Medline, and Pubmed databases. STUDY SELECTION: We selected English-written therapeutic RCTs concerning GERD in children 0 to 18 years old. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were tabulated and presented descriptively. Each individual parameter or set of parameters with unique criteria for interpretation was considered a single definition for GER(D). Quality was assessed by using the Delphi score. RESULTS: A total of 2410 unique articles were found; 46 articles were included. Twenty-six (57%) studies defined GER by using 25 different definitions and investigated 25 different interventions. GERD was defined in 21 (46%) studies, all using a unique definition and investigating a total of 23 interventions. Respectively 87 and 61 different primary outcome measures were reported by the studies in GER and GERD. Eight (17%) studies did not report on side effects. Of the remaining 38 (83%) studies that did report on side effects, 18 (47%) included this as predefined outcome measure of which 4 (22%) as a primary outcome measure. Sixteen studies (35%) were of good methodological quality. LIMITATIONS: Only English-written studies were included. CONCLUSIONS: Inconsistency and heterogeneity exist in definitions and outcome measures used in RCTs on pediatric GER and GERD; therefore, we recommend the development of a core outcome set.

Development of a core outcome set for clinical trials in childhood constipation: a study using a Delphi technique

Objective Patients, their parents and healthcare professionals (HCPs) have a different perception regarding the symptoms of functional constipation (FC). Consequently, a lack of agreement exists on definitions and outcomes used in therapeutic trials of FC. Therefore, our aim was to develop a core outcome set (COS) for FC for children aged 0–1 year and 1–18 years. Design and setting Prospective study design: primary, secondary and tertiary care settings. Methods This COS was developed using a Delphi technique. First, HCPs, parents of children with FC and patients aged ≥12–18 years were asked to list up to five outcomes they considered relevant in the treatment of FC. Outcomes mentioned by >10% of participants were included in a shortlist. In the next phase, outcomes on this shortlist were rated and prioritised by HCPs, parents and patients. Outcomes with the highest scores were included in a draft COS. In a face-to-face expert meeting, the final COS was determined. Results The first phase was completed by 109 HCPs, 165 parents and 50 children. Fifty HCPs, 80 parents and 50 children completed the subsequent phase. The response rate was between 63% and 100% in both steps. The final COS for all ages consisted of: defecation frequency, stool consistency, painful defecation, quality of life, side effects of treatment, faecal incontinence, abdominal pain and school attendance. Conclusion The use of this COS for FC will decrease study heterogeneity and improve comparability of studies. Therefore, researchers are recommended to use this COS in future therapeutic trials on childhood FC.

Een spugende zuigeling

SamenvattingGastro-oesofageale reflux is een veelvoorkomend fysiologisch verschijnsel bij gezonde kinderen en volwassenen. Bij refluxziekte leidt reflux tot hinderlijke klachten/complicaties (zoals oesofagitis). Regelmatig vindt onnodig onderzoek en behandeling plaats: tussen 2008 en 2013 is een zevenvoudige stijging zichtbaar van het aantal voorschriften zuurremmende medicatie bij kinderen van nul tot achttien maanden in de huisartsenpraktijk (Julius Huisartsen Netwerk, 2014), vergelijkbaar met andere westerse landen.

Development of a Core Outcome Set for Clinical Trials in Childhood Constipation

Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: http://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.

Developing a core outcome set for infant colic for primary, secondary and tertiary care settings: a prospective study

Objective Infant colic (IC) is defined as recurrent and prolonged crying without an obvious cause or evidence of failure to thrive or illness. It is a common problem with a prevalence of 5%–25%. The unknown aetiology results in a wide variety in interventions and use of heterogeneous outcome measures across therapeutic trials. Our aim was to develop a core outcome set (COS) for IC to facilitate and improve evidence synthesis. Design and setting Prospective study design; primary, secondary and tertiary care. Methods The COS was developed using a modified Delphi technique. First, healthcare professionals (HCPs) and parents of infants with IC were asked to list up to five outcomes they considered relevant in the treatment of IC. Outcomes mentioned by >10% of participants were forwarded to a shortlist. In the second round, outcomes on this shortlist were rated and prioritised. The final COS was defined in a face-to-face expert meeting of paediatricians. Results F of invited stakeholders (133 HCPs and 55 parents of infants with IC) completed both Delphi rounds. Duration of crying, family stress, sleeping time of infant, quality of life (of family), discomfort of infant and hospital admission/duration were rated as most important outcomes in IC, framing the final COS. Conclusions The use of this COS should serve as a minimum of outcomes to be measured and reported. This will benefit evidence synthesis, by enhancing homogeneity of outcomes, and enable evaluation of success in therapeutic trials on IC. Researchers are strongly encouraged to use this COS when setting up a clinical trial in primary, secondary and/or tertiary care or performing a systematic review on IC.