Noah Howes

Outcome reporting in bariatric surgery: An in-depth analysis to inform the development of a core outcome set, the BARIACT Study

Outcome reporting in bariatric surgery needs a core outcome set (COS), an agreed minimum set of outcomes reported in all studies of a particular condition. The aim of this study was to summarize outcome reporting in bariatric surgery to inform the development of a COS. Outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and large non‐randomized studies identified by a systematic review were listed verbatim and categorized into domains, scrutinizing the frequency of outcome reporting and uniformity of definitions. Ninety studies (39 RCTs) identified 1,088 separate outcomes, grouped into nine domains with most (n = 920, 85%) reported only once. The largest outcome domain was ‘surgical complications’, and overall, 42% of outcomes corresponded to a theme of ‘adverse events’. Only a quarter of outcomes were defined, and where provided definitions, which were often contradictory. Percentage of excess weight loss was the main study outcome in 49 studies, but nearly 40% of weight loss outcomes were heterogeneous, thus not comparable. Outcomes of diverse bariatric operations focus largely on adverse events. Reporting is inconsistent and ill‐defined, limiting interpretation and comparison of published studies. Thus, we propose and are developing a COS for the surgical treatment of severe and complex obesity.

What are important outcomes of bariatric surgery? An in-depth analysis to inform the development of a core outcome set and a comparison between the views of surgeons and other health professionals (the BARIACT study)

BACKGROUND Outcome reporting in bariatric surgery needs uniformity. A core outcome set is an agreed minimum set of outcomes reported in all studies of a particular condition, but members of the bariatric multidisciplinary team might value outcomes differently. The aim of this study was to summarise existing outcome reporting in bariatric surgery, to inform the development of a core outcome set, and to compare outcomes selected as important by type of health professional. METHODS Outcomes reported in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and large non-randomised studies, identified by a systematic review, were listed verbatim. Frequency of outcome reporting and uniformity of definition were assessed. A questionnaire to rate the importance of each outcome was completed by members of the bariatric multidisciplinary team. Responses to each item were scored as 1 (not essential) to 9 (absolutely essential). We ranked outcomes according to percentage deemed important (7-9) and according to respondents by type of health professional. FINDINGS We identified 1088 individual outcomes from 90 studies (39 RCTs), grouped them into health domains, and presented them as a questionnaire with 131 items to 489 multidisciplinary team members. Most outcomes (n=920, 85%) were reported only once. The largest outcome domain was surgical complications, and 432 outcomes (42%) corresponded to an adverse event. Only a quarter of outcomes (n=461) were defined, and were often contradictory. For questionnaire responders (n=164, response rate 33·5%), most were surgeons (n=80, 48·8%), followed by dietitians (n=31, 18·9%), nurses (n=24, 14·6%), physicians (n=12, 7·3%), and others (n=16, 9·9%). Improvement in diabetes was the top outcome for all health professionals. Seven of the surgeons top ten outcomes were adverse events, compared with three for other health professionals. Groups valued a measure of weight differently (third vs 15th for other health professionals and surgeons, respectively). INTERPRETATION This study shows that the assessment of bariatric surgery focuses largely on adverse events and resolution of comorbidity, but that reporting is inconsistent and ill-defined. Substantial variation between the views of surgeons and those of other health professionals was evident. The next step is to provide feedback to participants and to survey their views again before a final consensus meeting to produce a core outcome set for the Benefits and Adverse events in BARIAtric surgery Clinical Trials (BARIACT) as a solution to this problem. FUNDING National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme. This work was also undertaken with the support of the MRC ConDuCT-II Hub (Collaboration and innovation for Difficult and Complex randomised controlled Trials In Invasive procedures, MR/K025643/1).

Methodological overview of systematic reviews to establish the evidence base for emergency general surgery

The evidence for treatment decision‐making in emergency general surgery has not been summarized previously. The aim of this overview was to review the quantity and quality of systematic review evidence for the most common emergency surgical conditions.

Assessing the quality of written information provision for surgical procedures: a case study in oesophagectomy

Objective To examine the content and quality of written information provided by surgical centres for patients undergoing oesophagectomy for cancer. Design Cross-sectional study of the content of National Health Service (NHS) patient information leaflets (PILs) about oesophageal cancer surgery, using a modified framework approach. Data sources Written information leaflets from 41 of 43 cancer centres undertaking surgery for oesophageal cancer in England and Wales (response rate 95.3%). Eligibility criteria All English language versions of PILs about oesophagectomy. Results 32 different PILs were identified, of which 2 were generic tools (Macmillan ‘understanding cancer of the gullet’ and EIDO ‘oesophagectomy’). Although most PILs focused on describing in-hospital adverse events, information varied widely and was often misleading. Just 1 leaflet described survival benefits of surgery and 2 mentioned the possibility of disease recurrence. Conclusions Written information provided for patients by NHS cancer centres undertaking oesophagectomy is inconsistent and incomplete. It is recommended that surgeons work together with patients to agree on standards of information provision of relevance to all stakeholders’ needs.

Protocol for the systematic review of the reporting of transoral robotic surgery

Introduction Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) has been adopted in some parts of the world as an innovative approach to the resection of oropharyngeal tumours. The development, details and outcomes of early-to-later phase evaluation of this technique and the quality of evidence to support its adoption into practice have hitherto not been summarised. The aim of this review is to identify and summarise the early and later phase studies of, and evidence for, TORS and to understand how early phase studies report intervention development, governance procedures and selection and reporting of outcomes to optimise methods for using the Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term follow-up (IDEAL) framework for surgical innovation that informs evidence-based practice. The protocol has been written in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols checklist. Methods and analysis Electronic searches in OVID SP versions of Medline and EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from the start of indexing to 30 April 2017 will identify studies reporting TORS. At least two independent researchers will identify studies for inclusion. Two researchers will extract data from each paper. Studies will be categorised into IDEAL stages of study design from ‘pre-IDEAL’ to randomised controlled trials (stage 3). Data will be collected about the (1) novel intervention and criteria for modification, (2) governance arrangements and patient information provision, (3) outcome domains selected and reported and (4) quality of study design, conduct and reporting. Descriptive statistics and a narrative synthesis will be presented. Ethics and dissemination The results of this systematic review will be presented at relevant conferences. The methods will be used to inform future reviews exploring other novel surgical innovations. The findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. This study does not require ethical approval.

A novel approach to understanding outcome selection and reporting during the evaluation of innovative surgery from first in human to pragmatic RCT: an evolution review

The evaluation of innovation from early to late phase studies requires appropriate selection and reporting of outcomes. These are well defined for pharmaceutical interventions, but much less well considered for non-pharmaceutical interventions such as surgery. We report a new method - an evolution review - to understand and document the evolution of outcomes reported at each stage of evaluation of novel surgery from first in human to pragmatic multi-centre RCTs. A search strategy identified all search terms for precursors and derivatives of a novel surgical intervention and was run in Embase and Medline. Abstracts with primary data were included and ordered chronologically, sequentially numbered and then grouped by year. We identified the year of publication of the first-in-human study and used that year to begin the sampling. Three publications were sampled from each year after randomly ordering. An additional sample equal in size to the previous sample was randomly sampled from the remainder. This methodology was chosen as the initial sample ensured representation of each year studied and the second sample added weight to years where there was a higher frequency of studies published. This new methodology - which we have termed an ‘evolution review’ - aims to use this information to inform guidelines for outcome reporting during the evolution of surgical interventions.

Choosing outcomes for a core outcome set: does provision of feedback between delphi survey rounds help prioritise items?

Background A core outcome set (COS) is a minimal set of outcomes to be reported in a trial. Development is often challenging because patients and clinicians identify many important outcomes and prioritisation is difficult. Delphi surveys (with several rounds) are one approach for prioritising outcomes. Summarised participant responses are provided in subsequent ‘rounds’, allowing initial responses to be changed in light of this feedback. While developing a COS for obesity surgery, we explored the impact of this feedback on outcome prioritisation.

Outcome reporting in bariatric surgery: an in-depth analysis to inform the development of a core outcome set, the BARIACT Study: Bariact Study core outcome set

Outcome reporting in bariatric surgery needs a core outcome set (COS), an agreed minimum set of outcomes reported in all studies of a particular condition. The aim of this study was to summarize outcome reporting in bariatric surgery to inform the development of a COS. Outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and large non‐randomized studies identified by a systematic review were listed verbatim and categorized into domains, scrutinizing the frequency of outcome reporting and uniformity of definitions. Ninety studies (39 RCTs) identified 1,088 separate outcomes, grouped into nine domains with most (n = 920, 85%) reported only once. The largest outcome domain was ‘surgical complications’, and overall, 42% of outcomes corresponded to a theme of ‘adverse events’. Only a quarter of outcomes were defined, and where provided definitions, which were often contradictory. Percentage of excess weight loss was the main study outcome in 49 studies, but nearly 40% of weight loss outcomes were heterogeneous, thus not comparable. Outcomes of diverse bariatric operations focus largely on adverse events. Reporting is inconsistent and ill‐defined, limiting interpretation and comparison of published studies. Thus, we propose and are developing a COS for the surgical treatment of severe and complex obesity.

Outcome reporting in bariatric surgery

Outcome reporting in bariatric surgery needs a core outcome set (COS), an agreed minimum set of outcomes reported in all studies of a particular condition. The aim of this study was to summarize outcome reporting in bariatric surgery to inform the development of a COS. Outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and large non‐randomized studies identified by a systematic review were listed verbatim and categorized into domains, scrutinizing the frequency of outcome reporting and uniformity of definitions. Ninety studies (39 RCTs) identified 1,088 separate outcomes, grouped into nine domains with most (n = 920, 85%) reported only once. The largest outcome domain was ‘surgical complications’, and overall, 42% of outcomes corresponded to a theme of ‘adverse events’. Only a quarter of outcomes were defined, and where provided definitions, which were often contradictory. Percentage of excess weight loss was the main study outcome in 49 studies, but nearly 40% of weight loss outcomes were heterogeneous, thus not comparable. Outcomes of diverse bariatric operations focus largely on adverse events. Reporting is inconsistent and ill‐defined, limiting interpretation and comparison of published studies. Thus, we propose and are developing a COS for the surgical treatment of severe and complex obesity.