67
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A core outcome set for clinical trials on non-specific low back pain: study protocol for the development of a core domain set

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most disabling and costly disorders affecting modern society, and approximately 90% of patients are labelled as having non-specific LBP (NSLBP). Several interventions for patients with NSLBP have been assessed in clinical trials, but heterogeneous reporting of outcomes in these trials has hindered comparison of results and performance of meta-analyses. Moreover, there is a risk of selective outcome reporting bias. To address these issues, the development of a core outcome set (COS) that should be measured in all clinical trials for a specific health condition has been recommended. A standardized set of outcomes for LBP was proposed in 1998, however, with evolution in COS development methodology, new instruments, interventions, and understanding of measurement properties, it is appropriate to update that proposal. This protocol describes the methods used in the initial step in developing a COS for NSLBP, namely, establishing a core domain set that should be measured in all clinical trials. Methods/Design An International Steering Committee including researchers, clinicians, and patient representatives from four continents was formed to guide the development of this COS. The approach of initiatives like Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) and Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) was followed. Participants were invited to participate in a Delphi study aimed at generating a consensus-based core domain set for NSLBP. A list of potential core domains was drafted and presented to the Delphi participants who were asked to judge which domains were core. Participant suggestions about overlap, aggregation, or addition of potential core domains were addressed during the study. The patients’ responses were isolated to assess whether there was substantial disagreement with the rest of the Delphi panel. A priori thresholds for consensus were established before each Delphi round. All participants’ responses were analysed from a quantitative and qualitative perspective to ascertain that no substantial discrepancies between the two approaches emerged. Discussion We present the initial step in developing a COS for NSLBP. The next step will be to determine which measurement instruments adequately cover the domains.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes.

          Our model proposes a taxonomy or classification scheme for different measures of health outcome. We divide these outcomes into five levels: biological and physiological factors, symptoms, functioning, general health perceptions, and overall quality of life. In addition to classifying these outcome measures, we propose specific causal relationships between them that link traditional clinical variables to measures of HRQL. As one moves from left to right in the model, one moves outward from the cell to the individual to the interaction of the individual as a member of society. The concepts at each level are increasingly integrated and increasingly difficult to define and measure. AT each level, there are an increasing number of inputs that cannot be controlled by clinicians or the health care system as it is traditionally defined.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews

            To examine the prevalence of outcome reporting bias-the selection for publication of a subset of the original recorded outcome variables on the basis of the results-and its impact on Cochrane reviews.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Trials
                Trials
                Springer Science and Business Media LLC
                1745-6215
                December 2014
                December 26 2014
                December 2014
                : 15
                : 1
                Article
                10.1186/1745-6215-15-511
                350f372c-e5ef-4975-b5ae-7ec8c926630b
                © 2014

                http://www.springer.com/tdm

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article