43
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses of appendicitis treatments in children: a systematic review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          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

          Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency in children. Despite this, there is no core outcome set (COS) described for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children with appendicitis and hence no consensus regarding outcome selection, definition and reporting. We aimed to identify outcomes currently reported in studies of paediatric appendicitis.

          Methods

          Using a defined, sensitive search strategy, we identified RCTs and systematic reviews (SRs) of treatment interventions in children with appendicitis. Included studies were all in English and investigated the effect of one or more treatment interventions in children with acute appendicitis or undergoing appendicectomy for presumed acute appendicitis. Studies were reviewed and data extracted by two reviewers. Primary (if defined) and all other outcomes were recorded and assigned to the core areas ‘Death’, ‘Pathophysiological Manifestations’, ‘Life Impact’, ‘Resource Use’ and ‘Adverse Events’, using OMERACT Filter 2.0.

          Results

          A total of 63 studies met the inclusion criteria reporting outcomes from 51 RCTs and nine SRs. Only 25 RCTs and four SRs defined a primary outcome. A total of 115 unique and different outcomes were identified. RCTs reported a median of nine outcomes each (range 1 to 14). The most frequently reported outcomes were wound infection (43 RCTs, nine SRs), intra-peritoneal abscess (41 RCTs, seven SRs) and length of stay (35 RCTs, six SRs) yet all three were reported in just 25 RCTs and five SRs. Common outcomes had multiple different definitions or were frequently not defined. Although outcomes were reported within all core areas, just one RCT and no SR reported outcomes for all core areas. Outcomes assigned to the ‘Death’ and ‘Life Impact’ core areas were reported least frequently (in six and 15 RCTs respectively).

          Conclusions

          There is a wide heterogeneity in the selection and definition of outcomes in paediatric appendicitis, and little overlap in outcomes used across studies. A paucity of studies report patient relevant outcomes within the ‘Life Impact’ core area. These factors preclude meaningful evidence synthesis, and pose challenges to designing prospective clinical trials and cohort studies. The development of a COS for paediatric appendicitis is warranted.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0783-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references77

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: A Systematic Review

          Background A core outcome set (COS) is a standardised set of outcomes which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all effectiveness trials for a specific health area. This will allow results of studies to be compared, contrasted and combined as appropriate, as well as ensuring that all trials contribute usable information. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness Trials) Initiative aims to support the development, reporting and adoption of COS. Central to this is a publically accessible online resource, populated with all available COS. The aim of the review we report here was to identify studies that sought to determine which outcomes or domains to measure in all clinical trials in a specific condition and to describe the methodological techniques used in these studies. Methods We developed a multi-faceted search strategy for electronic databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Methodology Register). We included studies that sought to determine which outcomes/domains to measure in all clinical trials in a specific condition. Results A total of 250 reports relating to 198 studies were judged eligible for inclusion in the review. Studies covered various areas of health, most commonly cancer, rheumatology, neurology, heart and circulation, and dentistry and oral health. A variety of methods have been used to develop COS, including semi-structured discussion, unstructured group discussion, the Delphi Technique, Consensus Development Conference, surveys and Nominal Group Technique. The most common groups involved were clinical experts and non-clinical research experts. Thirty-one (16%) studies reported that the public had been involved in the process. The geographic locations of participants were predominantly North America (n = 164; 83%) and Europe (n = 150; 76%). Conclusions This systematic review identified many health areas where a COS has been developed, but also highlights important gaps. It is a further step towards a comprehensive, up-to-date database of COS. In addition, it shows the need for methodological guidance, including how to engage key stakeholder groups, particularly members of the public.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Systematic review of the definition and measurement of anastomotic leak after gastrointestinal surgery.

            Anastomotic leak after gastrointestinal surgery is an important postoperative event that leads to significant morbidity and mortality. Postoperative leak rates are frequently used as an indicator of the quality of surgical care provided. Comparison of rates between and within institutions depends on the use of standard definitions and methods of measurement of anastomotic leak. The aim of this study was to review the definition and measurement of anastomotic leak after oesophagogastric, hepatopancreaticobiliary and lower gastrointestinal surgery. A systematic review was undertaken of the published literature. Searches were carried out on five bibliographical databases (Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature and HealthSTAR) for English language articles published between 1993 and 1999. Articles were critically appraised by two independent reviewers and data on definition and measurement of anastomotic leak were extracted. Ninety-seven studies were reviewed and a total of 56 separate definitions of anastomotic leak were identified at three sites: upper gastrointestinal (13 definitions), hepatopancreaticobiliary (14) and lower gastrointestinal (29). The majority of studies used a combination of clinical features and radiological investigations to define and detect anastomotic leak. There is no universally accepted definition of anastomotic leak at any site. The definitions and values used to measure anastomotic failure vary extensively and preclude accurate comparison of rates between studies and institutions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Driving up the quality and relevance of research through the use of agreed core outcomes.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                n.j.hall@soton.ac.uk
                mufiza.kapadia@sickkids.ca
                s.eaton@ucl.ac.uk
                winnie.chan@sickkids.ca
                cheri.nickel@sickkids.ca
                agostino.pierro@sickkids.ca
                martin.offringa@sickkids.ca
                Journal
                Trials
                Trials
                Trials
                BioMed Central (London )
                1745-6215
                17 June 2015
                17 June 2015
                2015
                : 16
                : 275
                Affiliations
                [ ]Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
                [ ]Department of Paediatric Surgery and Urology, Southampton Children’s Hospital, Southampton, UK
                [ ]Toronto Outcomes Research in Child Health (TORCH), SickKids Research Institute, Toronto, Canada
                [ ]Developmental Biology Programme, UCL Institute of Child Health, London, UK
                [ ]Hospital Library and Archives, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada
                [ ]Division of General and Thoracic Surgery, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada
                Article
                783
                10.1186/s13063-015-0783-1
                4499220
                26081254
                92f5c189-176f-4fc9-b26c-83b956fae0cc
                © Hall et al. 2015

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 30 January 2015
                : 28 May 2015
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2015

                Medicine
                appendicitis,children,outcome measures,core outcome set,patient-reported outcome measures,systematic review,surgery

                Comments

                Comment on this article