Centre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, United Kingdom.
Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Ann Surg. 2018 Apr;267(4):700-710. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002204.
Development of a core outcome set (COS) for clinical effectiveness trials in esophageal cancer resection surgery.
Inconsistency and heterogeneity in outcome reporting after esophageal cancer resection surgery hampers comparison of trial results and undermines evidence synthesis. COSs provide an evidence-based approach to these challenges.
A long list of clinical and patient-reported outcomes was identified and categorized into outcome domains. Domains were operationalized into a questionnaire and patients and health professionals rated the importance of items from 1 (not important) to 9 (extremely important) in 2 Delphi survey rounds. Retained items were discussed at a consensus meeting and a final COS proposed. Professionals were surveyed to request endorsement of the COS.
A total of 68 outcome domains were identified and operationalized into a questionnaire; 116 (91%) of consenting patients and 72 (77%) of health professionals completed round 1. Round 2 response rates remained high (87% patients, 93% professionals). Rounds 1 and 2 prioritized 43 and 19 items, respectively. Retained items were discussed at a patient consensus meeting and a final 10-item COS proposed, endorsed by 61/67 (91%) professionals and including: overall survival; in-hospital mortality; inoperability; need for another operation; respiratory complications; conduit necrosis and anastomotic leak; severe nutritional problems; ability to eat/drink; problems with acid indigestion or heartburn; and overall quality of life.
The COS is recommended for all pragmatic clinical effectiveness trials in esophageal cancer resection surgery. Further work is needed to delineate the definitions and parameters and explore best methods for measuring the individual outcomes.
为食管癌切除术的临床疗效试验制定核心结局集(COS)。
食管癌切除术后的结果报告不一致且存在异质性,这阻碍了试验结果的比较,并破坏了证据的综合。COS 为应对这些挑战提供了一种基于证据的方法。
确定了一长串临床和患者报告的结果,并将其分类为结局领域。这些领域被转化为一个问卷,患者和卫生专业人员在两轮 Delphi 调查中对项目的重要性进行了 1(不重要)到 9(非常重要)的评分。保留的项目在共识会议上进行了讨论,并提出了最终的 COS。专业人员进行了调查,以请求对 COS 的认可。
共确定了 68 个结局领域,并将其转化为问卷;有 116 名(91%)同意的患者和 72 名(77%)卫生专业人员完成了第一轮调查。第二轮的回应率仍然很高(患者 87%,专业人员 93%)。两轮调查分别对 43 项和 19 项进行了优先级排序。保留的项目在患者共识会议上进行了讨论,并提出了最终的 10 项 COS,获得了 67 名专业人员中的 61 名(91%)的认可,其中包括:总生存率;住院死亡率;不可手术性;需要再次手术;呼吸并发症;移植物坏死和吻合口漏;严重营养问题;进食/饮水能力;胃酸反流或烧心问题;以及整体生活质量。
建议在所有针对食管癌切除术的实用临床疗效试验中使用 COS。需要进一步研究来描述定义和参数,并探索测量个别结果的最佳方法。