1 National Institute for Health Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Ropewalk House, UK.
2 Hearing Sciences, Division of Clinical Neuroscience, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, UK.
Trends Hear. 2019 Jan-Dec;23:2331216518824827. doi: 10.1177/2331216518824827.
Good practice in clinical trials advocates common standards for assessing and reporting condition-specific complaints ("outcome domains"). For tinnitus, there is no common standard. The Core Outcome Measures in Tinnitus International Delphi (COMiT'ID) study created recommendations that are relevant to the most common intervention approaches for chronic subjective tinnitus in adults using consensus methods. Here, the objectives were to examine why it is important to tailor outcome domain selection to the tinnitus intervention that is being evaluated in the clinical trial and to demonstrate that the COMiT'ID recommendations are robust. The COMiT'ID study used an online three-round Delphi method with three separate surveys for sound-, psychology-, and pharmacology-based interventions. Survey data were analyzed to assess quality and confidence in the consensus achieved across surveys and stakeholder groups and between survey rounds. Results found participants were highly discriminatory in their decision-making. Of the 34 outcome domains reaching the prespecified consensus definition in the final round, 17 (50%) were unique to one intervention, while only 12 (35%) were common to all three. Robustness was demonstrated by an acceptable level of agreement across and within stakeholder groups, across survey rounds, across medical specialties (for the health-care practitioners), and across health-care users with varying tinnitus duration. There were few dissenting voices, and results showed no attrition bias. In conclusion, there is compelling evidence that one set of outcomes does not fit all therapeutic aims. Our analyses evidence robust decisions by the electronic Delphi process, leading to recommendations for three unique intervention-specific outcome domain sets. This provides an important starting point for standardization.
临床试验中的良好实践提倡使用通用标准来评估和报告特定于疾病的投诉(“结局领域”)。对于耳鸣,目前还没有通用标准。使用共识方法,耳鸣国际德尔菲(COMiT'ID)研究创建了针对成人慢性主观性耳鸣最常见干预方法的相关建议。在这里,目的是研究为什么根据临床试验中正在评估的耳鸣干预措施来定制结局领域选择很重要,并证明 COM iT'ID 建议是可靠的。COM iT'ID 研究使用了在线三轮 Delphi 方法,针对声音、心理学和药理学干预措施进行了三项独立调查。对调查数据进行了分析,以评估共识在调查和利益相关者群体之间以及在调查轮次之间的质量和信心。结果发现参与者在决策方面具有高度的辨别力。在最后一轮达到预设共识定义的 34 个结局领域中,有 17 个(50%)仅针对一种干预措施,而只有 12 个(35%)适用于所有三种干预措施。通过利益相关者群体之间和内部、调查轮次之间、医疗专业之间(对于医疗保健从业者)以及耳鸣持续时间不同的医疗保健用户之间的一致性来证明其稳健性。少数持不同意见的声音,并且结果表明没有选择偏差。总之,有令人信服的证据表明,一套结局并不能适应所有治疗目标。我们的分析证明了电子 Delphi 过程做出了稳健的决策,从而为三个独特的干预特异性结局领域集提出了建议。这为标准化提供了一个重要的起点。