Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28601837›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Development of a core outcome set for clinical trials in inflammatory bowel disease: study protocol for a systematic review of the literature and identification of a core outcome set using a Delphi survey.

Christopher Ma, Remo Panaccione, Richard N Fedorak, Claire E Parker, Reena Khanna, Barrett G Levesque, William J Sandborn, Brian G Feagan, Vipul Jairath

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Christopher MaDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Remo PanaccioneDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Richard N FedorakDivision of Gastroenterology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Claire E ParkerRobarts Clinical Trials, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Reena KhannaRobarts Clinical Trials, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Barrett G LevesqueRobarts Clinical Trials, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
William J SandbornRobarts Clinical Trials, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Brian G FeaganRobarts Clinical Trials, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Vipul JairathRobarts Clinical Trials, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCrohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), the main forms of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), are chronic, progressive and disabling disorders of the gastrointestinal tract. Although data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the foundation of evidence that validates medical therapy for IBD, considerable heterogeneity exists in the measured outcomes used in these studies. Furthermore, in recent years, there has been a paradigm shift in IBD treatment targets, moving from symptom-based scoring to improvement or normalisation of objective measures of inflammation such as endoscopic appearance, inflammatory biomarkers and histological and radiographic end points. The abundance of new treatment options and evolving end points poses opportunities and challenges for all stakeholders involved in drug development. Accordingly, there exists a need to harmonise measures used in clinical trials through the development of a core outcome set (COS). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The development of an IBD-specific COS includes four steps. First, a systematic literature review is performed to identify outcomes previously used in IBD RCTs. Second, semistructured qualitative interviews are conducted with key stakeholders, including patients, clinicians, researchers, pharmaceutical industry representatives, healthcare payers and regulators to identify additional outcomes of importance. Using the outcomes generated from literature review and stakeholder interviews, an international two-round Delphi survey is conducted to prioritise outcomes for inclusion in the COS. Finally, a consensus meeting is held to ratify the COS and disseminate findings for application in future IBD trials. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Given that over 30 novel therapeutic compounds are in development for IBD treatment, the design of robust clinical trials measuring relevant and standardised outcomes is crucial. Standardising outcomes through a COS will reduce heterogeneity in trial reporting, facilitate valid comparisons of new therapies and improve clinical trial quality.

Indexed as

Consensus Statements as TopicDelphi TechniqueHumansInflammatory Bowel DiseasesInterviews as TopicOutcome Assessment, Health CareResearch DesignStakeholder ParticipationSystematic Reviews as Topicconsensus methodscore outcome setCrohn’s diseaseDelphiInflammatory bowel diseasesystematic reviewulcerative colitis

Identifiers

PMID28601837
PMCPMC5726090

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.