Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34666680›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2021

coreSCD: multi-stakeholder consensus on core outcomes for sickle cell disease clinical trials.

Ellen Tambor, Matoya Robinson, Lewis Hsu, Hsing-Yuan Chang, Jennifer Al Naber, coreSCD Panel

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
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

6 authors.

Ellen TamborCenter for Medical Technology Policy, 401 E. Pratt St., Suite 631, Baltimore, MD, 21202, USA. ellen.tambor@cmtpnet.org.ORCID 0000-0003-4779-5552
Matoya RobinsonMicromattie Consulting, San Diego, CA, USA.
Lewis HsuDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Hsing-Yuan ChangCenter for Medical Technology Policy, 401 E. Pratt St., Suite 631, Baltimore, MD, 21202, USA.
Jennifer Al NaberCenter for Medical Technology Policy, 401 E. Pratt St., Suite 631, Baltimore, MD, 21202, USA.
coreSCD Panel

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith the dramatic increase in the pipeline for new sickle cell disease (SCD) therapies in recent years, the time is ripe to ensure a robust body of evidence is available for decision making by regulators, payers, clinicians, and patients. Harmonization of the outcomes selected across interventional trials enables optimal post-trial appraisal and decision making through valid pooled analyses and indirect comparisons. We employed a structured, multi-stakeholder consensus process to develop core outcome sets (COS) for use in clinical trials of SCD interventions.

methodsCoreSCD utilized a modified Delphi method adapted from the standards recommended by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative. An initial list of candidate outcomes was developed through a targeted literature review and input from an 11-member advisory committee. A 44-member multi-stakeholder Delphi Panel was established and included patients and family members, advocates, clinicians, researchers, payers, health technology assessors, representatives from government agencies, and industry representatives. Patients/advocates comprised 25% of the Delphi Panel and orientation and training was provided prior to the consensus process to ensure all were prepared to participate meaningfully. Panelists completed three rounds of an online survey to rate the importance of candidate outcomes for inclusion in the COS. Summary data was provided between each voting round and an in-person consensus meeting was held between the second and third round of voting. Consensus rules were applied following each round of voting to eliminate outcomes that did not meet predetermined criteria for retention.

resultsConsensus was reached for two core outcome sets. The final COS for trials of disease-modifying therapies includes ten outcomes and the COS for trials of acute interventions includes six outcomes. Both core sets include clinical outcomes as well as outcomes related to functioning/quality of life, resource utilization, and survival/mortality.

conclusionsUse of the COS in clinical development programs for SCD will help to ensure that relevant, consistent outcomes are available for decision making across the product lifecycle.

Indexed as

Anemia, Sickle CellQuality of LifeDelphi TechniqueHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareResearch DesignTreatment OutcomeClinical trialsOutcomesSickle cell diseaseStakeholder engagement

Identifiers

PMID34666680
PMCPMC8524872

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.