A Core Outcome Set for Seamless, Standardized Evaluation of Innovative Surgical Procedures and Devices (COHESIVE) A Patient and Professional Stakeholder Consensus Study

被引:20
作者
Avery, Kerry N. L. [1 ,2 ]
Wilson, Nicholas [1 ,2 ]
Macefield, Rhiannon [1 ,2 ]
McNair, Angus [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Hoffmann, Christin [1 ,2 ]
Blazeby, Jane M. [1 ,2 ,4 ]
Potter, Shelley [1 ,2 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Bristol, Natl Inst Hlth Res Bristol Biomed Res Ctr, Bristol Ctr, Bristol Med Sch, Bristol, England
[2] Univ Bristol, Populat Hlth Sci, Bristol, Avon, England
[3] North Bristol NHS Trust, Gastrointestinal Surg, Bristol, England
[4] Univ Hosp Bristol NHS Fdn Trust, Bristol Royal Infirm, Div Surg, Bristol, England
[5] Bristol Breast Care Ctr, North Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Rd, Bristol, England
关键词
core outcome set; Delphi technique; device approval; operative; outcome assessment; surgical procedures;
D O I
10.1097/SLA.0000000000004975
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective:To develop a COS, an agreed minimum set of outcomes to measure and report in all studies evaluating the introduction and evaluation of novel surgical techniques. Summary of Background Data:Agreement on the key outcomes to measure and report for safe and efficient surgical innovation is lacking, hindering transparency and risking patient harm. Methods:(I) Generation of a list of outcome domains from published innovation-specific literature, policy/regulatory body documents, and surgeon interviews; (II) Prioritization of identified outcome domains using an international, multi-stakeholder Delphi survey; (III) Consensus meeting to agree the final COS. Participants were international stakeholders, including patients/public, surgeons, device manufacturers, regulators, trialists, methodologists, and journal editors. Results:A total of 7972 verbatim outcomes were identified, categorized into 32 domains, and formatted into survey items/questions. Four hundred ten international participants (220 professionals, 190 patients/public) completed at least one round 1 survey item, of which 153 (69.5%) professionals and 116 (61.1%) patients completed at least one round 2 item. Twelve outcomes were scored "consensus in" ("very important" by >= 70% of patients and professionals) and 20 "no consensus." A consensus meeting, involvingcontext: modifications, unexpected disadvantages, device problems, technical procedure completion success, patients' experience relating to the procedure being innovative, surgeons'/operators' experience. Other domains relate to intended benefits, whether the overall desired effect was achieved and expected disadvantages. Conclusions:The COS is recommended for use in all studies before definitive randomized controlled trial evaluation to promote safe, transparent, and efficient surgical innovation.
引用
收藏
页码:238 / 245
页数:8
相关论文
共 33 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2019, Stata Statistical Software: release 16
[2]   Development of reporting guidance and core outcome sets for seamless, standardised evaluation of innovative surgical procedures and devices: a study protocol for content generation and a Delphi consensus process (COHESIVE study) [J].
Avery, Kerry ;
Blazeby, Jane ;
Wilson, Nicholas ;
Macefield, Rhiannon ;
Cousins, Sian ;
Main, Barry ;
Blencowe, Natalie S. ;
Zahra, Jesmond ;
Elliott, Daisy ;
Hinchliffe, Robert ;
Potter, Shelley .
BMJ OPEN, 2019, 9 (09)
[3]   The IDEAL Reporting Guidelines A Delphi Consensus Statement Stage Specific Recommendations for Reporting the Evaluation of Surgical Innovation [J].
Bilbro, Nicole A. ;
Hirst, Allison ;
Paez, Arsenio ;
Vasey, Baptiste ;
Pufulete, Maria ;
Sedrakyan, Art ;
McCulloch, Peter .
ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2021, 273 (01) :82-85
[4]   Conceptualising Surgical Innovation: An Eliminativist Proposal [J].
Birchley, Giles ;
Ives, Jonathan ;
Huxtable, Richard ;
Blazeby, Jane .
HEALTH CARE ANALYSIS, 2020, 28 (01) :73-97
[5]   Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research [J].
Chan, An-Wen ;
Song, Fujian ;
Vickers, Andrew ;
Jefferson, Tom ;
Dickersin, Kay ;
Gotzsche, Peter C. ;
Krumholz, Harlan M. ;
Ghersi, Davina ;
van der Worp, H. Bart .
LANCET, 2014, 383 (9913) :257-266
[6]   MEDICAL DEVICES How safe are metal-on-metal hip implants? [J].
Cohen, Deborah .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2012, 344
[7]   Introduction and adoption of innovative invasive procedures and devices in the NHS: an in-depth analysis of written policies and qualitative interviews (the INTRODUCE study protocol) [J].
Cousins, Sian ;
Richards, Hollie ;
Zahra, Jesmond ;
Elliott, Daisy ;
Avery, Kerry ;
Robertson, Harry F. ;
Paramasivan, Sangeetha ;
Wilson, Nicholas ;
Mathews, Johnny ;
Tolkien, Zoe ;
Main, Barry G. ;
Blencowe, Natalie S. ;
Hinchliffe, Robert ;
Blazeby, Jane M. .
BMJ OPEN, 2019, 9 (08)
[8]  
Cumberlege J., 2020, First Do No Harm: The Report of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review
[9]   A taxonomy has been developed for outcomes in medical research to help improve knowledge discovery [J].
Dodd, Susanna ;
Clarke, Mike ;
Becker, Lorne ;
Mavergames, Chris ;
Fish, Rebecca ;
Williamson, Paula R. .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2018, 96 :84-92
[10]   Robot assisted surgery is blamed for heart patient's death [J].
Dyer, Clare .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2018, 363 :k4791