Plain English Summary: This commentary article describes three interactive workshops that explored how patients can contribute to decisions about what outcomes are measured in clinical trials across the world. Outcomes like quality of life, side-effects and pain are used in trials to measure whether a treatment is effective. Here, we outline how research groups are increasingly coming together to develop 'core outcomes sets' for particular conditions. Core outcome sets are lists of agreed outcomes. Their use will help in identifying which treatments are effective by enabling people to compare the findings of different clinical trials in the same condition. Currently, it is often very difficult to make these comparisons because different studies often measure different outcomes. Delegates attending the workshops included patients, clinicians and researchers. They discussed ways of making core outcome set development more meaningful and accessible for patients, and ensuring that they have a genuine say in the development process. This article summarises these discussions and concludes by identifying three distinctive challenges in securing patient input to core outcome set development: the process and objectives can seem far removed from the immediate concerns of patients, difficulties can arise in securing patient input on an international scale, and difficulties can also arise in bringing multiple stakeholder groups together to achieve consensus. While patient participation, involvement and engagement in core outcome set development can draw on lessons from other research areas, these distinctive challenges point to the need for distinctive solutions to enable meaningful patient input to core outcome set development.
Abstract: This article describes three workshops that explored how patients can contribute to decisions about what outcomes are measured in clinical trials. People need evidence about what treatments are best for particular health conditions. The strongest evidence comes from systematic reviews comparing outcomes across different studies of treatments for a particular condition. However, it is often difficult to do these comparisons because the different studies-even though they have all investigated the same condition-often measure different outcomes. To tackle this problem, research teams are increasingly coming together to develop core outcome sets (COS) for particular conditions or treatments. The goal is that across the world, all the research teams working on the same condition or treatment will then use the COS in their research. We report on three interactive workshops that explored how patients and the public can contribute to decision making about what outcomes should be included in a COS. About 100 international delegates, including researchers, clinicians and patients, attended the workshops. The workshops were held in the United Kingdom, Italy and Canada as part of the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative annual meetings. Patients who had some experience as research advisors, collaborators, partners or co-ordinators facilitated the workshops together with a researcher. Notes made during each workshop informed the preparation of this article. Workshop discussion focussed on ways of making core outcome set development more meaningful and accessible for patients. Delegates wanted patients to have a genuine say, alongside other stakeholders, in what outcomes are included in COS. Delegates felt that key to ensuring this is recognising that patient participation in COS development alone is not enough, and that patients will also need to be involved in the design of COS development studies. We conclude by pointing to some distinctive challenges in including patients in COS development. While the COS development community can draw on the lessons learnt from other research areas about patient participation, involvement and engagement, the distinctive challenges that arise in COS development point to the need for some distinctive solutions too.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5831887 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40900-016-0039-6 | DOI Listing |
Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol
January 2025
Department of Surgery, Trinity St. James's Cancer Institute, Dublin, Ireland.
Introduction: Advances in treatment strategies for gastric and esophageal cancer have led to improved long-term outcomes, however the local and systemic effects of tumor growth, neoadjuvant therapies and surgery, results in specific nutritional challenges. Comprehensive nutritional evaluation and support represents a core component of multidisciplinary holistic care for this patient population.
Areas Covered: This review provides a detailed overview of the nutritional challenges in gastric and esophageal cancer, with a focus on malignant obstruction, preoperative optimization and nutrition in survivorship.
BMC Cancer
January 2025
Department of Radiation Oncology, First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, 295 Xichang Road, Kunming, 650032, P. R. China.
Introduction: The core objective of this study was to precisely locate metastatic lymph nodes, identify potential areas in nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients that may not require radiotherapy, and propose a hypothesis for reduced target volume radiotherapy on the basis of these findings. Ultimately, we reassessed the differences in dosimetry of organs at risk (OARs) between reduced target volume (reduced CTV2) radiotherapy and standard radiotherapy.
Methods And Materials: A total of 209 patients participated in the study.
Nat Commun
January 2025
Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Gut microbiota disruptions after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) are associated with increased risk of acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD). We designed a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial to test whether healthy-donor fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) early after alloHCT reduces the incidence of severe aGVHD. Here, we report the results from the single-arm run-in phase which identified the best of 3 stool donors for the randomized phase.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFLancet
January 2025
Francis I Proctor Foundation, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Department of Ophthalmology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Institute for Global Health Sciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Background: Adalimumab is an effective treatment for juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated uveitis. Data are scarce on the effects of discontinuing adalimumab after control of the disease had been reached. We aimed to assess efficacy and safety of discontinuing treatment in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated uveitis.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFClin Microbiol Infect
January 2025
Clinic for Infectious Diseases and Hospital Hygiene, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Faculty of Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. Electronic address:
Background: Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) remain a significant challenge worldwide, and the use of multimodal strategies is recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) to enhance infection prevention.
Objectives: To update the systematic review on facility-level infection prevention and control (IPC) interventions on the WHO Core Component of using multimodal strategies.
Methods: Data Sources: Medline (via PubMed), EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane library.
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!