This is the Scientific Surgery Archive, which contains all randomized clinical trials in surgery that have been identified by searching the top 50 English language medical journal issues since January 1998. Compiled by Jonothan J. Earnshaw, former Editor-in-Chief, BJS
Development of a core outcome set for research and audit studies in reconstructive breast surgery. BJS 2015; 102: 1360-1371.
Published: 15th July 2015
Authors: S. Potter, C. Holcombe, J. A. Ward, J. M. Blazeby, S. T. Brookes, S. J. Cawthorn et al.
Background
Appropriate outcome selection is essential if research is to guide decision‐making and inform policy. Systematic reviews of the clinical, cosmetic and patient‐reported outcomes of reconstructive breast surgery, however, have demonstrated marked heterogeneity, and results from individual studies cannot be compared or combined. Use of a core outcome set may improve the situation. The
Method
A long list of outcomes identified from systematic reviews and stakeholder interviews was used to inform a questionnaire survey. Key stakeholders defined as individuals involved in decision‐making for reconstructive breast surgery, including patients, breast and plastic surgeons, specialist nurses and psychologists, were sampled purposively and sent the questionnaire (round 1). This asked them to rate the importance of each outcome on a 9‐point Likert scale from 1 (not important) to 9 (extremely important). The proportion of respondents rating each item as very important (score 7–9) was calculated. This was fed back to participants in a second questionnaire (round 2). Respondents were asked to reprioritize outcomes based on the feedback received. Items considered very important after round 2 were discussed at consensus meetings, where the core outcome set was agreed.
Results
A total of 148 items were combined into 34 domains within six categories. Some 303 participants (51·4 per cent) (215 (49·5 per cent) of 434 patients; 88 (56·4 per cent) of 156 professionals) completed and returned the round 1 questionnaire, and 259 (85·5 per cent) reprioritized outcomes in round 2. Fifteen items were excluded based on questionnaire scores and 19 were carried forward to the consensus meetings, where a core outcome set containing 11 key outcomes was agreed.
Conclusion
The
You may also be interested in
Original article
Authors: K. B. I. M. Keymeulen, S. M. E. Geurts, M. B. I. Lobbes, E. M. Heuts, L. E. M. Duijm, L. F. S. Kooreman et al.
Original article
Authors: E. Heeg, J. X. Harmeling, B. E. Becherer, P. J. Marang‐van de Mheen, M. T. F. D. Vrancken Peeters, M. A. M. Mureau et al.
Original article
Authors: M. B. Nava, J. R. Benson, W. Audretsch, P. Blondeel, G. Catanuto, M. W. Clemens et al.
Original article
Authors: I. G. M. Poodt, G. Vugts, R. J. Schipper, R. M. H. Roumen, H. J. T. Rutten, A. J. G. Maaskant‐Braat et al.
Notes: No impact
Original article
Authors: A. Karakatsanis, A.‐F. Hersi, L. Pistiolis, R. Olofsson Bagge, P. M. Lykoudis, S. Eriksson et al.
Original article
Authors: V. L. Negenborn, J. M. Smit, R. E. G. Dikmans, H. A. H. Winters, J. W. R. Twisk, P. Q. Ruhé et al.
Original article
Authors: A. Lindegren, I. Schultz, I. Sinha, L. Cheung, A. A. Khan, M. Tekle et al.
Notes: Effects on fibrosis after radiotherapy
Original article
Authors: F. Magnoni, G. Massari, G. Santomauro, V. Bagnardi, E. Pagan, G. Peruzzotti et al.
Original article
Authors: Y. Grant, R. Al‐Khudairi, E. St John, M. Barschkett, D. Cunningham, R. Al‐Mufti et al.
Notes: Reoperations expensive
Systematic review
Authors: S. R. Tee, L. A. Devane, D. Evoy, J. Rothwell, J. Geraghty, R. S. Prichard et al.
Notes: In selected patients using dual tracer
Original article
Authors: A. A. Khan, I. Hernan, J. A. Adamthwaite, K. W. D. Ramsey
Notes: Effective in selected patients
Randomized clinical trial
Authors: G. Gui, A. Agusti, D. Twelves, S. Tang, M. Kabir, C. Montgomery et al.
Notes: Identifies causative lesion