Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Trials
Published in: Trials 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Study protocol

COSUMO: study protocol for the development of a core outcome set for efficacy and effectiveness trials in posterior segment-involving uveitis

Authors: Mohammad O. Tallouzi, Jonathan M. Mathers, David J. Moore, Philip I. Murray, Nicholas Bucknall, Jane M. Blazeby, Melanie Calvert, Alastair K. Denniston

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Uveitis, a group of disorders characterised by intraocular inflammation, causes 10–15% of total blindness in the developed world. The most sight-threatening uveitis affects the posterior segment of the eye (posterior-segment involving uveitis (PSIU)). Numerous different outcomes have been used in clinical trials evaluating alternative treatments for uveitis, limiting inter-trial comparison and aggregation of data. We aim to develop a core outcome set (COS) that would provide a standardised set of outcomes to be measured and reported in all effectiveness trials for PSIU.

Methods

A three-phase design will be used informed by recommendations from the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative. Phase 1: a comprehensive list of outcomes will be identified through both a systematic review of effectiveness trials of PSIU and qualitative research with stakeholders. The qualitative study will comprise focus groups with patients and their carers in parallel with one-to-one telephone interviews with health professionals and policy-makers. In the focus groups, patients will be grouped according to whether or not their uveitis is complicated by the sight-threatening condition uveitic macular oedema (UMO) since it is hypothesised that the presence of UMO may significantly impact on patient experience of PSIU. Phase 2: Delphi methodology will be used to reduce the range of potential outcomes for the core set. Up to three Delphi rounds will be used through an online survey. Participants will be asked to rate the importance of each outcome on a 9-point Likert scale where 9 is most important. Phase 3: a consensus meeting will be held with key stakeholders to discuss the Delphi results and ratify the final outcomes to be included in the COS.

Discussion

The development of an agreed COS for PSIU would help ensure that outcomes which matter to key stakeholders are captured and reported in a consistent way. A COS for PSIU would allow greater comparison and aggregation of data across trials for the better evaluation of established and emerging therapies through evidence synthesis and meta-analysis to inform clinical guidelines and health policy.

Trial registration

Literature
1.
Durrani O, Meads C, Murray P. Uveitis: a potentially blinding disease. Ophthalmologica. 2004;218(4):223–36.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Williams GJ, Brannan S, Forrester JV, Gavin MP, Paterson-Brown SP, Purdie A, et al. The prevalence of sight-threatening uveitis in Scotland. Br J Ophthalmol. 2007;91(1):33–6.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Gritz DC, Wong IG. Incidence and prevalence of uveitis in Northern California: the Northern California epidemiology of uveitis study. Ophthalmology. 2004;111(3):491–500.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Suhler EB, Lloyd MJ, Choi D, Rosenbaum JT, Austin DF. Incidence and prevalence of uveitis in Veterans Affairs Medical Centers of the Pacific Northwest. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;146(6):890–6. e8.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Abdulaal MR, Abiad BH, Hamam RN. Uveitis in the aging eye: incidence, patterns, and differential diagnosis. J Ophthalmol. 2015;2015:1–8.CrossRef
6.
7.
Vadot E, Barth E, Billet P. Epidemiology of uveitis—preliminary results of a prospective study in Savoy. Uveitis update. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1984. p. 136.
8.
9.
de Smet MD, Taylor SR, Bodaghi B, Miserocchi E, Murray PI, Pleyer U, et al. Understanding uveitis: the impact of research on visual outcomes. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2011;30(6):452–70.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Bloch-Michel E, Nussenblatt RB. International Uveitis Study Group recommendations for the evaluation of intraocular inflammatory disease. Am J Ophthalmol. 1987;103(2):234–5.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Jabs DA, Nussenblatt RB, Rosenbaum JT. Standardization of uveitis nomenclature for reporting clinical data. Results of the First International Workshop. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;140(3):509–16.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Lardenoye CW, van Kooij B, Rothova A. Impact of macular edema on visual acuity in uveitis. Ophthalmology. 2006;113(8):1446–9.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Davis J. Current concepts in the management of uveitic macular edema. Adv Stud Ophthalmol. 2010;7(2):60–6.
14.
Jones N. The Manchester Uveitis Clinic: the first 3000 patients, 2: uveitis manifestations, complications, medical and surgical management. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2015;23(2):127–34.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Barry RJ, Denniston AK. Controversies in the pharmacological treatment of uveitis. Curr Pharm Des. 2015;21(32):4682–7.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Sreekantam S, Denniston AK, Murray PI. Survey of expert practice and perceptions of the supporting clinical evidence for the management of uveitis-related cataract and cystoid macular oedema. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2011;19(5):353–7.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Denniston AK, Holland GN, Kidess A, Nussenblatt RB, Okada AA, Rosenbaum JT, et al. Heterogeneity of primary outcome measures used in clinical trials of treatments for intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2015;10(1):97.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
19.
Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Devane D, Gargon E, et al. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials. 2012;13(1):1.CrossRef
20.
Kirkham JJ, Boers M, Tugwell P, Clarke M, Williamson PR. Outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis randomised trials over the last 50 years. Trials. 2013;14(1):1.CrossRef
21.
Ward-Smith P. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Urol Nurs. 2014;34(4):204–6.
22.
Hsu C-C, Sandford BA. The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2007;12(10):1–8.
23.
Tallouzi MO, Moore DJ, Calvert M, Murray PI, Bucknall N, Denniston AK. The effectiveness of pharmacological agents for the treatment of uveitic macular oedema (UMO): a systematic review protocol. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):29.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Wilkinson S. Focus groups a feminist method. Psychol Women Q. 1999;23(2):221–44.CrossRef
25.
Kerr C, Nixon A, Wild D. Assessing and demonstrating data saturation in qualitative inquiry supporting patient-reported outcomes research. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010;10(3):269–81.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Carr EC, Worth A. The use of the telephone interview for research. Nurs Times Res. 2001;6(1):511–24.CrossRef
27.
28.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology. 2006;3(2):77-101.
29.
Sinha IP, Smyth RL, Williamson PR. Using the Delphi technique to determine which outcomes to measure in clinical trials: recommendations for the future based on a systematic review of existing studies. PLoS Med. 2011;8(1):e1000393.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Taylor WJ, Schumacher HR, Baraf HS, Chapman P, Stamp L, Doherty M, et al. A modified Delphi exercise to determine the extent of consensus with OMERACT outcome domains for studies of acute and chronic gout. Ann Rheum Dis. 2008;67(6):888–91.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Khanna D, Lovell DJ, Giannini E, Clements PJ, Merkel PA, Seibold JR, et al. Development of a provisional core set of response measures for clinical trials of systemic sclerosis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2008;67(5):703–9.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Payne K, Nicholls SG, McAllister M, MacLeod R, Ellis I, Donnai D, et al. Outcome measures for clinical genetics services: a comparison of genetics healthcare professionals and patients’ views. Health Policy. 2007;84(1):112–22.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Bae JH, Lee CS, Lee SC. Efficacy and safety of intravitreal bevacizumab compared with intravitreal and posterior sub-tenon triamcinolone acetonide for treatment of uveitic cystoid macular edema. Retina. 2011;31(1):111–8.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Hewlett SA. Patients and clinicians have different perspectives on outcomes in arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2003;30(4):877–9.PubMed
35.
Clarke M. Standardising outcomes for clinical trials and systematic reviews. Trials. 2007;8(1):1.CrossRef
36.
Rodrigues IA, Sprinkhuizen SM, Barthelmes D, Blumenkranz M, Cheung G, Haller J, et al. Defining a minimum set of standardized patient-centered outcome measures for macular degeneration. Am J Ophthalmol. 2016;168:1–12.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Potter S, Holcombe C, Ward JA, Blazeby JM. Development of a core outcome set for research and audit studies in reconstructive breast surgery. Br J Surg. 2015;102(11):1360–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Potter S, Mills N, Cawthorn S, Wilson S, Blazeby J. Exploring inequalities in access to care and the provision of choice to women seeking breast reconstruction surgery: a qualitative study. Br J Cancer. 2013;109(5):1181–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
Potter S, Mills N, Cawthorn SJ, Donovan J, Blazeby JM. Time to be BRAVE: is educating surgeons the key to unlocking the potential of randomised clinical trials in surgery? A qualitative study. Trials. 2014;15:80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Sanderson T, Morris M, Calnan M, Richards P, Hewlett S. What outcomes from pharmacologic treatments are important to people with rheumatoid arthritis? Creating the basis of a patient core set. Arthritis Care Res. 2010;62(5):640–6.CrossRef
41.
Sanderson T, Morris M, Calnan M, Richards P, Hewlett S. Patient perspective of measuring treatment efficacy: the rheumatoid arthritis patient priorities for pharmacologic interventions outcomes. Arthritis Care Res. 2010;62(5):647–56.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
COSUMO: study protocol for the development of a core outcome set for efficacy and effectiveness trials in posterior segment-involving uveitis
Authors
Mohammad O. Tallouzi
Jonathan M. Mathers
David J. Moore
Philip I. Murray
Nicholas Bucknall
Jane M. Blazeby
Melanie Calvert
Alastair K. Denniston
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2294-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Trials 1/2017 Go to the issue

Study protocol

Retroclavicular approach vs infraclavicular approach for plexic bloc anesthesia of the upper limb: study protocol randomized controlled trial

Erratum

Erratum to: Diet and exercise in uterine cancer survivors (DEUS pilot) - piloting a healthy eating and physical activity program: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Review

Developing a core outcome set for chronic rhinosinusitis: a systematic review of outcomes utilised in the current literature

Study protocol

The effects of a psychological intervention directed at optimizing immune function: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

Anesthetic management of cesarean section in cases of placenta accreta, with versus without abdominal aortic balloon occlusion: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

A randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of thulium laser transurethral vaporesection of the prostate (ThuVARP) versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in the National Health Service (NHS) – the UNBLOCS trial: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial