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 1/2022

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Osteoarthrosis | Study protocol

Protocol for the development of a core domain set for individuals with ankle osteoarthritis

Authors: Sultan Ayyadah Alanazi, Bill Vicenzino, Christiaan J. A. van Bergen, David J. Hunter, Erik A. Wikstrom, Hylton B. Menz, Yvonne M. Golightly, Michelle D. Smith

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Ankle osteoarthritis (OA) is a debilitating health condition that is increasing in prevalence. Currently, there are no evidence-based guidelines for managing ankle OA. One of the current challenges to establishing guidelines is the lack of a widely agreed-upon set of outcome measures that are consistently used in ankle OA research. Without a set of agreed-upon outcome measures, it is difficult to synthesise clinical trial outcomes through meta-analysis—an essential element of evidence-informed practice. In order to develop an appropriate set of outcome measures for ankle OA, it is important first to develop a core domain set. In this protocol, we describe the methodological approach that we will use to develop such a core domain set for ankle OA.

Methods

We established an international steering committee to guide the development of a core domain set for ankle OA. The core domain set development will follow a multi-staged approach consisting of three phases, involving participation by patients and clinicians/healthcare professionals. In phase 1, a list of candidate domains will be gleaned from (a) a scoping review of outcome measures used in ankle OA research, (b) qualitative interviews with individuals with ankle OA, and (c) qualitative interviews with healthcare professionals with expertise in ankle OA. In phase 2, the steering committee will review and generate a list of candidate domains from those gleaned in phase 1. In phase 3, this list of candidate domains will be considered in a Delphi process to reach a consensus on a core domain set. We anticipated this will involve 3 rounds of surveys.

Conclusion

This protocol describes the methods that will be used to develop a core domain set of health-related aspects for ankle OA. Importantly, it will include both healthcare professional and patient involvement. This is a prerequisite step to developing a core outcome set for ankle OA that should be reported in all clinical trials for ankle OA. The findings will be widely disseminated across peer-refereed publication(s) and national and international conferences, as well as via relevant professional societies, patient support group organisations, and social media platforms.

Project registration

This project is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database on 17 March 2021. https://​www.​comet-initiative.​org/​Studies/​Details/​1837.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Agel J, et al. Functional limitations of patients with end-stage ankle arthrosis. Foot Ankle Int. 2005;26(7):537–9.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Hayes BJ, et al. Ankle arthritis: you can’t always replace it. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2016;24(2):e29–38.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Al-Mahrouqi MM, et al. Physical impairments in adults with ankle osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2018;48(6):449–59.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Glazebrook M, et al. Comparison of health-related quality of life between patients with end-stage ankle and hip arthrosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(3):499–505.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Saltzman CL, et al. Impact of comorbidities on the measurement of health in patients with ankle osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(11):2366–72.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Murray C, et al. Population prevalence and distribution of ankle pain and symptomatic radiographic ankle osteoarthritis in community dwelling older adults: a systematic review and cross-sectional study. PLoS One. 2018;13(4):e0193662.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
7.
Lateef S, et al. A cross-sectional analysis of radiographic ankle osteoarthritis frequency and associated factors: the Johnston County Osteoarthritis Project. J Rheumatol. 2017;44(4):499.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
8.
Valderrabano V, et al. Ligamentous posttraumatic ankle osteoarthritis. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(4):612–20.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Hirose K, et al. Lateral ligament injury of the ankle and associated articular cartilage degeneration in the talocrural joint: anatomic study using elderly cadavers. J Orthop Sci. 2004;9(1):37–43.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Golditz T, et al. Functional ankle instability as a risk factor for osteoarthritis: using T2-mapping to analyze early cartilage degeneration in the ankle joint of young athletes. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2014;22(10):1377–85.CrossRef
11.
Saltzman CL, et al. Epidemiology of ankle arthritis: report of a consecutive series of 639 patients from a tertiary orthopaedic center. Iowa Orthop J. 2005;25:44–6 1541-5457 (Print).PubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Brown TD, et al. Posttraumatic osteoarthritis: a first estimate of incidence, prevalence, and burden of disease. J Orthop Trauma. 2006;20(10):739–44.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Zhang W, et al. OARSI recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis, Part II: OARSI evidence-based, expert consensus guidelines. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2008;16(2):137–62.CrossRef
14.
Practitioners, R.A.C.o.G. Guideline for the management of knee and hip osteoarthritis; 2018. p. 82.
15.
Witteveen AG, Hofstad CJ, Kerkhoffs GM. Hyaluronic acid and other conservative treatment options for osteoarthritis of the ankle. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;10:Cd010643.
16.
Gramlich Y, et al. Total ankle replacement leads to high revision rates in post-traumatic end-stage arthrosis. Int Orthop. 2018;42(10):2375–81.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Norvell DC, et al. Frequency and impact of adverse events in patients undergoing surgery for end-stage ankle arthritis. Foot Ankle Int. 2018;39(9):1028–38.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
18.
Colen S, et al. Hyaluronic acid for the treatment of osteoarthritis in all joints except the knee. BioDrugs. 2012;26(2):101–12.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Button G, Pinney S. A meta-analysis of outcome rating scales in foot and ankle surgery: is there a valid, reliable, and responsive system? Foot Ankle Int. 2004;25(8):521–5.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Naal FD, Impellizzeri FM, Rippstein PF. Which are the most frequently used outcome instruments in studies on total ankle arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(3):815–26.PubMedCrossRef
21.
22.
Boers M, et al. Developing core outcome measurement sets for clinical trials: OMERACT filter 2.0. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(7):745–53.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Williamson P, et al. Driving up the quality and relevance of research through the use of agreed core outcomes. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2012;17(1):1–2.PubMedCrossRef
24.
25.
Kirkham JJ, et al. Can a core outcome set improve the quality of systematic reviews?--a survey of the Co-ordinating Editors of Cochrane Review Groups. Trials. 2013;14:21.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
26.
Boers M, et al. OMERACT Filter 2.1: elaboration of the conceptual framework for outcome measurement in health intervention studies. J Rheumatol. 2019;46:1021–7.PubMedCrossRef
27.
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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
28.
29.
30.
Gargon E, et al. Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: a systematic review. Value Health. 2014;17(7):A435.PubMedCrossRef
31.
32.
Young B, Bagley H. Including patients in core outcome set development: issues to consider based on three workshops with around 100 international delegates. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2(1):25.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
33.
Page MJ, et al. Identifying a core set of outcome domains to measure in clinical trials for shoulder disorders: a modified Delphi study. RMD Open. 2016;2(2):e000380.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
34.
Chiarotto A, et al. Core outcome domains for clinical trials in non-specific low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(6):1127–42.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Vicenzino B, et al. ICON 2019—International Scientific Tendinopathy Symposium Consensus: there are nine core health-related domains for tendinopathy (CORE DOMAINS): Delphi study of healthcare professionals and patients. Br J Sports Med. 2020;54(8):444.PubMedCrossRef
36.
37.
Boers M, Tugwell P, Beaton D, Bingham CO, Conaghan PG, et al., The OMERACT: Outcome measures in rheumatology Handbook. 2021.
38.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.CrossRef
39.
Maxwell LJ, et al. Core domain set selection according to OMERACT Filter 2.1: the OMERACT Methodology. J Rheumatol. 2019;46(8):1014–20.PubMedCrossRef
40.
COMET initiative, Core outcome measures in effectiveness trials 2019.
41.
42.
43.
Thorlacius L, et al. A core domain set for hidradenitis suppurativa trial outcomes: an international Delphi process. Br J Dermatol. 2018;179(3):642–50.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
44.
Tong A, et al. Clinicians' and researchers' perspectives on establishing and implementing core outcomes in haemodialysis: semistructured interview study. BMJ Open. 2018;8(4):e021198.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
45.
Page MJ, et al. Core domain and outcome measurement sets for shoulder pain trials are needed: systematic review of physical therapy trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(11):1270–81.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
46.
Dalkey N. An experimental study of group opinion: the Delphi method. Futures. 1969;1(5):408–26.CrossRef
47.
de Villiers MR, de Villiers PJT, Kent AP. The Delphi technique in health sciences education research. Med Teach. 2005;27(7):639–43.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Chiarotto A, et al. A core outcome set for clinical trials on non-specific low back pain: study protocol for the development of a core domain set. Trials. 2014;15(1):511.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
49.
50.
Humphrey-Murto S, et al. Consensus building in OMERACT: recommendations for use of the Delphi for core outcome set development. J Rheumatol. 2019;46(8):1041.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Macefield R, et al. Core outcome set development: the effect of Delphi panel composition and feedback on prioritisation of outcomes. Trials. 2013;14:77.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Protocol for the development of a core domain set for individuals with ankle osteoarthritis
Authors
Sultan Ayyadah Alanazi
Bill Vicenzino
Christiaan J. A. van Bergen
David J. Hunter
Erik A. Wikstrom
Hylton B. Menz
Yvonne M. Golightly
Michelle D. Smith
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06692-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Trials 1/2022 Go to the issue

Study protocol

Increasing the effectiveness of psychotherapy in routine care through blended therapy with transdiagnostic online modules (PsyTOM): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Methodology

How much is the lack of retention evidence costing trial teams in Ireland and the UK?

Study protocol

Comparison of 8 weeks standard treatment (rifampicin plus clarithromycin) vs. 4 weeks standard plus amoxicillin/clavulanate treatment [RC8 vs. RCA4] to shorten Buruli ulcer disease therapy (the BLMs4BU trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled multi-centre trial in Benin

Study protocol

Intertruncal versus classical approach to the ultrasound-guided supraclavicular brachial plexus block for upper extremity surgery: study protocol for a randomized non-inferiority trial

Study protocol

Cost-effectiveness of a smartphone Application for Tinnitus Treatment (the CATT trial): a study protocol of a randomised controlled trial

Research

A single-dose, open-label, randomized, scintigraphic study to investigate the gastrointestinal behavior of 2 triple-combination cold products (acetaminophen, phenylephrine, and dextromethorphan) in healthy male volunteers