• Annals of surgery · Feb 2023

    A core Outcome Set for Seamless, Standardized Evaluation of Innovative Surgical Procedures and Devices (COHESIVE): A Patient and Professional Stakeholder consensus Study.

    • AveryKerry N LKNLNational Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Clifton, Bristol, UK., Nicholas Wilson, Rhiannon Macefield, Angus McNair, Christin Hoffmann, Jane M Blazeby, Shelley Potter, and Core Outcomes for early pHasE Surgical Innovation and deVicEs (COHESIVE) study steering group.
    • National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Clifton, Bristol, UK.
    • Ann. Surg. 2023 Feb 1; 277 (2): 238245238-245.

    ObjectiveTo 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 DataAgreement 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsThe COS is recommended for use in all studies before definitive randomized controlled trial evaluation to promote safe, transparent, and efficient surgical innovation.Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…