Development of a core outcome set for trials investigating the long-term management of bronchiectasis

Heterogeneity in outcomes measured in trials limits accurate comparison of bronchiectasis studies. A core outcome set (COS) is an agreed, standardized set of outcomes that should be measured in trials for specific clinical areas. A COS for bronchiectasis could encourage consistency in future studies. An overview of systematic reviews and qualitative study on outcome selection in bronchiectasis informed an initial list of outcomes. A Delphi panel (n ¼ 86) rated the importance of each outcome from 1 to 9 in 3 sequential questionnaires, as a means to achieve consensus: 1–3 ¼ ‘of limited importance’; 4–6 ¼ ‘important, but not critical’; and 7–9 ¼ ‘critical’. Outcomes rated ‘critical’ by 70% of the panel were added to the COS. Eightytwo participants responded to the first questionnaire. Attrition between each questionnaire was 5%. After 3 rounds of questioning, 18 outcomes exceeded the threshold for consensus and were included in the COS. This study has achieved consensus on 18 outcomes that should be measured in trials of interventions for bronchiectasis. Selection of the highest ranked outcomes may represent a pragmatic means for comparison.
Further research is required to condense the number of outcomes selected and to determine its relevance to interventions.

Contributors

Maureen Spargo
Cristin Ryan
Damian Downey
and Carmel Hughes

Publication

Journal: Chronic Respiratory Disease
Volume:
Issue:
Pages: -
Year: 2018
DOI: 10.1177/1479972318804167

Further Study Information

Current Stage: Not Applicable
Date: October 2016 - April 2017
Funding source(s): This study was funded internally by Queen’s University Belfast.


Health Area

Disease Category: Lungs & airways

Disease Name: Bronchiectasis

Target Population

Age Range: 18 - 100

Sex: Either

Nature of Intervention: Any

Stakeholders Involved

- Clinical experts
- Researchers
- Consumers (patients)
- Funders

Study Type

- COS for clinical trials or clinical research

Method(s)

- Delphi process
- Other
- Systematic review

An overview of systematic reviews and qualitative study on outcome selection in bronchiectasis informed an initial list of outcomes. A Delphi panel (n = 86) rated the importance of each outcome from 1 to 9 in 3 sequential questionnaires, as a means to achieve consensus: 1–3 ‘of limited importance’; 4–6 ‘important, but not critical’; and 7–9 ‘critical’. Outcomes rated ‘critical’ by more than 70% of the panel were added to the COS