Literature DB >> 26123345

International expert consensus on endpoints for full-thickness laparoendoscopic colonic excision.

Andrew C Currie1, Ronan Cahill2,3, Conor P Delaney4, Omar D Faiz5,6, Robin H Kennedy5,6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Full-thickness laparoendoscopic excision has been reported for complex endoscopically unresectable colonic polyps. However, the endpoints used in these studies vary significantly and therefore making definitive conclusions regarding the novel procedure would be improved if a common data set were adopted. This study sought to define most appropriate endpoints that should be measured and reported for research on full-thickness laparoendoscopic excision of colonic polyps.
METHODS: A Web-based Delphi Questionnaire was developed using a systematic literature review of reported endpoints. Outcomes were grouped into general, complication, technical and histopathology endpoints. International specialists in laparoscopic surgery, endoscopy and transanal endoscopic microsurgery were invited to participate. The questionnaire required prioritization of outcomes on a 5-point Likert scale. Respondents were then sent a second questionnaire containing feedback on scores from round 1 and asked to re-prioritize outcomes based on the feedback received to identify a final core outcome set.
RESULTS: A total of 33 (75% response rate) participants from 11 countries completed the round 1 Delphi of 28 proposed endpoints, and all completed the second round. Eight endpoints were rated the most important to stakeholders within the four domains--reoperation (general); anastomotic leak, mortality (complications); secure closure of the excision site, macroscopic completeness of excision (technical); presence of cancer, clearance of resected margins and en bloc specimen production (histopathology).
CONCLUSIONS: This study has developed a provisional consensus on a minimum number of feasible and clinically meaningful outcome measures to use in studies of full-thickness laparoendoscopic excision of colonic polyps. Widespread adoption will allow better reporting of the technique and more efficient development in clinical practice.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Colonic polyps; Consensus; Endoscopy; Laparoscopy; Outcome assessment

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26123345     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-015-4362-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  9 in total

1.  Characteristics of oncology clinical trials: insights from a systematic analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov.

Authors:  Bradford R Hirsch; Robert M Califf; Steven K Cheng; Asba Tasneem; John Horton; Karen Chiswell; Kevin A Schulman; David M Dilts; Amy P Abernethy
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2013-06-10       Impact factor: 21.873

2.  Standards of outcome reporting in surgical oncology: a case study in esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Natalie S Blencowe; Angus G K McNair; Christopher R Davis; Sara T Brookes; Jane M Blazeby
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2012-07-21       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 3.  Systematic review of surgical innovation reporting in laparoendoscopic colonic polyp resection.

Authors:  A Currie; A Brigic; N S Blencowe; S Potter; O D Faiz; R H Kennedy; J M Blazeby
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 6.939

4.  Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use.

Authors:  A Fink; J Kosecoff; M Chassin; R H Brook
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1984-09       Impact factor: 9.308

5.  Full-thickness laparoendoscopic colonic excision in an experimental model.

Authors:  A Brigic; A Southgate; P Sibbons; S K Clark; C Fraser; R H Kennedy
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 6.939

Review 6.  A systematic review of outcome reporting in colorectal cancer surgery.

Authors:  R N Whistance; R O Forsythe; A G K McNair; S T Brookes; K N L Avery; A M Pullyblank; P A Sylvester; D G Jayne; J E Jones; J Brown; M G Coleman; S J Dutton; R Hackett; R Huxtable; R H Kennedy; D Morton; A Oliver; A Russell; M G Thomas; J M Blazeby
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 3.788

7.  Standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation clinical trials: a consensus report from the Valve Academic Research Consortium.

Authors:  Martin B Leon; Nicolo Piazza; Eugenia Nikolsky; Eugene H Blackstone; Donald E Cutlip; Arie Pieter Kappetein; Mitchell W Krucoff; Michael Mack; Roxana Mehran; Craig Miller; Marie-Angèle Morel; John Petersen; Jeffrey J Popma; Johanna J M Takkenberg; Alec Vahanian; Gerrit-Anne van Es; Pascal Vranckx; John G Webb; Stephan Windecker; Patrick W Serruys
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2011-01-06       Impact factor: 29.983

8.  Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider.

Authors:  Paula R Williamson; Douglas G Altman; Jane M Blazeby; Mike Clarke; Declan Devane; Elizabeth Gargon; Peter Tugwell
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2012-08-06       Impact factor: 2.279

9.  Can a core outcome set improve the quality of systematic reviews?--a survey of the Co-ordinating Editors of Cochrane Review Groups.

Authors:  Jamie J Kirkham; Elizabeth Gargon; Mike Clarke; Paula R Williamson
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2013-01-22       Impact factor: 2.279

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.