Claire Hopkins1, Carl Philpott2, Sally Crowe3, Sandra Regan3, Aneeka Degun4, Iliatha Papachristou5, Anne G M Schilder4. 1. Guys and St Thomas NHS Trust, Kings College London, London, United Kingdom. 2. University East Anglia, Norwich and James Paget Hospital, Great Yarmouth, United Kingdom. 3. Crowe Associates, Thame, United Kingdom. 4. UCL Ear Institute, Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital, London, United Kingdom. 5. Department of Applied Health Research, UCL, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Promoting the assessment of health interventions using outcomes that matter to patients and practitioners is a key principle of Cochrane. Cochrane UK therefore commissioned the OMIPP project: Outcomes that are Most Important for Patients, Public and Practitioners to identify the outcomes they felt most important and should be evaluated in Cochrane reviews of health interventions for Chronic Rhinosinusitis (CRS). METHODOLOGY: Using direct emailing, social media and printed cards, an online survey was distributed to a wide range of people involved in the care of patients with CRS. Patients and practitioners were asked to list the 3 outcomes from treatments most important to them. Responses were analysed through development of a thematic framework based on the data. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-five people completed the survey; 155 practitioners and 80 patients. Respondents provided 653 suggestions of important outcomes. 73% concerned symptoms of CRS, (nasal discharge or drip, facial pain, nasal blockage, headache, impaired sense of smell, congestion and breathing difficulties); 9% concerned quality of life, 4% reducing the need for further treatment and 4% side effects of treatment. Objective measurements of disease formed only 3% of responses. There was high level of agreement between patients and practitioners. Of 10 current Cochrane reviews on CRS, 9 include symptomatic outcomes identified by our survey as most important to patients and healthcare practitioners. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified outcomes that both patients and their doctors consider should be included in reviews evaluating treatments of rhinosinusitis. We recommend that primary outcomes in future reviews focus on symptom-based outcomes. The ability to extract these data from relevant trials is dependent upon their inclusion in trials, and so it is important that building on this work a core outcome set for rhinosinusitis research is developed.
INTRODUCTION: Promoting the assessment of health interventions using outcomes that matter to patients and practitioners is a key principle of Cochrane. Cochrane UK therefore commissioned the OMIPP project: Outcomes that are Most Important for Patients, Public and Practitioners to identify the outcomes they felt most important and should be evaluated in Cochrane reviews of health interventions for Chronic Rhinosinusitis (CRS). METHODOLOGY: Using direct emailing, social media and printed cards, an online survey was distributed to a wide range of people involved in the care of patients with CRS. Patients and practitioners were asked to list the 3 outcomes from treatments most important to them. Responses were analysed through development of a thematic framework based on the data. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-five people completed the survey; 155 practitioners and 80 patients. Respondents provided 653 suggestions of important outcomes. 73% concerned symptoms of CRS, (nasal discharge or drip, facial pain, nasal blockage, headache, impaired sense of smell, congestion and breathing difficulties); 9% concerned quality of life, 4% reducing the need for further treatment and 4% side effects of treatment. Objective measurements of disease formed only 3% of responses. There was high level of agreement between patients and practitioners. Of 10 current Cochrane reviews on CRS, 9 include symptomatic outcomes identified by our survey as most important to patients and healthcare practitioners. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified outcomes that both patients and their doctors consider should be included in reviews evaluating treatments of rhinosinusitis. We recommend that primary outcomes in future reviews focus on symptom-based outcomes. The ability to extract these data from relevant trials is dependent upon their inclusion in trials, and so it is important that building on this work a core outcome set for rhinosinusitis research is developed.
Authors: Pawina Jiramongkolchai; Andrew Peterson; Dorina Kallogjeri; Jake J Lee; Sara Kukuljan; Adam Liebendorfer; John S Schneider; Cristine N Klatt-Cromwell; Andrew J Drescher; Jay F Piccirillo Journal: Int Forum Allergy Rhinol Date: 2020-05-29 Impact factor: 3.858
Authors: M Gelardi; K Piccininni; N Quaranta; V Quaranta; M Silvestri; G Ciprandi Journal: Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 2.124
Authors: Karen Head; Lee Yee Chong; Claire Hopkins; Carl Philpott; Martin J Burton; Anne G M Schilder Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2016-04-26
Authors: Karen Head; Lee Yee Chong; Patorn Piromchai; Claire Hopkins; Carl Philpott; Anne G M Schilder; Martin J Burton Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2016-04-26