Patricia Jacqueline Schneider1, Nathan Evaniew2, Paula McKay1, Michelle Ghert3,4. 1. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 2. Department of Surgery, McMaster University, 711 Concession Street, B3 169A, Hamilton, ON, L8V 5C2, Canada. 3. Department of Surgery, McMaster University, 711 Concession Street, B3 169A, Hamilton, ON, L8V 5C2, Canada. ghert@hhsc.ca. 4. Juravinski Cancer Centre, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON, Canada. ghert@hhsc.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several challenges presently impede the conduct of prospective clinical studies in orthopaedic oncology, including limited financial resources to support their associated costs and inadequate patient volume at most single institutions. This study was conducted to prioritize research questions within the field so that the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS), and other relevant professional societies, can direct the limited human and fiscal resources available to address the priorities that the stakeholders involved believe will have the most meaningful impact on orthopaedic oncology patient care. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purpose of this study was to use a formal consensus-based approach involving clinician-scientists and other stakeholders to identify the top priority research questions for future international prospective clinical studies in orthopaedic oncology. METHODS: A three-step modified Delphi process involving multiple stakeholder groups (including orthopaedic oncologists, research personnel, funding agency representation, and patient representation) was conducted. First, we sent an electronic questionnaire to all participants to solicit clinically relevant research questions (61 participants; 54% of the original 114 individuals invited to participate returned the questionnaires). Then, participants rated the candidate research questions using a 5-point Likert scale for five criteria (60 participants; 53% of the original group participated in this portion of the process). Research questions that met a priori consensus thresholds progressed for consideration to an in-person consensus meeting, which was attended by 44 participants (39% of the original group; 12 countries were represented at this meeting). After the consensus panel's discussion, members individually assigned scores to each question using a 9-point Likert scale. Research questions that met preset criteria advanced to final ranking, and panel members individually ranked their top three priority research questions, resulting in a final overall ranking of research priorities. RESULTS: A total of 73 candidate research questions advanced to the consensus meeting. In the end, the consensus panel identified four research priorities: (1) Does less intensive surveillance of patients with sarcoma affect survival? (2) What are the survival outcomes over time for orthopaedic oncology implants? (3) Does resection versus stabilization improve oncologic and functional outcomes in oligometastatic bone disease? (4) What is the natural history of untreated fibromatosis? CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study will assist in developing a long-term research strategy for the MSTS and, possibly, the orthopaedic oncology field as a whole. Furthermore, the results of this study can assist researchers in guiding their research efforts and in providing a justified rationale to funding agencies when requesting the resources necessary to support future collaborative research studies that address the identified orthopaedic oncology priorities.
BACKGROUND: Several challenges presently impede the conduct of prospective clinical studies in orthopaedic oncology, including limited financial resources to support their associated costs and inadequate patient volume at most single institutions. This study was conducted to prioritize research questions within the field so that the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS), and other relevant professional societies, can direct the limited human and fiscal resources available to address the priorities that the stakeholders involved believe will have the most meaningful impact on orthopaedic oncology patient care. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purpose of this study was to use a formal consensus-based approach involving clinician-scientists and other stakeholders to identify the top priority research questions for future international prospective clinical studies in orthopaedic oncology. METHODS: A three-step modified Delphi process involving multiple stakeholder groups (including orthopaedic oncologists, research personnel, funding agency representation, and patient representation) was conducted. First, we sent an electronic questionnaire to all participants to solicit clinically relevant research questions (61 participants; 54% of the original 114 individuals invited to participate returned the questionnaires). Then, participants rated the candidate research questions using a 5-point Likert scale for five criteria (60 participants; 53% of the original group participated in this portion of the process). Research questions that met a priori consensus thresholds progressed for consideration to an in-person consensus meeting, which was attended by 44 participants (39% of the original group; 12 countries were represented at this meeting). After the consensus panel's discussion, members individually assigned scores to each question using a 9-point Likert scale. Research questions that met preset criteria advanced to final ranking, and panel members individually ranked their top three priority research questions, resulting in a final overall ranking of research priorities. RESULTS: A total of 73 candidate research questions advanced to the consensus meeting. In the end, the consensus panel identified four research priorities: (1) Does less intensive surveillance of patients with sarcoma affect survival? (2) What are the survival outcomes over time for orthopaedic oncology implants? (3) Does resection versus stabilization improve oncologic and functional outcomes in oligometastatic bone disease? (4) What is the natural history of untreated fibromatosis? CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study will assist in developing a long-term research strategy for the MSTS and, possibly, the orthopaedic oncology field as a whole. Furthermore, the results of this study can assist researchers in guiding their research efforts and in providing a justified rationale to funding agencies when requesting the resources necessary to support future collaborative research studies that address the identified orthopaedic oncology priorities.
Authors: Eric A J Hoste; Sean M Bagshaw; Rinaldo Bellomo; Cynthia M Cely; Roos Colman; Dinna N Cruz; Kyriakos Edipidis; Lui G Forni; Charles D Gomersall; Deepak Govil; Patrick M Honoré; Olivier Joannes-Boyau; Michael Joannidis; Anna-Maija Korhonen; Athina Lavrentieva; Ravindra L Mehta; Paul Palevsky; Eric Roessler; Claudio Ronco; Shigehiko Uchino; Jorge A Vazquez; Erick Vidal Andrade; Steve Webb; John A Kellum Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2015-07-11 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Joshua N Honeyman; Till-Martin Theilen; Molly A Knowles; Margaret M McGlynn; Meera Hameed; Paul Meyers; Aimee M Crago; Michael P La Quaglia Journal: J Pediatr Surg Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 2.545
Authors: John R Prowle; Yan-Lun Liu; Elisa Licari; Sean M Bagshaw; Moritoki Egi; Michael Haase; Anja Haase-Fielitz; John A Kellum; Dinna Cruz; Claudio Ronco; Kenji Tsutsui; Shigehiko Uchino; Rinaldo Bellomo Journal: Crit Care Date: 2011-07-19 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Ravindra L Mehta; John A Kellum; Sudhir V Shah; Bruce A Molitoris; Claudio Ronco; David G Warnock; Adeera Levin Journal: Crit Care Date: 2007 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Kianoush Kashani; Ali Al-Khafaji; Thomas Ardiles; Antonio Artigas; Sean M Bagshaw; Max Bell; Azra Bihorac; Robert Birkhahn; Cynthia M Cely; Lakhmir S Chawla; Danielle L Davison; Thorsten Feldkamp; Lui G Forni; Michelle Ng Gong; Kyle J Gunnerson; Michael Haase; James Hackett; Patrick M Honore; Eric A J Hoste; Olivier Joannes-Boyau; Michael Joannidis; Patrick Kim; Jay L Koyner; Daniel T Laskowitz; Matthew E Lissauer; Gernot Marx; Peter A McCullough; Scott Mullaney; Marlies Ostermann; Thomas Rimmelé; Nathan I Shapiro; Andrew D Shaw; Jing Shi; Amy M Sprague; Jean-Louis Vincent; Christophe Vinsonneau; Ludwig Wagner; Michael G Walker; R Gentry Wilkerson; Kai Zacharowski; John A Kellum Journal: Crit Care Date: 2013-02-06 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Patricia Schneider; Nathan Evaniew; Juan Sebastian Rendon; Paula McKay; R Lor Randall; Robert Turcotte; Roberto Vélez; Mohit Bhandari; Michelle Ghert Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-05-24 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: David A J Wilson; Aaron Gazendam; Julia Visgauss; David Perrin; Anthony M Griffin; Peter W Chung; Charles N Catton; David Shultz; Peter C Ferguson; Jay S Wunder Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-03-09 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Adam Schumaier; David Kovacevic; Christopher Schmidt; Andrew Green; Andrew Rokito; Charles Jobin; Ed Yian; Frances Cuomo; Jason Koh; Mohit Gilotra; Miguel Ramirez; Matthew Williams; Robert Burks; Rodney Stanley; Samer Hasan; Scott Paxton; Syed Hasan; Wesley Nottage; William Levine; Uma Srikumaran; Brian Grawe Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Patricia Schneider; Victoria Giglio; Dana Ghanem; David Wilson; Robert Turcotte; Marc Isler; Sophie Mottard; Benjamin Miller; James Hayden; Yee-Cheen Doung; Kenneth Gundle; R Lor Randall; Kevin Jones; Roberto Vélez; Michelle Ghert Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Joseph K Kendal; Annalise Abbott; Sahil Kooner; Herman Johal; Shannon K T Puloski; Michael J Monument Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2018-08-06 Impact factor: 2.362