Development of a Core Set of Outcomes for Randomized Controlled Trials with Multiple Outcomes – Example of Pulp Treatments of Primary Teeth for Extensive Decay in Children

Objectives Evidence-based comparisons of interventions can be challenging because of the diversity of outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We aimed to describe outcomes in RCTs assessing pulp treatments for primary teeth and to develop a core set of component outcomes to be part of composite outcome defining the failure of a pulp treatment. Methods We systematically reviewed articles of RCTs comparing pulp treatments for primary molars published up to February 2012. We abstracted all outcomes assessed in each trial, then used a small-group consensus process to group similar outcomes, which were reduced to a composite outcome of failure of a pulp treatment by a 3-round Delphi process involving expert authors and dentists. Results We included 47 reports of RCTs in the review, for 83 reported outcomes (median 11 outcomes per RCT). These outcomes were grouped into 24 overarching outcome categories. We contacted 210 experts for the Delphi process and 25% to 30% participated. The process identified the following 5 component outcomes as part of a composite outcome of failure of a pulp treatment: soft-tissue pathology, pain, pathologic mobility, pathologic radiolucency and pathologic root resorption. Conclusions RCTs of pulp treatments for primary teeth investigate diverse outcomes. Our consensus process, involving clinicians but no patient, allowed for compiling a core set of component outcomes to define the composite outcome failure of a pulp treatment for primary teeth.

[1]  A. Glenny,et al.  Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth. , 2014, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[2]  Jane M Blazeby,et al.  Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider , 2012, Trials.

[3]  P. Williamson,et al.  The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative: Its Role in Improving Cochrane Reviews. , 2012, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[4]  A. Petrie,et al.  Systematic review of outcome measurements and reference group(s) to evaluate and compare implant success and failure. , 2012, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[5]  D. Altman,et al.  Driving up the Quality and Relevance of Research Through the Use of Agreed Core Outcomes , 2012, Journal of health services research & policy.

[6]  J. Sterne,et al.  The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[7]  Julian P T Higgins,et al.  Multiplicity of data in trial reports and the reliability of meta-analyses: empirical study , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[8]  P. Williamson,et al.  Using the Delphi Technique to Determine Which Outcomes to Measure in Clinical Trials: Recommendations for the Future Based on a Systematic Review of Existing Studies , 2011, PLoS medicine.

[9]  Lisa M. Schwartz,et al.  Definition, reporting, and interpretation of composite outcomes in clinical trials: systematic review , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[10]  J. Higgins,et al.  Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions , 2010, International Coaching Psychology Review.

[11]  S. Listl,et al.  Assessment of endpoints in studies on peri-implantitis treatment--a systematic review. , 2010, Journal of dentistry.

[12]  R. Kolamunnage-Dona,et al.  Assessing the potential for outcome reporting bias in a review: a tutorial , 2010, Trials.

[13]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[14]  D. Altman,et al.  Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies , 2008 .

[15]  Kristian Thorlund,et al.  Attention should be given to multiplicity issues in systematic reviews. , 2008, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[16]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias , 2008, PloS one.

[17]  Gordon H Guyatt,et al.  Patient-important outcomes in registered diabetes trials. , 2008, JAMA.

[18]  John Ioannidis,et al.  Exploring the Geometry of Treatment Networks , 2008, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[19]  Mike Clarke,et al.  Standardising outcomes for clinical trials and systematic reviews , 2007, Trials.

[20]  P. Tugwell,et al.  OMERACT: An international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology , 2007, Trials.

[21]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Association between unreported outcomes and effect size estimates in Cochrane meta-analyses. , 2007, JAMA.

[22]  R. Muirhead,et al.  Multiple Co-primary Endpoints: Medical and Statistical Solutions: A Report from the Multiple Endpoints Expert Team of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America , 2007 .

[23]  J. Peipert,et al.  Prevalence of Bacterial Vaginosis: 2001–2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Data , 2007, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[24]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Validity of composite end points in clinical trials , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[25]  P. Coulthard,et al.  The assessment of systematic reviews in dentistry. , 2003, European journal of oral sciences.

[26]  R. Beretta,et al.  A critical review of the Delphi technique. , 1996, Nurse researcher.

[27]  R. Brook,et al.  Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. , 1984, American journal of public health.

[28]  M. Bardecki,et al.  Participants' response to the Delphi method: An attitudinal perspective , 1984 .

[29]  Norman Crolee Dalkey,et al.  An experimental study of group opinion , 1969 .

[30]  A. Carr,et al.  Capturing patient benefits of treatment. , 2011, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[31]  D. Richards Outcomes, what outcomes? , 2005, Evidence-Based Dentistry.

[32]  Harold Sackman,et al.  Delphi critique : expert opinion, forecasting, and group process , 1975 .