Cargando…
Outcomes in intervention research on snakebite envenomation: a systematic review
Introduction: A core outcome set (COS) is a minimal list of consensus outcomes that should be used in all intervention research in a specific domain. COS enhance the ability to undertake meaningful comparisons and to understand the benefits or harms of different treatments. A first step in developin...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
F1000 Research Limited
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9579743/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36300033 http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.122116.1 |
_version_ | 1784812250254540800 |
---|---|
author | Bhaumik, Soumyadeep Beri, Deepti Tyagi, Jyoti Clarke, Mike Sharma, Sanjib Kumar Williamson, Paula R Jagnoor, Jagnoor |
author_facet | Bhaumik, Soumyadeep Beri, Deepti Tyagi, Jyoti Clarke, Mike Sharma, Sanjib Kumar Williamson, Paula R Jagnoor, Jagnoor |
author_sort | Bhaumik, Soumyadeep |
collection | PubMed |
description | Introduction: A core outcome set (COS) is a minimal list of consensus outcomes that should be used in all intervention research in a specific domain. COS enhance the ability to undertake meaningful comparisons and to understand the benefits or harms of different treatments. A first step in developing a COS is to identify outcomes that have been used previously. We did this global systematic review to provide the foundation for development of a region-specific COS for snakebite envenomation. Methods: We searched 15 electronic databases, eight trial registries, and reference lists of included studies to identify reports of relevant trials, protocols, registry records and systematic reviews. We extracted verbatim data on outcomes, their definitions, measures, and time-points. Outcomes were classified as per an existing outcome taxonomy, and we identified unique outcomes based on similarities in the definition and measurement of the verbatim outcomes. Results: We included 107 records for 97 studies which met our inclusion criteria. These reported 538 outcomes, with a wide variety of outcome measures, definitions, and time points for measurement. We consolidated these into 88 unique outcomes, which we classified into core areas of mortality (1, 1.14 %), life impact (6, 6.82%), resource use (15, 17.05%), adverse events (7, 7.95%), physiological/clinical (51, 57.95%), and composite (8, 9.09%) outcomes. The types of outcomes varied by the type of intervention, and by geographic region. Only 15 of the 97 trials (17.04%) listed Patient Related Outcome Measures (PROMS). Conclusion: Trials evaluating interventions for snakebite demonstrate heterogeneity on outcomes and often omit important information related to outcome measurement (definitions, instruments, and time points). Developing high quality, region-specific COS for snakebite could inform the design of future trials and improve outcome reporting. Measurement of PROMS, resource use and life impact outcomes in trials on snakebite remains a gap. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9579743 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | F1000 Research Limited |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-95797432022-10-25 Outcomes in intervention research on snakebite envenomation: a systematic review Bhaumik, Soumyadeep Beri, Deepti Tyagi, Jyoti Clarke, Mike Sharma, Sanjib Kumar Williamson, Paula R Jagnoor, Jagnoor F1000Res Research Article Introduction: A core outcome set (COS) is a minimal list of consensus outcomes that should be used in all intervention research in a specific domain. COS enhance the ability to undertake meaningful comparisons and to understand the benefits or harms of different treatments. A first step in developing a COS is to identify outcomes that have been used previously. We did this global systematic review to provide the foundation for development of a region-specific COS for snakebite envenomation. Methods: We searched 15 electronic databases, eight trial registries, and reference lists of included studies to identify reports of relevant trials, protocols, registry records and systematic reviews. We extracted verbatim data on outcomes, their definitions, measures, and time-points. Outcomes were classified as per an existing outcome taxonomy, and we identified unique outcomes based on similarities in the definition and measurement of the verbatim outcomes. Results: We included 107 records for 97 studies which met our inclusion criteria. These reported 538 outcomes, with a wide variety of outcome measures, definitions, and time points for measurement. We consolidated these into 88 unique outcomes, which we classified into core areas of mortality (1, 1.14 %), life impact (6, 6.82%), resource use (15, 17.05%), adverse events (7, 7.95%), physiological/clinical (51, 57.95%), and composite (8, 9.09%) outcomes. The types of outcomes varied by the type of intervention, and by geographic region. Only 15 of the 97 trials (17.04%) listed Patient Related Outcome Measures (PROMS). Conclusion: Trials evaluating interventions for snakebite demonstrate heterogeneity on outcomes and often omit important information related to outcome measurement (definitions, instruments, and time points). Developing high quality, region-specific COS for snakebite could inform the design of future trials and improve outcome reporting. Measurement of PROMS, resource use and life impact outcomes in trials on snakebite remains a gap. F1000 Research Limited 2022-06-08 /pmc/articles/PMC9579743/ /pubmed/36300033 http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.122116.1 Text en Copyright: © 2022 Bhaumik S et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Bhaumik, Soumyadeep Beri, Deepti Tyagi, Jyoti Clarke, Mike Sharma, Sanjib Kumar Williamson, Paula R Jagnoor, Jagnoor Outcomes in intervention research on snakebite envenomation: a systematic review |
title | Outcomes in intervention research on snakebite envenomation: a systematic review |
title_full | Outcomes in intervention research on snakebite envenomation: a systematic review |
title_fullStr | Outcomes in intervention research on snakebite envenomation: a systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Outcomes in intervention research on snakebite envenomation: a systematic review |
title_short | Outcomes in intervention research on snakebite envenomation: a systematic review |
title_sort | outcomes in intervention research on snakebite envenomation: a systematic review |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9579743/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36300033 http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.122116.1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bhaumiksoumyadeep outcomesininterventionresearchonsnakebiteenvenomationasystematicreview AT berideepti outcomesininterventionresearchonsnakebiteenvenomationasystematicreview AT tyagijyoti outcomesininterventionresearchonsnakebiteenvenomationasystematicreview AT clarkemike outcomesininterventionresearchonsnakebiteenvenomationasystematicreview AT sharmasanjibkumar outcomesininterventionresearchonsnakebiteenvenomationasystematicreview AT williamsonpaular outcomesininterventionresearchonsnakebiteenvenomationasystematicreview AT jagnoorjagnoor outcomesininterventionresearchonsnakebiteenvenomationasystematicreview |