Development of CORE-CM core outcome domain sets for trials of Chinese medicine for lumbar spinal stenosis

Abstract

ObjectivesMost Asian countries have employed Chinese medicine (CM) and Western medicine to treat lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Evidence synthesis and comparison of effectiveness are difficult since outcomes examined and presented through trials possess heterogeneity. This study aimed to solve the outcome problems for CM clinical trials in LSS by building a core outcome set (COS).MethodsTo achieve an agreement on a set of core outcome domains, a four-phase study was carried out. First, we identified candidate outcome domains by systematically reviewing trials. In addition, we identified outcome domains associated with patients by conducting semistructured interviews with patients. Next, outcome domains were processed through a national two-round Delphi survey, in which 18 patients and 21 experts were recruited. Finally, the above domains were converted as a core outcome domain set based on a consensus meeting, in which 24 stakeholders were recruited.ResultsSeventeen outcome subdomains were identified by the systematic review and interviews. The Delphi survey assigned a priority to four outcome domains in the first round and four outcomes additionally in the second round. The core outcome domains were determined through discussion and redefinition of outcomes in the consensus meeting: pain and discomfort, health-related quality of life, lumbar function, activities of daily living, measures of walking, patient global assessment, adverse events and CM-specific outcomes.ConclusionCOS-CM-LSS is likely to enhance the consistency of outcomes reported in clinical trials. In-depth research should be conducted for the exploration of the best methods to examine the above outcomes.

Development of the Korean Medicine Core Outcome Set for Facial Palsy: herbal medicine treatment of patients with facial palsy in primary clinics

“…Furthermore, the process of developing the COS encountered a limitation in the panel diversity. Thus, the number of panelists, sourced from a professional society, was relatively smaller than that in comparable studies ( 36 , 37 ), which could have restricted the variety of insights during the COS development. Additionally, our study primarily involved disease specialists and primary KM clinicians, omitting participation from other vital stakeholders like patients and policy experts.…”