A core outcome set for clinical studies of adhesive small bowel obstruction

Aim: Adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO) is a common surgical emergency condition. Research in the field is plentiful; however, inconsistency in outcome reporting makes comparisons challenging. The aim of this study was to define a core outcome set (COS) for studies of ASBO. Methods:The long list of outcomes was identified through systematic review, and focus groups across different geographical regions. A modified Delphi consensus exercise of three rounds was undertaken with stakeholder groups (patients and clinicians). Items were rated on a 9-point Likert scale. Items exceeding 70% rating at 7-9 were passed to the consensus meeting. New item proposals were invited in round 1. Individualised feedback on prior voting compared to other participants was provided. An international consensus meeting was convened to ratify the final COS. Results:In round 1, 56 items were rated by 118 respondents. A total of 18 items reached consensus, and respondents proposed an additional 10 items. Round 2 was completed by 90 respondents, and nine items achieved consensus. In round 3, 80 surveys were completed; one item achieved consensus, and five borderline items were identified. The final COS included 26 outcomes, mapped to the following domains: Interventions, need for stoma, septic complications, return of gut function, patient reported outcomes, and recurrence of obstruction, as well as mortality, failure to rescue, and time to resolution. Conclusion:This COS should be used in future studies in the treatment of adhesive SBO. Further studies to define a core measurement set are needed to identify the optimum tools to measure each outcome.

A core outcome set for clinical studies of adhesive small bowel obstruction

Lee¹,

Chapman²,

Blackwell³

et al. 2022

Formation of a conceptual framework during the development of a patient‐reported outcome measure for early gastrointestinal recovery: phase I of the PRO‐diGi study

Baker,

Chapman,

Thomas

et al. 2023

AimPatients admitted to hospital for abdominal surgery often experience gastrointestinal dysfunction. Many studies have reported outcomes following gastrointestinal dysfunction, yet there is no unified definition of recovery or a validated patient‐reported outcome measure (PROM). The first stage of PROM development requires formation of a conceptual framework to identify key themes to patients. The aim of this study was to utilize semistructured interviews to identify core themes and concepts relevant to patients to facilitate development of a conceptual framework.MethodAdult patients admitted to hospital for major gastrointestinal, urological or gynaecological surgery, in an emergency or elective setting, were eligible to participate. Patients treated nonoperatively for small bowel obstruction were also eligible. Interviews were conducted by telephone, audio‐recorded, transcribed, coded and analysed using NVivo software by two researchers and reviewed by lay members of the steering group. Interviews continued until data saturation was reached. Ethical approval was gained prior to interviews (21/WA/0231).ResultsTwenty nine interviews were completed (17 men, median age 64 years) across three specialties (20 gastrointestinal, six gynaecological, three urological). Two overarching themes of ‘general recovery’ and ‘gastrointestinal symptoms’ were identified. General recovery included three themes: ‘life impact’, ‘mental impact’, including anxiety, and ‘physical impact’, including fatigue. Gastrointestinal symptoms included three themes: ‘abdominal symptoms’ such as pain, ‘diet and appetite’ and ‘expulsory function’, such as stool frequency. A total of 18 gastrointestinal symptoms were identified during patient recovery—many of which lasted several weeks following discharge.ConclusionThis study reports a range of gastrointestinal and nongastrointestinal symptoms experienced by patients during early gastrointestinal recovery. Identified symptoms have been synthesized into a conceptual framework to enable development of a definitive PROM for early gastrointestinal recovery.

Research and practice priorities in pilonidal sinus disease: a consensus from the PITSTOP study

Lee,

Bradburn

et al. 2024

AimPilonidal sinus disease is a common condition treated by colorectal surgeons. There is a lack of literature in the field to guide optimal management of this condition. As part of the PITSTOP study, we aimed to identify policy and research priorities to provide direction to the field.MethodPatients and surgeons were invited to participate. A ‘So what, now what’ exercise was conducted, informed by data from PITSTOP. This generated statements for research and practice priorities. A three‐round online Delphi study was conducted, ranking statements based on policy and research separately. Statements were rated 1 (not important) to 9 (important). Statements that were rated 7–9 by more than 70% of participants were entered into the consensus meeting. Personalized voting feedback was shown between rounds. A face‐to‐face meeting was held to discuss statements, and participants were asked to rank statements using a weighted choice vote.ResultsTwenty‐two people participated in the focus group, generating 14 research and 19 policy statements. Statements were voted on by 56 participants in round 1, 53 in round 2 and 51 in round 3. A total of 15 policy statements and 19 research statements were discussed in the consensus round. Key policy statements addressed treatment strategies and intensity, surgeon training opportunities, need for classification and the impact of treatment on return to work. Research recommendations included design of future trials, methodology considerations and research questions.ConclusionThis study has identified research and policy priorities in pilonidal sinus disease which are relevant to patients and clinicians. These should inform practice and future research.