Consensus on core outcomes and indications for rib fracture fixation

  • Research type

    Research Study

  • Full title

    The Delphi Technique: Developing a Consensus on Indications and Core Outcome Measures for Rib Fracture Surgical Fixation

  • IRAS ID

    235596

  • Contact name

    Helen Ingoe

  • Contact email

    helen.ingoe@york.ac.uk

  • Sponsor organisation

    University of York

  • Duration of Study in the UK

    0 years, 5 months, 1 days

  • Research summary

    To help patients and doctors make decisions about treatments, we need evidence about what works best. Treatments are developed and tested by researchers on patients with certain conditions to make sure they work and are safe. To do this researchers need to look at the effects those treatments have on patients. Researchers do this by measuring an ‘outcome’ It is also important to understand who will benefit most from treatment (a treatment indication) and the best timing for treatment.

    The aim is to develop a consensus (agreement) on the indications and timing of rib fracture surgery in patients with rib fractures after trauma and the minimum recommended outcomes researchers should measure if undertaking a clinical study. Work by the research team has highlighted a lack of comparable outcome measures across previous research as well as no consensus on indications or evidence for the timing of surgery.

    The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) group advocate that a consensus on a ‘core outcome set’ maximises the quality of evidence and the generalisability of research findings. It is the expectation that the ‘core’ outcome set will always be collected and reported as a minimum within future trials. Other outcomes of relevance may be included within a trial but may not form part of the ‘core’ outcome set. The Delphi method will be used to develop the consensus. Using anonymous questionnaires experts (patients, clinicians and allied health professionals) will be asked to rate which outcomes, statements on indications and timing are important to them in up to three rounds. After each round scores are collated and fed back anonymously to the expert groups in an attempt to develop a more unified list of agreed outcomes, indications and timing of surgery.

  • REC name

    West Midlands - Solihull Research Ethics Committee

  • REC reference

    18/WM/0018

  • Date of REC Opinion

    11 Jan 2018

  • REC opinion

    Favourable Opinion