Core outcome set for bronchiectasis
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Development of a core outcome set for effectiveness trials in bronchiectasis
IRAS ID
210008
Contact name
Carmel Hughes
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
Queen's University Belfast
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 4 months, 0 days
Research summary
A core outcome set (COS) is an agreed, standardised set of outcomes that should be measured and reported at a minimum in all clinical trials for a specific clinical area. The aim in the development of a COS is to reach consensus on ‘what’ outcomes should be measured and reported, rather than ‘how’ or ‘when’ such outcomes should be measured.
The purpose of this study is to decide what outcomes should be measured when treatments for bronchiectasis are tested, i.e., develop a COS for bronchiectasis. Treatments may include medications, physiotherapy, disease management and education, and surgery.
This study will use the Delphi technique, which is a way of bringing together the views of different groups of people who are experts in a health condition, to reach a decision about the management of the condition. Experts include people with the condition, those who care for people with the condition, and health professionals with expertise in treating and caring for people with the condition.
The opinions of recruited participants, i.e., the Delphi panel, will be gathered using three sequential Delphi questionnaires distributed via a web-based survey tool. The GRADE working group scale will be used to help participants consider the relative importance of each outcome in the draft list, and will be used to determine when consensus has been achieved. GRADE assigns outcomes to one of three categories according to their importance for decision-making. The three categories are: (1) critical; (2) important, but not critical; (3) of limited importance.
An outcome will be included in the core outcome set if, after two or three rounds of questioning, 70% or more of participants think it is ‘critical’ and fewer than 15% of participants think it is ‘of limited importance’.
REC name
London - Camden & Kings Cross Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
16/LO/1712
Date of REC Opinion
19 Sep 2016
REC opinion
Favourable Opinion