Defining a core outcome set for hypermobility spectrum disorders and hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome: A Delphi consensus study.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-10-09 DOI:10.1007/s10067-024-07172-3
Natalie L Clark, Melissa Johnson, Amar Rangan, Lucksy Kottam, Andrea Hogarth, Sarah Scott, Katherine Swainston
{"title":"Defining a core outcome set for hypermobility spectrum disorders and hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome: A Delphi consensus study.","authors":"Natalie L Clark, Melissa Johnson, Amar Rangan, Lucksy Kottam, Andrea Hogarth, Sarah Scott, Katherine Swainston","doi":"10.1007/s10067-024-07172-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The reported prevalence of hypermobility spectrum disorders (HSD) and hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (hEDS) is unclear due to complex presentations and lack of awareness amongst professionals, contributing to diagnostic and management uncertainties. Standardising an outcome measure to assess symptoms most important to patients should help determine the impact of interventions. This Delphi study aims to reach a consensus with stakeholders on the core outcome set for children and adults with HSD/hEDS. A three-round modified Delphi consensus study with a follow-up consensus meeting was used. Stakeholder groups consisted of (1) individuals with HSD/hEDS; (2) family/friends/carers and (3) healthcare professionals. Participants could belong to more than one stakeholder group. They rated 74 symptoms using a 9-point Likert scale: 1 \"not important to 9 \"critically important\". Symptoms achieving a consensus rating of ≥ 70.0% critical importance across all groups were included. In Round 1, 766 responses were received from 600 participants, reducing to 566 responses from 438 participants by Round 3, with 53 participating in the consensus meeting. Overall, 30 symptoms met the ≥ 70.0% critically important threshold to be included in the final core outcome set. These were categorised under the specialties of musculoskeletal and orthopaedics, social, pain, gynaecology and urology, negative affect, neurological, gastrointestinal and \"other\". This study is the first to identify by consensus the core outcome set to be measured for patients with HSD/hEDS. The importance of these outcomes was confirmed by individuals living with the condition, their family, friends, carers and relevant healthcare professionals. Trial registration: IRAS ID: 326,855; East Midlands - Leicester South REC (reference: 23/EM/0143); Protocol registered with the COMET Initiative. Key Points • There is a lack of standardised outcome measure for HSD/hEDS research studies due to the heterogeneity of symptom presentations. • Symptoms across musculoskeletal and orthopaedics, social, pain, gynaecology and urology, negative affect, neurological, gastrointestinal and \"other\" specialties were identified as the core outcome set defined as ≥ 70.0% critically important to measure for individuals with HSD/hEDS. • There were a significant number of symptoms, widely recognised in the literature to be comorbid to HSD/hEDS, that reached a critical importance threshold of 50.0-69.9%, restricting the core outcome set to only those that met 70% or above may be limiting.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-024-07172-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The reported prevalence of hypermobility spectrum disorders (HSD) and hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (hEDS) is unclear due to complex presentations and lack of awareness amongst professionals, contributing to diagnostic and management uncertainties. Standardising an outcome measure to assess symptoms most important to patients should help determine the impact of interventions. This Delphi study aims to reach a consensus with stakeholders on the core outcome set for children and adults with HSD/hEDS. A three-round modified Delphi consensus study with a follow-up consensus meeting was used. Stakeholder groups consisted of (1) individuals with HSD/hEDS; (2) family/friends/carers and (3) healthcare professionals. Participants could belong to more than one stakeholder group. They rated 74 symptoms using a 9-point Likert scale: 1 "not important to 9 "critically important". Symptoms achieving a consensus rating of ≥ 70.0% critical importance across all groups were included. In Round 1, 766 responses were received from 600 participants, reducing to 566 responses from 438 participants by Round 3, with 53 participating in the consensus meeting. Overall, 30 symptoms met the ≥ 70.0% critically important threshold to be included in the final core outcome set. These were categorised under the specialties of musculoskeletal and orthopaedics, social, pain, gynaecology and urology, negative affect, neurological, gastrointestinal and "other". This study is the first to identify by consensus the core outcome set to be measured for patients with HSD/hEDS. The importance of these outcomes was confirmed by individuals living with the condition, their family, friends, carers and relevant healthcare professionals. Trial registration: IRAS ID: 326,855; East Midlands - Leicester South REC (reference: 23/EM/0143); Protocol registered with the COMET Initiative. Key Points • There is a lack of standardised outcome measure for HSD/hEDS research studies due to the heterogeneity of symptom presentations. • Symptoms across musculoskeletal and orthopaedics, social, pain, gynaecology and urology, negative affect, neurological, gastrointestinal and "other" specialties were identified as the core outcome set defined as ≥ 70.0% critically important to measure for individuals with HSD/hEDS. • There were a significant number of symptoms, widely recognised in the literature to be comorbid to HSD/hEDS, that reached a critical importance threshold of 50.0-69.9%, restricting the core outcome set to only those that met 70% or above may be limiting.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
确定活动过度谱系障碍和活动过度埃勒斯-丹洛斯综合征的核心结果集:德尔菲共识研究。
由于表现复杂和专业人员缺乏认识,导致诊断和管理的不确定性,高运动能力谱系障碍(HSD)和高运动能力埃勒斯-丹洛斯综合征(hEDS)的报告发病率尚不明确。通过标准化的结果测量来评估对患者最重要的症状,应有助于确定干预措施的效果。本德尔菲研究旨在与利益相关者就 HSD/hEDS 儿童和成人患者的核心结果集达成共识。该研究采用了三轮改良德尔菲共识研究,并召开了一次后续共识会议。利益相关者群体包括:(1)患有 HSD/hEDS 的个人;(2)家人/朋友/照顾者;(3)医疗保健专业人员。参与者可以属于多个利益相关者小组。他们使用 9 点李克特量表对 74 种症状进行评分:从 1 分 "不重要 "到 9 分 "非常重要"。所有组别一致认为关键重要性≥ 70.0% 的症状均被纳入其中。第一轮共收到 600 名参与者的 766 份回复,第三轮收到 438 名参与者的 566 份回复,其中 53 人参加了共识会议。总体而言,有 30 个症状达到了≥ 70.0% 的极其重要阈值,被纳入最终的核心结果集。这些症状被归类为肌肉骨骼和骨科、社交、疼痛、妇科和泌尿科、负性情绪、神经系统、胃肠道和 "其他"。这项研究首次以协商一致的方式确定了 HSD/hEDS 患者需要测量的核心结果集。这些结果的重要性得到了患者、其家人、朋友、护理人员和相关医护人员的肯定。试验注册:IRAS ID:326,855;东米德兰兹-莱斯特南REC(编号:23/EM/0143);COMET倡议注册协议。要点 - 由于症状表现的异质性,HSD/hEDS 研究缺乏标准化的结果衡量标准。- 肌肉骨骼和骨科、社交、疼痛、妇科和泌尿科、负面情绪、神经、胃肠道和 "其他 "专科的症状被确定为核心结果集,定义为≥ 70.0% 对 HSD/hEDS 患者至关重要。- 文献中广泛认为有大量症状是 HSD/hEDS 的并发症,这些症状的关键重要性阈值为 50.0-69.9%,因此将核心结果集限制在仅满足 70% 或以上的症状可能会有局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Sleep Disturbance in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension. Advancing Patient Education in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: The Promise of Large Language Models. Anti-Myelin-Associated Glycoprotein Neuropathy: Recent Developments. Approach to Managing the Initial Presentation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Worldwide Practice Survey. Association Between LACE+ Index Risk Category and 90-Day Mortality After Stroke.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1