IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0051908.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development of a Core Set of Outcomes for Randomized Controlled Trials with Multiple Outcomes – Example of Pulp Treatments of Primary Teeth for Extensive Decay in Children

Author

Listed:
  • Violaine Smaïl-Faugeron
  • Hélène Fron Chabouis
  • Pierre Durieux
  • Jean-Pierre Attal
  • Michèle Muller-Bolla
  • Frédéric Courson

Abstract

Objectives: Evidence-based comparisons of interventions can be challenging because of the diversity of outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We aimed to describe outcomes in RCTs assessing pulp treatments for primary teeth and to develop a core set of component outcomes to be part of composite outcome defining the failure of a pulp treatment. Methods: We systematically reviewed articles of RCTs comparing pulp treatments for primary molars published up to February 2012. We abstracted all outcomes assessed in each trial, then used a small-group consensus process to group similar outcomes, which were reduced to a composite outcome of failure of a pulp treatment by a 3-round Delphi process involving expert authors and dentists. Results: We included 47 reports of RCTs in the review, for 83 reported outcomes (median 11 outcomes per RCT). These outcomes were grouped into 24 overarching outcome categories. We contacted 210 experts for the Delphi process and 25% to 30% participated. The process identified the following 5 component outcomes as part of a composite outcome of failure of a pulp treatment: soft-tissue pathology, pain, pathologic mobility, pathologic radiolucency and pathologic root resorption. Conclusions: RCTs of pulp treatments for primary teeth investigate diverse outcomes. Our consensus process, involving clinicians but no patient, allowed for compiling a core set of component outcomes to define the composite outcome failure of a pulp treatment for primary teeth.

Suggested Citation

  • Violaine Smaïl-Faugeron & Hélène Fron Chabouis & Pierre Durieux & Jean-Pierre Attal & Michèle Muller-Bolla & Frédéric Courson, 2013. "Development of a Core Set of Outcomes for Randomized Controlled Trials with Multiple Outcomes – Example of Pulp Treatments of Primary Teeth for Extensive Decay in Children," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0051908
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051908
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0051908
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0051908&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0051908?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fink, A. & Kosecoff, J. & Chassin, M. & Brook, R.H., 1984. "Consensus methods: Characteristics and guidelines for use," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 74(9), pages 979-983.
    2. Kerry Dwan & Douglas G Altman & Juan A Arnaiz & Jill Bloom & An-Wen Chan & Eugenia Cronin & Evelyne Decullier & Philippa J Easterbrook & Erik Von Elm & Carrol Gamble & Davina Ghersi & John P A Ioannid, 2008. "Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(8), pages 1-31, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Katherine Davis & Sarah L Gorst & Nicola Harman & Valerie Smith & Elizabeth Gargon & Douglas G Altman & Jane M Blazeby & Mike Clarke & Sean Tunis & Paula R Williamson, 2018. "Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: An updated systematic review and involvement of low and middle income countries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-14, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Schaub, Jason & Stander, Willem J. & Montgomery, Paul, 2022. "LGBTQ+ Young People’s Health and Well-being Experiences in Out-of-home Social Care: A scoping review," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    2. Shannon Li & Anne Honey & Francesca Coniglio & Peter Schaecken, 2022. "Mental Health Peer Worker Perspectives on Resources Developed from Lived Experience Research Findings: A Delphi Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-15, March.
    3. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin & Janna Heider, 2015. "A Study of Outcome Reporting Bias Using Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 61(1), pages 239-262.
    4. Dana Hübelová & Martina Kuncová & Hana Vojáčková & Jitka Coufalová & Alice Kozumplíková & Francois Stefanus Lategan & Beatrice-Elena Chromková Manea, 2021. "Inequalities in Health: Methodological Approaches to Spatial Differentiation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-21, November.
    5. Nikolaos Pandis & Padhraig S Fleming & Helen Worthington & Kerry Dwan & Georgia Salanti, 2015. "Discrepancies in Outcome Reporting Exist Between Protocols and Published Oral Health Cochrane Systematic Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-10, September.
    6. Wynanda A van Enst & Rob J P M Scholten & Lotty Hooft, 2012. "Identification of Additional Trials in Prospective Trial Registers for Cochrane Systematic Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(8), pages 1-5, August.
    7. Ewelina Rogozińska & Elizabeth Gargon & Rocío Olmedo-Requena & Amani Asour & Natalie A M Cooper & Claire L Vale & Janneke van’t Hooft, 2020. "Methods used to assess outcome consistency in clinical studies: A literature-based evaluation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-12, July.
    8. West, Allison & Duggan, Anne K. & Gruss, Kelsey & Minkovitz, Cynthia S., 2018. "Creating a measurement framework for service coordination in maternal and early childhood home visiting: An evidence-informed, expert process," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 289-297.
    9. Jamie J Kirkham & Doug G Altman & Paula R Williamson, 2010. "Bias Due to Changes in Specified Outcomes during the Systematic Review Process," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(3), pages 1-5, March.
    10. Sundmacher, Leonie & Fischbach, Diana & Schuettig, Wiebke & Naumann, Christoph & Augustin, Uta & Faisst, Cristina, 2015. "Which hospitalisations are ambulatory care-sensitive, to what degree, and how could the rates be reduced? Results of a group consensus study in Germany," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(11), pages 1415-1423.
    11. Gabel, Matthew J. & Shipan, Charles R., 2004. "A social choice approach to expert consensus panels," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 543-564, May.
    12. Mitra Hannani & Marc Bascompta & Mojtaba Gerami Sabzevar & Hesam Dehghani & Ali Asghar Khajevandi, 2023. "Causal Analysis of Safety Risk Perception of Iranian Coal Mining Workers Using Fuzzy Delphi and DEMATEL," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-19, September.
    13. Daniele Fanelli, 2010. "Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(4), pages 1-7, April.
    14. Dongying Li & Tess Menotti & Yizhen Ding & Nancy M. Wells, 2021. "Life Course Nature Exposure and Mental Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Future Directions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-28, May.
    15. Thomas Pfeiffer & Lars Bertram & John P A Ioannidis, 2011. "Quantifying Selective Reporting and the Proteus Phenomenon for Multiple Datasets with Similar Bias," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(3), pages 1-7, March.
    16. Ana Virgolino & Osvaldo Santos & Joana Costa & Mónica Fialho & Ivo Iavicoli & Tiina Santonen & Hanna Tolonen & Evangelia Samoli & Klea Katsouyanni & Georgios Baltatzis & Flavia Ruggieri & Annalisa Abb, 2021. "Challenges to Evidence Synthesis and Identification of Data Gaps in Human Biomonitoring," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-11, March.
    17. Michal Kicinski, 2013. "Publication Bias in Recent Meta-Analyses," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-1, November.
    18. Carl Berning & Bernd Weiß, 2016. "Publication bias in the German social sciences: an application of the caliper test to three top-tier German social science journals," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 901-917, March.
    19. Thomas J. Kniesner & W. Kip Viscusi, 2023. "Compensating Differentials for Occupational Health and Safety Risks: Implications of Recent Evidence," Research in Labor Economics, in: 50th Celebratory Volume, volume 50, pages 83-116, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    20. Mangirdas Morkunas & Elzė Rudienė & Lukas Giriūnas & Laura Daučiūnienė, 2020. "Assessment of Factors Causing Bias in Marketing- Related Publications," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-16, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0051908. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.