| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- De Meyer, Dorien, et al.
(författare)
-
Delphi Procedure In Core Outcome Set Development : Rating Scale And Consensus Criteria Determined Outcome Selection
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. - : Elsevier. - 0895-4356 .- 1878-5921. ; 111, s. 23-31
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To compare two different rating scales within one Delphi study for defining consensus in core outcome set development and to explore the influence of consensus criteria on the outcome selection.STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled parallel group trial with 1:1 allocation within the first Delphi round of the Core Outcome Set in the Incontinence-Associated Dermatitis (CONSIDER) project. Outcomes were rated on a three-point or nine-point Likert scale. Decisions about which outcomes to retain were determined by commonly used consensus criteria (i.e., (combinations of) proportions with restricted ranges, central tendency within a specific range and decrease in variance).RESULTS: Fifty-seven participants (group 1=28, group 2=29) rated 58 outcomes. The use of the nine-point scale resulted in almost twice as many outcomes being rated as 'critical' compared to the three-point scale (24 versus 13). Stricter criteria and combining criteria led to less outcomes being identified as 'critical'.CONCLUSION: The format of rating scales in Delphi studies for core outcome set development and the definition of the consensus criteria influence outcome selection. The use of the nine-point scale might be recommended to inform the consensus process for a subsequent rating or face-to-face meeting. The three-point scale might be preferred when determining final consensus.
|
|
| 4. |
- De Meyer, Dorien, et al.
(författare)
-
Outcome measurement instruments for erythema associated with incontinence-associated dermatitis : systematic review
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Journal of Advanced Nursing. - : Blackwell Publishing. - 0309-2402 .- 1365-2648. ; 75:11, s. 2393-2417
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- AIM: To: (1) examine which outcome measurement instruments for erythema associated with incontinence-associated dermatitis with supporting evidence about measurement properties are available; (2) evaluate the methodological quality of the studies and the quality of the measurement properties; and (3) identify eligible instruments to measure erythema in incontinence-associated dermatitis research.DESIGN: Systematic review.DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL were systematically searched until July 2018 (update December 2018). Additional input was gathered from 151 incontinence-associated dermatitis experts. Cited and citing references of included studies were screened.REVIEW METHODS: The COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist was applied to evaluate the methodological quality of the studies. Reported measurement properties were rated against criteria for good measurement properties.RESULTS: Fourteen studies, describing 10 measurement instruments, were included. In five instruments, erythema was captured as a separate concept, two studies provided empirical evidence about the measurement properties. The most studied measurement properties were reliability (9 studies), measurement error (4 studies) and criterion validity (4 studies). In one study, internal consistency was examined.CONCLUSION: No instrument measuring exclusively erythema associated with incontinence-associated dermatitis exists. There is no single composite incontinence-associated dermatitis measurement instrument that outperforms others. Development or adaption of an instrument to measure erythema associated with incontinence-associated dermatitis is one option to solve this challenge.IMPACT: The evidence about measurement properties of instruments measuring erythema associated with incontinence-associated dermatitis has not been summarized to date. The lack of an instrument should trigger activities to measure this domain accurately in future clinical trials.
|
|
| 5. |
- Deprez, Julie, 1996-, et al.
(författare)
-
What are the prognostic factors for the development of incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD) : a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
- 2023
-
Ingår i: BMJ Open. - : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 2044-6055. ; 13:7
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction Incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD) is irritant contact dermatitis and skin damage associated with prolonged skin contact with urine and/or faeces. Identifying prognostic factors for the development of IAD may improve management, facilitate prevention and inform future research. Methods and analysis This protocol follows the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. Prospective and retrospective observational studies or clinical trials in which prognostic factors associated with the development of IAD are described are eligible. There are no restrictions on study setting, time, language, participant characteristics or geographical regions. Reviews, editorials, commentaries, methodological articles, letters to the editor, cross-sectional and case-control studies, and case reports are excluded. MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library will be searched from inception until May 2023. Two independent reviewers will independently evaluate studies. The Quality in Prognostic Studies tool will be used to assess the risk of bias, and the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies-Prognostic Factors checklist will be used for data extraction of the included studies. Separate analyses will be conducted for each identified prognostic factor, with adjusted and unadjusted estimated measures analysed separately. Evidence will be summarised with a meta-analysis when possible, and narratively otherwise. The Q and I 2 statistics will be calculated in order to quantify heterogeneity. The quality of the evidence obtained will be evaluated according to the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidance. Ethics and dissemination No ethical approval is needed since all data is already publicly accessible. The results of this work will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
|
|
| 6. |
- Gethin, Georgina, et al.
(författare)
-
Nurses are research leaders in skin and wound care
- 2020
-
Ingår i: International Wound Journal. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 1742-4801 .- 1742-481X. ; 17:6, s. 2005-2009
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- The World Health Assembly declared 2020, the International Year of the Nurse and the Midwife. Recent editorials and commentaries support the leading role of nurses and midwives as frontline caregivers emphasizing the need to invest in the nursing workforce worldwide to meet global health needs. Today nurses are also leaders in research and one example is skin and wound care. In order to reflect on the contribution of nurses as researchers we conducted a systematic review of published articles in five international leading wound care journals in the years 1998, 2008 and 2018. We aimed to determine the type of research publication and percentage of nurses as first, second or senior authors. The place in the authorship was selected as indicative of leadership as it implies responsibility and accountability for the published work. Across the years 1998, 2008 and 2018, 988 articles were published. The overall proportion of nurse-led articles was 29% (n = 286). The total numbers of articles increased over time and so too did the nurse-led contributions. Nurse-led research was strongest in the design categories 'cohort studies' (46%, n = 44), 'systematic reviews' (46%, n = 19), and 'critically appraised literature and evidence-based guidelines' (47%, n = 55).Results of this review indicate that, in addition to the crucial clinical roles, nurses also have a substantial impact on academia and development of the evidence base to guide clinical practice. Our results suggest that nurse led contributions were particularly strong in research summarizing research to guide skin and wound care practice.
|
|
| 7. |
- Hofman, Hannelore, et al.
(författare)
-
Patients’ experiences with the application of medical adhesives to the skin : a qualitative systematic review protocol
- 2023
-
Ingår i: BMJ Open. - : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 2044-6055. ; 13:6
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: Medical adhesives are adhesives used in medical devices to establish and maintain contact with the body over a period of time (usually by application to the skin) and are widely used in most care settings. Application of medical adhesives to the skin can lead to skin stripping, mild or severe allergic reactions and skin irritation that may manifest as redness, itching or rash. Adhesive-related skin injury can lead to infection, delayed wound healing and an increased risk of scarring. These injuries can cause severe discomfort and pain, and can affect the patient’s quality of life. A systematic review summarising patient’s experiences on this topic will contribute to informing adhesive producers and policy makers, and guiding further development and improvement of available technologies.Methods and analysis: This systematic review protocol is based on the principles of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guideline. A systematic search will be conducted in CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. In addition, manual searches will be performed, reviewing the reference lists of relevant reviews and articles included for quality assessment. Qualitative studies using various methods will be considered for inclusion. Screening of title, abstract and full text will be done by two reviewers. The methodological quality of studies under consideration will be critically assessed by two reviewers using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool for Qualitative Research. Data extraction will be performed independently by two reviewers using a predefined data extraction form. Meta-aggregation will be used to summarise the evidence.Ethics and dissemination No ethical approval or consentis required because no participants will be recruited.This systematic review protocol is published in an openaccess journal to increase transparency of the researchmethods used. Results will be disseminated at nationaland international conferences.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Lechner, Anna, et al.
(författare)
-
Outcomes for Pressure Ulcer Trials (OUTPUTs) : protocol for the development of a core domain set for trials evaluating the clinical efficacy or effectiveness of pressure ulcer prevention interventions
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Trials. - : BMC. - 1745-6215. ; 20
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Core outcome sets (COS) are being developed in many clinical areas to increase the quality and comparability of clinical trial results as well as to ensure their relevance for patients. A COS represents an agreed standardized set of outcomes that describes the minimum that should be consistently reported in all clinical trials of a defined area. It comprises a core domain set (defining what core outcomes should be measured) and a core measurement set (defining measurement/assessment instruments for each core domain). For pressure ulcer prevention trials a COS is lacking. The great heterogeneity of reported outcomes in this field indicates the need for a COS.Methods/design: The first part of this project aims to develop a core domain set by following established methods, which incorporates four steps: (1) definition of the scope, (2) conducting a scoping review, (3) organizing facilitated workshops with service users, (4) performing Delphi surveys and establishing consensus in a face-to-face meeting with different stakeholders.Discussion: After achieving consensus on the core domain set, further work will be undertaken to determine a corresponding core measurement set. This will lead to better pressure ulcer prevention research in the future. There are a number of methodological challenges in the field of COS development. To meet these challenges and to ensure a high-quality COS, the OUTPUTS project affiliates to current standards and works in close collaboration with international experts and with existing international service user groups.Trial registration: The OUTPUTs project is registered in the COMET database: (http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/283). Registered on 2015.
|
|
| 10. |
- Prinsen, Cecilia A C, et al.
(författare)
-
Navigating the landscape of core outcome set development in dermatology.
- 2019
-
Ingår i: The Journal of American Academy of Dermatology. - : Elsevier. - 0190-9622 .- 1097-6787. ; 81:1, s. 297-305
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The development of core outcome sets (COSs; ie, a minimum set of core outcomes that should be measured and reported in all trials or in clinical practice for a specific condition) in dermatology is increasing in pace. A total of 44 dermatology-related COS projects have been registered in the online Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials database (http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/search) and include studies on 26 different skin diseases. With the increasing number of COSs in dermatology, care is needed to ensure the delivery of high-quality COSs that meet quality standards when using state-of-the-art methods. In 2015, the Cochrane Skin-Core Outcome Set Initiative (CS-COUSIN) was established. CS-COUSIN is an international, multidisciplinary working group aiming to improve the development and implementation of COSs in dermatology. CS-COUSIN has developed guidance on how to develop high-quality COSs for skin diseases and supports dermatology-specific COS initiatives. Currently, 17 COS development groups are affiliated with CS-COUSIN and following standardized COS development processes. To ensure successful uptake of COSs in dermatology, researchers, clinicians, systematic reviewers, guideline developers, and other stakeholders should use existing COSs in their work.
|
|
| 11. |
|
|
| 12. |
- Van den Bussche, Karen, et al.
(författare)
-
Core outcome domains in incontinence-associated dermatitis research
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Journal of Advanced Nursing. - : Blackwell Publishing. - 0309-2402 .- 1365-2648. ; 74:7, s. 1605-1617
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- AIM: To report the development of a core set of outcome domains for clinical research involving adults with incontinence-associated dermatitis or at risk, independently from any geographical location or skin colour.BACKGROUND: The management of incontinence-associated dermatitis is important in caring for incontinent patients. The lack of comparability of clinical trial outcomes is a major challenge in the field of evidence-based incontinence-associated dermatitis prevention and treatment. Core outcome sets may therefore be helpful to improve the value of clinical incontinence-associated dermatitis research.DESIGN: Systematic literature review, patient interviews and consensus study using Delphi procedure.METHODS: A list of outcome domains was generated through a systematic literature review (no date restrictions-April 2016), consultation of an international steering committee and three patient interviews. The project team reviewed and refined the outcome domains prior to starting a three-round Delphi procedure conducted between April-September 2017. The panellists, including healthcare providers, researchers and industry were invited to rate the importance of the outcome domains.RESULTS: We extracted 1,852 outcomes from 244 articles. Experts proposed 56 and patients 32 outcome domains. After refinement, 57 panellists from 17 countries rated a list of 58 outcome domains. The final list of outcome domains includes erythema, erosion, maceration, IAD-related pain and patient satisfaction.CONCLUSION: Erythema, erosion, maceration, incontinence-associated dermatitis -related pain and patient satisfaction are the most important outcome domains to be measured in incontinence-associated dermatitis trials. Based on this international consensus on what to measure, the question of how to measure these domains now requires consideration. Registration: This project has been registered in the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET Initiative) database and is part of the Cochrane Skin Group-Core Outcomes Set Initiative (CSG-COUSIN).
|
|
| 13. |
- Van Tiggelen, Hanne, et al.
(författare)
-
Measurement properties of classifications for skin tears : A systematic review
- 2020
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Nursing Studies. - : Elsevier. - 0020-7489 .- 1873-491X. ; 110
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Skin tear classifications support the assessment and reporting of skin tears in a consistent way. The measurement properties of skin tear classifications have not been compared so far.Objectives: To critically appraise, compare and summarise the quality of the measurement properties of available skin tear classifications.Design: Systematic review.Methods: The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL were systematically searched until January 2020. Studies reporting the development and/or the evaluation of measurement properties of skin tear classifications were included. The COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist was applied to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. Each reported measurement property was rated against criteria for good measurement properties. The evidence was summarised and the quality of the evidence was graded using a modified GRADE approach. Study selection, data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted independently by two reviewers and double-checked by a third reviewer.Results: Fourteen studies, describing five classifications, were included. Content validity was examined in five studies, reliability in nine studies, measurement error in two studies, and criterion validity in four studies. For three classification systems, no measurement properties were reported.Conclusions: Five skin tear classifications exist, of which only two have been psychometrically tested. The quality of evidence on their measurement properties varied between very low to moderate. To date, the ISTAP classification is the most commonly evaluated system with moderate quality evidence to support its reliability, measurement error and criterion validity. More well-designed studies using direct skin observations are needed.Tweetable abstract: A systematic review of the measurement properties of skin tear classifications.
|
|
