Search

Introduction: There is no standardised national guidance on clinical management for people living with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and therapeutic interventions are limited. Understanding what outcomes are important and meaningful to people living with MCI and developing a core outcome set (COS) for research and clinical practice will improve the impact of clinical research and contribute towards developing effective care pathways for MCI. This study aims to develop a COS for adults living with MCI intended for use in interventional and clinical settings., Methods and Analysis: The COS will be developed using a five-stage study design: (1) systematic literature search, (2) qualitative interviews, (3) evidence synthesis from stages 1 and 2, (4) two-round Delphi survey and (5) consensus meeting(s). First, we will conduct an umbrella review of existing MCI interventional studies and extract a list of outcomes. Qualitative interviews will be held with key stakeholders including individuals living with MCI, friends and family, and relevant professionals to identify further outcomes considered important. Outcomes from the review and interviews will be synthesised into a 'long list' of outcomes for potential inclusion in the COS. Two rounds of Delphi surveys followed by a consensus meeting will be used to reach stakeholder consensus on which outcomes should be included in the final COS., Ethics and Dissemination: We have received ethical approval from the London-Queen Square Research Ethics Committee (23/PR/1580). Patient and public involvement and engagement are central to developing the COS. The results will be disseminated via conferences, peer-reviewed publications, briefing notes to key agencies, to the public via social media and blog posts and directly to stakeholders who participate in the project., Trial Registration Number: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative 2117; PROSPERO registration: CRD42023452514., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest relevant to the project. EC has received payment for consultancy and providing educational resources to Biogen, Eisai and Lilly., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2025. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ Group.)

Objective: To synthesize evidence of surgical treatment intensity, defined as a measure of the quantity of invasive procedures, received by patients in patients with cancer within a defined time period around the 'end of life' (EoL)., Background: Concern regarding overly 'aggressive' care or high health care utilization at the EoL, particularly in cancer, is growing. The contribution surgery makes to the quality and cost of EoL care in cancer has not yet been quantified., Methods: This PROSPERO registered systematic review used PRIMSA guidelines to search electronic databases for observational studies detailing surgical intensity at the EoL in adult cancer patients. Intensity was compared by disease, individual characteristics, geographical region, and palliative care involvement. A risk of bias tool assessed quality and a narrative synthesis of findings was completed., Results: In total, 39 papers were identified in this search. Up to 79% of patients underwent invasive procedures in the last month of life. Heterogeneity in patient groups, inclusion criteria, and EoL time periods lead to huge variation in results, with treatment intention often not identified. Patient, geographical, and pathological factors, alongside involvement of palliative/hospice care, were all identified as contributors to treatment intensity variation., Conclusions: A significant proportion of patients with cancer undergo invasive and costly invasive procedures at the EoL. There is significant reporting heterogeneity, with variation in patient inclusion criteria and EoL timeframes, demonstrating uncertainty within the literature. Identification of the context where surgical treatment intensity at the EoL is potentially inappropriate is not currently possible., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The authors declare that they have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is a progressive chronic spinal cord injury estimated to affect 1 in 50 adults. Without standardised guidance, clinical research studies have selected outcomes at their discretion, often underrepresenting the disease and limiting comparability between studies. Utilising a standard minimum data set formed via multi-stakeholder consensus can address these issues. This combines processes to define a core outcome set (COS)-a list of key outcomes-and core data elements (CDEs), a list of key sampling characteristics required to interpret the outcomes. Further "how" these outcomes should be measured and/or reported is then defined in a core measurement set (CMS). This can include a recommendation of a standardised time point at which outcome data should be reported. This study defines a COS, CDE, and CMS for DCM research., Methods and Findings: A minimum data set was developed using a series of modified Delphi processes. Phase 1 involved the setup of an international DCM stakeholder group. Phase 2 involved the development of a longlist of outcomes, data elements, and formation into domains. Phase 3 prioritised the outcomes and CDEs using a two-stage Delphi process. Phase 4 determined the final DCM minimal data set using a consensus meeting. Using the COS, Phase 5 finalised definitions of the measurement construct for each outcome. In Phase 6, a systematic review of the literature was performed, to scope and define the psychometric properties of measurement tools. Phase 7 used a modified Delphi process to inform the short-listing of candidate measurement tools. The final measurement set was then formed through a consensus meeting (Phase 8). To support implementation, the data set was then integrated into template clinical research forms (CRFs) for use in future clinical trials (Phase 9). In total, 28 outcomes and 6 domains (Pain, Neurological Function, Life Impact, Radiology, Economic Impact, and Adverse Events) were entered into the final COS. Thirty two outcomes and 4 domains (Individual, Disease, Investigation, and Intervention) were entered into the final CDE. Finally, 4 outcome instruments (mJOA, NDI, SF-36v2, and SAVES2) were identified for the CMS, with a recommendation for trials evaluating outcomes after surgery, to include baseline measurement and at 6 months from surgery., Conclusions: The AO Spine RECODE-DCM has produced a minimum data set for use in DCM clinical trials today. These are available at https://myelopathy.org/minimum-dataset/. While it is anticipated the CDE and COS have strong and durable relevance, it is acknowledged that new measurement tools, alongside an increasing transition to study patients not undergoing surgery, may necessitate updates and adaptation, particularly with respect to the CMS., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Davies et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Introduction: High-quality shared decision-making (SDM) is a priority of health services, but only achieved in a minority of surgical consultations. Improving SDM for surgical patients may lead to more effective care and moderate the impact of treatment consequences. There is a need to establish effective ways to achieve sustained and large-scale improvements in SDM for all patients whatever their background. The ALPACA Study aims to develop, pilot and evaluate a decision support intervention that uses real-time feedback of patients' experience of SDM to change patients' and healthcare professionals' decision-making processes before adult elective surgery and to improve patient and health service outcomes., Methods and Analysis: This protocol outlines a mixed-methods study, involving diverse stakeholders (adult patients, healthcare professionals, members of the community) and three National Health Service (NHS) trusts in England. Detailed methods for the assessment of the feasibility, usability and stakeholder views of implementing a novel system to monitor the SDM process for surgery automatically and in real time are described. The study will measure the SDM process using validated instruments (CollaboRATE, SDM-Q-9, SHARED-Q10) and will conduct semi-structured interviews and focus groups to examine (1) the feasibility of automated data collection, (2) the usability of the novel system and (3) the views of diverse stakeholders to inform the use of the system to improve SDM. Future phases of this work will complete the development and evaluation of the intervention., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval was granted by the NHS Health Research Authority North West-Liverpool Central Research Ethics Committee (reference: 21/PR/0345). Approval was also granted by North Bristol NHS Trust to undertake quality improvement work (reference: Q80008) overseen by the Consent and SDM Programme Board and reporting to an Executive Assurance Committee., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN17951423; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Understanding the use of invasive procedures (IPs) at the end of life (EoL) is important to avoid undertreatment and overtreatment, but epidemiologic analysis is hampered by limited methods to define treatment intent and EoL phase. This study applied novel methods to report IPs at the EoL using a colorectal cancer case study., Methods: An English population-based cohort of adult patients diagnosed between 2013 and 2015 was used with follow-up to 2018. Procedure intent (curative, noncurative, diagnostic) by cancer site and stage at diagnosis was classified by two surgeons independently. Joinpoint regression modeled weekly rates of IPs for 36 subcohorts of patients with incremental survival of 0-36 months. EoL phase was defined by a significant IP rate change before death. Zero-inflated Poisson regression explored associations between IP rates and clinical/sociodemographic variables., Results: Of 87,731 patients included, 41,972 (48%) died. Nine thousand four hundred ninety two procedures were classified by intent (inter-rater agreement 99.8%). Patients received 502,895 IPs (1.39 and 3.36 per person year for survivors and decedents). Joinpoint regression identified significant increases in IPs 4 weeks before death in those living 3-6 months and 8 weeks before death in those living 7-36 months from diagnosis. Seven thousand nine hundred eight (18.8%) patients underwent IPs at the EoL, with stoma formation the most common major procedure. Younger age, early-stage disease, men, lower comorbidity, those receiving chemotherapy, and living longer from diagnosis were associated with IPs., Conclusion: Methods to identify and classify IPs at the EoL were developed and tested within a colorectal cancer population. This approach can be now extended and validated to identify potential undertreatment and overtreatment., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest All authors declare no competing financial interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To explore whether a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership could provide insights on knowledge translation within the field of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM)., Design: Secondary analysis of a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership process for DCM., Participants and Setting: DCM stake holders, including spinal surgeons, people with myelopathy and other healthcare professionals, were surveyed internationally. Research suggestions submitted by stakeholders but considered answered were identified. Sampling characteristics of respondents were compared with the overall cohort to identify subgroups underserved by current knowledge translation., Results: The survey was completed by 423 individuals from 68 different countries. A total of 22% of participants submitted research suggestions that were considered 'answered'. There was a significant difference between responses from different stakeholder groups (p<0.005). Spinal surgeons were the group which was most likely to submit an 'answered' research question. Respondents from South America were also most likely to submit 'answered' questions, when compared with other regions. However, there was no significant difference between responses from different stakeholder regions (p=0.4)., Conclusions: Knowledge translation challenges exist within DCM. This practical approach to measuring knowledge translation may offer a more responsive assessment to guide interventions, complementing existing metrics., Competing Interests: Competing interests: BD, JB, ODM, IS, ES, MGF and MRNK have voluntary roles at Myelopathy.org, an international DCM charity., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Innovative surgical procedures and devices are often modified throughout their development and introduction into clinical practice. A systematic approach to reporting modifications may support shared learning and foster safe and transparent innovation. Definitions of 'modifications', and how they are conceptualized and classified so they can be reported and shared effectively, however, are lacking. This study aimed to explore and summarize existing definitions, perceptions, classifications and views on modification reporting to develop a conceptual framework for understanding and reporting modifications., Methods: A scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Targeted searches and two database searches were performed to identify relevant opinion pieces and review articles. Included were articles relating to modifications to surgical procedures/devices. Data regarding definitions, perceptions and classifications of modifications, and views on modification reporting were extracted verbatim. Thematic analysis was undertaken to identify themes, which informed development of the conceptual framework., Results: Forty-nine articles were included. Eight articles included systems for classifying modifications, but no articles reported an explicit definition of modifications. Some 13 themes relating to perception of modifications were identified. The derived conceptual framework comprises three overarching components: baseline data about modifications, details about modifications and impact/consequences of modifications., Conclusion: A conceptual framework for understanding and reporting modifications that occur during surgical innovation has been developed. This is a first necessary step to support consistent and transparent reporting of modifications, to facilitate shared learning and incremental innovation of surgical procedures/devices. Testing and operationalization is now needed to realize the value of this framework., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.)

Objective: During development of complex surgical innovations, modifications occur to optimize safety and efficacy. Operators' experiences (how professionals feel undertaking the innovation) drive this process but comprehensive overviews of measures of this concept are lacking. This study identified and appraised measures to assess operators' experience of surgical innovation., Study Design and Setting: There were three phases: (1) Literature reviews identified measures of operators' experience and concepts measured were extracted and grouped into domains. (2) Quality appraisal was conducted to assess content validity of identified instruments and was supported by COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments methodology. Self-reported measurement instruments that had underdone formal development were eligible. Content validity was assessed using COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments criteria for good content validity (rated sufficient/insufficient/indeterminate/inconsistent), informed by standards for measurement development and domains identified in phase 1. (3) Instruments determined suitable and of sufficient quality underwent supplemental appraisal in interviews with international multidisciplinary professionals and a focus group., Results: Literature reviews identified 16 measurement instruments from 243 studies. Most assessed 'psychological' experiences and 'usability'. No instrument was specifically validated for innovative surgery. Three instruments were rated 'sufficient' (Surgery Task Load Index [SURG-TLX]) or 'indeterminate' (Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Imperial Stress Assessment Tool). Twenty professionals were interviewed (seven female; 15 specialties; six countries) and the focus group included 10 participants (four professionals, six researchers). The SURG-TLX was considered the most relevant, comprehensive, and comprehensible instrument., Conclusion: The SURG-TLX is preliminarily recommended to measure operators' experiences of innovation. Further work exploring its role and impact on surgical innovation is required., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Progress in degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is hindered by inconsistent measurement and reporting. This impedes data aggregation and outcome comparison across studies. This limitation can be reversed by developing a core measurement set (CMS) for DCM research. Previously, the AO Spine Research Objectives and Common Data Elements for DCM (AO Spine RECODE-DCM) defined 'what' should be measured in DCM: the next step of this initiative is to determine 'how' to measure these features. This protocol outlines the steps necessary for the development of a CMS for DCM research and audit., Methods and Analysis: The CMS will be developed in accordance with the guidance developed by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials and the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments. The process involves five phases. In phase 1, the steering committee agreed on the constructs to be measured by sourcing consensus definitions from patients, professionals and the literature. In phases 2 and 3, systematic reviews were conducted to identify tools for each construct and aggregate their evidence. Constructs with and without tools were identified, and scoping reviews were conducted for constructs without tools. Evidence on measurement properties, as well as on timing of assessments, are currently being aggregated. These will be presented in phase 4: a consensus meeting where a multi-disciplinary panel of experts will select the instruments that will form the CMS. Following selection, guidance on the implementation of the CMS will be developed and disseminated (phase 5). A preliminary CMS review scheduled at 4 years from release., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Cambridge (HBREC2019.14). Dissemination strategies will include peer-reviewed scientific publications; conference presentations; podcasts; the identification of AO Spine RECODE-DCM ambassadors; and engagement with relevant journals, funders and the DCM community., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Outcome selection and reporting in studies of novel surgical procedures and devices lacks standardisation, hindering safe and effective evaluation. A core outcome set (COS) to measure and report in all studies of surgical innovation is needed. We explored outcomes in a specific sample of innovative surgical device case studies to identify outcome domains specifically relevant to innovation to inform the development of a COS., Design: A targeted review of 11 purposive selected case studies of innovative surgical devices., Methods: Electronic database searches in PubMed (July 2018) identified publications reporting the introduction and evaluation of each device. Outcomes were extracted and categorised into domains until no new domains were conceptualised. Outcomes specifically relevant to evaluating innovation were further scrutinised., Results: 112 relevant publications were identified, and 5926 outcomes extracted. Heterogeneity in study type, outcome selection and reporting was observed across surgical devices. Categorisation of outcomes was performed for 2689 (45.4%) outcomes into five broad outcome domains. Outcomes considered key to the evaluation of innovation (n=66; 2.5%) were further categorised as surgeon/operator experience (n=40; 1.5%), unanticipated events (n=15, 0.6%) and modifications (n=11; 0.4%)., Conclusion: Outcome domains unique to evaluating innovative surgical devices have been identified. Findings have been combined with multiple other data sources relevant to the evaluation of surgical innovation to inform the development of a COS to measure and report in all studies evaluating novel surgical procedures/devices., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Study Design: Mixed-methods cross-sectional study., Objectives: Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is a common and disabling condition. While classically, assessment and diagnosis has focused on neuromuscular symptoms, many other disabilities have been linked. The aim of this study was to explore the consequences of DCM for those with lived experience, producing a long list to inform the development of a core outcome set for DCM research., Methods: A 2-stage process was used: a focus group session of people with DCM (PwCM) and their supporters (n = 8) discussed the impact of DCM. This was used to develop a preliminary list of consequences, which were then placed into a survey of an online community of DCM sufferers (n = 224). Survey participants were asked to tick the consequences that they had experienced and given the opportunity to submit additional. Additional consequences were reviewed by a group of healthcare professionals and PwCM and included if not already represented. Demographic information including disease severity, age, and sex were captured for sampling comparison., Results: A total of 52 outcomes were identified from the focus group and nominally divided into 2 categories; symptoms (36 outcomes) and handicaps (18 outcomes), and further evaluated using a survey. All outcomes were recognized by at least 5% of respondents. A further 16 outcomes were added following the survey., Conclusions: A list of DCM consequences has been defined from the perspective of PwCM. This will now be evaluated as part of AO Spine RECODE-DCM, an international multistakeholder collaboration to establish a core outcome set for research.

Study Design: Survey., Introduction: AO Spine Research Objectives and Common Data Elements for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy (AO Spine RECODE-DCM) is an international initiative that aims to accelerate knowledge discovery and improve outcomes by developing a consensus framework for research. This includes defining the top research priorities, an index term and a minimum data set (core outcome set and core data elements set - core outcome set (COS)/core data elements (CDE))., Objective: To describe how perspectives were gathered and report the detailed sampling characteristics., Methods: A two-stage, electronic survey was used to gather and seek initial consensus. Perspectives were sought from spinal surgeons, other healthcare professionals and people with degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). Participants were allocated to one of two parallel streams: (1) priority setting or (2) minimum dataset. An email campaign was developed to advertise the survey to relevant global stakeholder individuals and organisations. People with DCM were recruited using the international DCM charity Myelopathy.org and its social media channels. A network of global partners was recruited to act as project ambassadors. Data from Google Analytics, MailChimp and Calibrum helped optimise survey dissemination., Results: Survey engagement was high amongst the three stakeholder groups: 208 people with DCM, 389 spinal surgeons and 157 other healthcare professionals. Individuals from 76 different countries participated; the United States, United Kingdom and Canada were the most common countries of participants., Conclusion: AO Spine RECODE-DCM recruited a diverse and sufficient number of participants for an international PSP and COS/CDE process. Whilst PSP and COS/CDE have been undertaken in other fields, to our knowledge, this is the first time they have been combined in one process.

Introduction: Innovation in surgery drives improvements to patient care. New surgical procedures and devices typically undergo a series of modifications as they are developed and refined during their introduction into clinical practice. These changes should ideally be reported and shared between surgeon-innovators to promote efficient, safe and transparent innovation. Currently, agreement on how modifications should be defined, conceptualised and classified, so they can be reported and shared efficiently and transparently, is lacking. The aim of this review is to examine and summarise existing literature on definitions, perceptions and classifications of modifications to surgical procedures/devices, including views on how to measure and report them. The findings will inform future work to standardise reporting and sharing of modifications in surgical innovation., Materials and Methods: A systematic scoping review will be conducted adhering to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Included articles will focus on review articles and opinion pieces relevant to modifications to new surgical procedures or devices introduced to clinical practice. Methods to identify relevant literature will include systematic searches in MEDLINE (Ovid version), targeted internet searches (Google Scholar) and snowball searches. A two-stage screening process (titles/abstracts/keywords and full-texts) will use specified exclusion/inclusion criteria to identify eligible articles. Data on how modifications are i) defined, ii) perceived, and iii) classified, and iv) views on how modifications should be measured and reported, will be extracted verbatim. Inductive thematic analysis will be applied to extracted data where appropriate. Results will be presented as a narrative summary including descriptive characteristics of included articles. Findings will inform a preliminary conceptual framework to facilitate the systematic reporting and sharing of modifications to novel procedures and devices., Highlights: This work will generate an in-depth understanding of how modifications are currently defined, perceived and classified, and views on how they may be reported, in the context of surgical innovation.Rigorous and comprehensive search methods will be applied to identify a wide range of diverse data sources for inclusion in the review.A summary of existing relevant literature on modifications is a necessary step to inform development of a framework for transparent, real-time reporting and sharing of modifications in future studies of innovative invasive procedures/devices., Competing Interests: JB is a member of the Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative Management Group. All other authors declare no conflict of interests., (Copyright: © 2021 The Author(s).)

Objectives: AO Spine REsearch objectives and Common Data Elements for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy [RECODE-DCM] is a multi-stakeholder consensus process aiming to promote research efficiency in DCM. It aims to establish the top 10 research uncertainties, through a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership [PSP]. Through a consensus process, research questions are generated and ranked. The inclusion of people with cervical myelopathy [PwCM] is central to the process. We hypothesized that presenting PwCM experience through word cloud generation would stimulate other key stakeholders to generate research questions better aligned with PwCM needs. This protocol outlines our plans to evaluate this as a nested methodological study within our PSP., Methods: An online poll asked PwCM to submit and vote on words associated with aspects of DCM. After review, a refined word list was re-polled for voting and word submission. Word clouds were generated and an implementation plan for AO Spine RECODE-DCM PSP surveys was subsequently developed., Results: Seventy-nine terms were submitted after the first poll. Eighty-seven refined words were then re-polled (which added a further 39 words). Four word clouds were generated under the categories of diagnosis, management, long-term effects, and other. A 1:1 block randomization protocol to assess word cloud impact on the number and relevance of PSP research questions was generated., Conclusions: We have shown it is feasible to work with PwCM to generate a tool for the AO Spine RECODE-DCM nested methodological study. Once the survey stage is completed, we will be able to evaluate the impact of the word clouds. Further research will be needed to assess the value of any impact in terms of stimulating a more creative research agenda.

Objectives: Little is known about how innovative surgical procedures are introduced and discussed with patients. This qualitative study aimed to explore perspectives on information provision and consent prior to innovative surgical procedures., Design: Qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically., Participants: 42 interviews were conducted (26 surgeons and 16 governance representatives)., Setting: Surgeons and governance representatives recruited from various surgical specialties and National Health Service (NHS) Trusts across England, UK., Results: Participants stated that if a procedure was innovative, patients should be provided with additional information extending beyond that given during routine surgical consultations. However, difficulty defining innovation had implications for whether patients were informed about novel components of surgery and how the procedure was introduced (ie, as part of a research study, trust approval or in routine clinical practice). Furthermore, data suggest surgeons found it difficult to establish what information is essential and how much detail is sufficient, and governance surrounding written and verbal information provision differed between NHS Trusts. Generally, surgeons believed patients held a view that 'new' was best and reported that managing these expectations could be difficult, particularly if patient views aligned with their own., Conclusions: This study highlights the challenges of information provision and obtaining informed consent in the context of innovative surgery, including establishing if and how a procedure is truly innovative, determining the key information to discuss with patients, ensuring information provision is objective and balanced, and managing patient expectations and preferences. This suggests that surgeons may require support and training to discuss novel procedures with patients. Further work should capture consultations where new procedures are discussed with patients and patients' views of these information exchanges., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: 'Core information sets' (CISs) represent baseline information, agreed by patients and professionals, to stimulate individualised patient-centred discussions. This study developed a CIS for use before colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery., Design: Three phase consensus study: (1) Systematic literature reviews and patient interviews to identify potential information of importance to patients, (2) UK national Delphi survey of patients and professionals to rate the importance of the information, (3) international consensus meeting to agree on the final CIS., Setting: UK CRC centres., Participants: Purposive sampling was conducted to ensure CRC centre representation based upon geographical region and caseload volume. Responses were received from 63/81 (78%) centres (90 professionals). Adult patients who had undergone CRC surgery were eligible, and purposive sampling was conducted to ensure representation based on age, sex and cancer location (rectum, left and right colon). Responses were received from 97/267 (35%) patients with a wide age range (29-87), equal sex ratio and cancer location. Attendees of the international Tripartite Colorectal Conference were eligible for the consensus meeting., Outcomes: Phase 1: Information of potential importance to patients was extracted verbatim and operationalised into a Delphi questionnaire. Phase 2: Patients and professionals rated the importance information on a 9-point Likert scale, and resurveyed following group feedback. Information rated of low importance were discarded using predefined criteria. Phase 3: A modified nominal group technique was used to gain final consensus in separate consensus meetings with patients and professionals., Results: Data sources identified 1216 pieces of information that informed a 98-item questionnaire. Analysis led to 50 and 23 information domains being retained after the first and second surveys, respectively. The final CIS included 11 concepts including specific surgical complications, short and long-term survival, disease recurrence, stoma and quality of life issues., Conclusions: This study has established a CIS for professionals to discuss with patients before CRC surgery., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AGKM is funded by a Clinician Scientist Fellowship (NIHR-CS-2017-17-010) from the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at the University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Study Design: Mixed-method consensus process., Objectives: Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is a common and disabling condition that arises when mechanical stress damages the spinal cord as a result of degenerative changes in the surrounding spinal structures. RECODE-DCM ( RE search Objectives and C ommon D ata E lements for D egenerative C ervical M yelopathy) aims to improve efficient use of health care resources within the field of DCM by using a multi-stakeholder partnership to define the DCM research priorities, to develop a minimum dataset for DCM clinical studies, and confirm a definition of DCM., Methods: This requires a multi-stakeholder partnership and multiple parallel consensus development processes. It will be conducted via 4 phases, adhering to the guidance set out by the COMET (Core Outcomes in Effectiveness Trials) and JLA (James Lind Alliance) initiatives. Phase 1 will consist of preliminary work to inform online Delphi processes (Phase 2) and a consensus meeting (Phase 3). Following the findings of the consensus meeting, a synthesis of relevant measurement instruments will be compiled and assessed as per the COSMIN (Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments) criteria, to allow recommendations to be made on how to measure agreed data points. Phase 4 will monitor and promote the use of eventual recommendations., Conclusions: RECODE-DCM sets out to establish for the first time an index term, minimum dataset, and research priorities together. Our aim is to reduce waste of health care resources in the future by using patient priorities to inform the scope of future DCM research activities. The consistent use of a standard dataset in DCM clinical studies, audit, and clinical surveillance will facilitate pooled analysis of future data and, ultimately, a deeper understanding of DCM., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Objective: Lack of standardised outcomes hampers effective analysis and comparison of data when comparing treatments in fistulising perianal Crohn's disease (pCD). Development of a standardised set of outcomes would resolve these issues. This study provides the definitive core outcome set (COS) for fistulising pCD., Design: Candidate outcomes were generated through a systematic review and patient interviews. Consensus was established via a three-round Delphi process using a 9-point Likert scale based on how important they felt it was in determining treatment success culminating in a final consensus meeting. Stakeholders were recruited nationally and grouped into three panels (surgeons and radiologists, gastroenterologists and IBD specialist nurses, and patients). Participants received feedback from their panel (in the second round) and all participants (in the third round) to allow refinement of their scores., Results: A total of 295 outcomes were identified from systematic reviews and interviews that were categorised into 92 domains. 187 stakeholders (response rate 78.5%) prioritised 49 outcomes through a three-round Delphi study. The final consensus meeting of 41 experts and patients generated agreement on an eight domain COS. The COS comprised three patient-reported outcome domains (quality of life, incontinence and a combined score of patient priorities) and five clinician-reported outcome domains (perianal disease activity, development of new perianal abscess/sepsis, new/recurrent fistula, unplanned surgery and faecal diversion)., Conclusion: A fistulising pCD COS has been produced by all key stakeholders. Application of the COS will reduce heterogeneity in outcome reporting, thereby facilitating more meaningful comparisons between treatments, data synthesis and ultimately benefit patient care., Competing Interests: Competing interests: KS and SOA have received honoraria from Takeda for sitting on an advisory board. PJT has received honoraria from Takeda for sitting on an advisory board and for speaking at a symposium. AJL is an advisory board member or received lecture fees from Takeda Pharma, AbbVie, Vifor Pharma, Dr Falk and Shield Therapeutics. ALH has served as a consultant, advisory board member or speaker for AbbVie, Atlantic, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Falk, Ferring, Janssen, MSD, Napp Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Pharmacosmos, Shire and Takeda. She also serves on the Global Steering Committee for Genentech. NSF has received travel grants from Obsidian Health and Strategen to deliver invited lectures., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2019. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Objective: Colorectal cancer (CRC) leads to significant morbidity/mortality worldwide. Defining critical research gaps (RG), their prioritisation and resolution, could improve patient outcomes., Design: RG analysis was conducted by a multidisciplinary panel of patients, clinicians and researchers (n=71). Eight working groups (WG) were constituted: discovery science; risk; prevention; early diagnosis and screening; pathology; curative treatment; stage IV disease; and living with and beyond CRC. A series of discussions led to development of draft papers by each WG, which were evaluated by a 20-strong patient panel. A final list of RGs and research recommendations (RR) was endorsed by all participants., Results: Fifteen critical RGs are summarised below: RG1 : Lack of realistic models that recapitulate tumour/tumour micro/macroenvironment; RG2 : Insufficient evidence on precise contributions of genetic/environmental/lifestyle factors to CRC risk; RG3 : Pressing need for prevention trials; RG4 : Lack of integration of different prevention approaches; RG5 : Lack of optimal strategies for CRC screening; RG6 : Lack of effective triage systems for invasive investigations; RG7 : Imprecise pathological assessment of CRC; RG8 : Lack of qualified personnel in genomics, data sciences and digital pathology; RG9 : Inadequate assessment/communication of risk, benefit and uncertainty of treatment choices; RG10 : Need for novel technologies/interventions to improve curative outcomes; RG11 : Lack of approaches that recognise molecular interplay between metastasising tumours and their microenvironment; RG12 : Lack of reliable biomarkers to guide stage IV treatment; RG13 : Need to increase understanding of health related quality of life (HRQOL) and promote residual symptom resolution; RG14 : Lack of coordination of CRC research/funding; RG15 : Lack of effective communication between relevant stakeholders., Conclusion: Prioritising research activity and funding could have a significant impact on reducing CRC disease burden over the next 5 years., Competing Interests: Competing interests: ML reports support from Pfizer, outside the submitted work; DA reports grants from the Norman Foster Foundation, grants from the Tom Simms Memorial Fund at Queen’s University Belfast, during the conduct of the study; Dr Andreyev reports other from Entrinsic Health Solutions, Inc and personal fees from Macmillan Cancer Support, outside the submitted work; Professor Atkin reports grants from Cancer Research UK, outside the submitted work; Mr Bach reports personal fees from Ethicon Inc, outside the submitted work; Professor Burn has a patent A novel panel of short coding repeats suitable for high-throughput detection of microsatellite instability pending to Newcastle University; Dr Chau reports grants from Eli-Lily, Janssen-Cilag, Sanofi Oncology, Merck-Serono, and Novartis, personal fees from Taiho, Pfizer, Amgen, Eli-Lily, outside the submitted work; Professor Cheadle has a patent MUTYH gene variants licensed to Myriad Genetics and receives royalties; Professor Cunningham reports grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Celgene, Medimmune, Merck Serono, Merrimack, and Sanofi, outside the submitted work; Professor Fraser reports personal fees from Immunostics Inc, Ocean, NJ, USA, Kyowa, Tokyo, Japan, and support for travel from Alpha Labs Ltd, Eastleigh, Hants, UK, during the conduct of the study; DH reports MRC CASE Award with Merck Serono for project unrelated to this submission and research support from Merck Serono for project unrelated to this submission; MH reports other from consultancy for Thetis Pharma, outside the submitted work; CN reports personal fees from Takeda and Ferring, outside the submitted work; Dr Sharma reports grants, personal fees and other from Sirtex, grants, personal fees and other from BTG, during the conduct of the study; AT reports personal fees from BMS Advisory Board, Roche Speaker Panel, Amgen Advisory Board, and Servier Advisory Board, outside the submitted work; LMW reports personal fees from Atticus Consultants Ltd, during the conduct of the study; RW reports personal fees from BMS Advisory Board, Clovis Oncology Advisory Board, Halozyme Advisory Board, Amgen Advisory Board, Servier Advisory Board, and Sirtex Independent Data Monitoring and Safety Committee, all outside the submitted work. RA, Professor Ahmedzai, ASA, Mr Arbuthnot, Mrs Berkman, Miss Bloor, Mr Boulter, Mrs Cole, Dr Brewster, GB, Professor Cazier, Dr Coyle, Mr Davies, Professor Downward, Professor Dunlop, NSF, SF, Dr Gerlinger, Dr Glaser, Professor Goh, Professor González De Castro, Dr Graham, Mr Griffith, Professor Halligan, SPH, Professor Hamilton, Mrs Hepburn, Dr Hold, Mr Holden, Professor Houlston, Dr Hubbard, Dr Iqbal, Dr Irvine, Dr Iveson, Mr Jackson, Mr Jakowiw, Mrs Jefford, Professor Longley, Dr McDermott, AGKM, Mr Machesney, Professor Maher, Professor Marchesi, Professor Maughan, Professor Middleton, Mr Moss, Mrs Moss, KJM, Dr Murchie, IN, MRN, Mr O’Sullivan, Mr Robertson, Professor Rutter, Dr Sansom, Dr Samuel, Professor Saxton, Dr Seward, Mrs Smith, Dr Sottoriva, RS, Professor Steward, Mr Stocker, Mrs Sweetman, IT, Dr Von Wagner and Professor Williams have nothing to disclose., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background: Consent remains a crucial, yet challenging, cornerstone of clinical practice. The ethical, legal and professional understandings of this construct have evolved away from a doctor-centred act to a patient-centred process that encompasses the patient's values, beliefs and goals. This alignment of consent with the philosophy of shared decision-making was affirmed in a recent high-profile Supreme Court ruling in England. The communication of information is central to this model of health care delivery but it can be difficult for doctors to gauge the information needs of the individual patient. The aim of this paper is to describe 'core information sets' which are defined as a minimum set of consensus-derived information about a given procedure to be discussed with all patients. Importantly, they are intended to catalyse discussion of subjective importance to individuals., Main Body: The model described in this paper applies health services research and Delphi consensus-building methods to an idea orginally proposed 30 years ago. The hypothesis is that, first, large amounts of potentially-important information are distilled down to discrete information domains. These are then, secondly, rated by key stakeholders in multiple iterations, so that core information of agreed importance can be defined. We argue that this scientific approach is key to identifying information important to all stakeholders, which may otherwise be communicated poorly or omitted from discussions entirely. Our methods apply systematic review, qualitative, survey and consensus-building techniques to define this 'core information'. We propose that such information addresses the 'reasonable patient' standard for information disclosure but, more importantly, can serve as a spring board for high-value discussion of importance to the individual patient., Conclusion: The application of established research methods can define information of core importance to informed consent. Further work will establish how best to incorporate this model in routine practice.

Purpose: The CONSORT extension for patient reported outcomes (PROs) aims to improve reporting, but guidance on the optimal integration with clinical data is lacking. This study examines in detail the reporting of PROs and clinical data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in gastro-intestinal cancer to inform design and reporting of combined PRO and clinical data from trials to improve the 'take home' message for clinicians to use in practice., Materials and Methods: The case study was undertaken in gastro-intestinal cancer trials. Well-conducted RCTs reporting PROs with validated instruments were identified and categorized into those combining PRO and clinical data in a single paper, or those separating data into linked primary and supplemental papers. Qualitative methods were developed to examine reporting of the critical interpretation of the trial results (trial exegesis) in the papers in relation of the PRO and clinical outcomes and applied to each publication category. Results were used to inform recommendations for practice., Results: From 1917 screened abstracts, 49 high quality RCTs were identified reported in 36 combined and 15 linked primary and supplemental papers. In-depth analysis of manuscript text identified three categories for understanding trial exegesis: where authors reported a "detailed", "general", or absent PRO rationale and integrated interpretation of clinical and PRO results. A total of 11 (30%) and 6 (16%) combined papers reported "detailed" PRO rationale and integrated interpretation of results although only 2 (14%) and 1 (7%) primary papers achieved the same standard respectively. Supplemental papers provide better information with 11 (73%) and 3 (20%) achieving "detailed" rationale and integrated interpretation of results. Supplemental papers, however, were published a median of 20 months after the primary RCT data in lower impact factor journals (median 16.8 versus 5.2)., Conclusion: It is recommended that single papers, with detailed PRO rationale and integrated PRO and clinical data are published to optimize trial exegesis. Further work to examine whether this improves the use of PRO data to inform practice is needed., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of worldwide morbidity and mortality. Surgical treatment is common, and there is a great need to improve the delivery of such care. The gold standard for evaluating surgery is within well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, the impact of RCTs is diminished by a lack of coordinated outcome measurement and reporting. A solution to these issues is to develop an agreed standard "core" set of outcomes to be measured in all trials to facilitate cross-study comparisons, meta-analysis, and minimize outcome reporting bias. This study defines a core outcome set for CRC surgery., Methods and Findings: The scope of this COS includes clinical effectiveness trials of surgical interventions for colorectal cancer. Excluded were nonsurgical oncological interventions. Potential outcomes of importance to patients and professionals were identified through systematic literature reviews and patient interviews. All outcomes were transcribed verbatim and categorized into domains by two independent researchers. This informed a questionnaire survey that asked stakeholders (patients and professionals) from United Kingdom CRC centers to rate the importance of each domain. Respondents were resurveyed following group feedback (Delphi methods). Outcomes rated as less important were discarded after each survey round according to predefined criteria, and remaining outcomes were considered at three consensus meetings; two involving international professionals and a separate one with patients. A modified nominal group technique was used to gain the final consensus. Data sources identified 1,216 outcomes of CRC surgery that informed a 91 domain questionnaire. First round questionnaires were returned from 63 out of 81 (78%) centers, including 90 professionals, and 97 out of 267 (35%) patients. Second round response rates were high for all stakeholders (>80%). Analysis of responses lead to 45 and 23 outcome domains being retained after the first and second surveys, respectively. Consensus meetings generated agreement on a 12 domain COS. This constituted five perioperative outcome domains (including anastomotic leak), four quality of life outcome domains (including fecal urgency and incontinence), and three oncological outcome domains (including long-term survival)., Conclusion: This study used robust consensus methodology to develop a core outcome set for use in colorectal cancer surgical trials. It is now necessary to validate the use of this set in research practice.

Background: Trials are robust sources of data for clinical practice; however, trial outcomes may not reflect what is important to communicate for decision-making. The study compared clinicians' views of outcomes to include in a core outcome set for colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery, with what clinicians considered important information for clinical practice (core information)., Methods: Potential outcome/information domains were identified through systematic literature reviews, reviews of hospital information leaflets and interviews with patients. These were organized into six categories and used to design a questionnaire survey that asked surgeons and nurses from a sample of CRC centers to rate the importance of each domain as an outcome or as information on a nine-point Likert scale. Respondents were re-surveyed (round 2) following group feedback (Delphi methods). Comparisons were made by calculating the difference in mean scores between the outcomes and information domains, and paired t tests were used to explore the difference between mean scores of the six outcome/information categories., Results: Data sources identified 1216 outcome/information items for CRC surgery that informed a 94-item questionnaire. First-round questionnaires were returned from 63/81 (78 %) of centers. Clinicians rated 76/94 (84 %) domains of higher importance to measure in trials than information to communicate to patients in round 1. This was reduced to 24/47 (51 %) in round 2. The greatest difference was evident in domains regarding survival, which was rated much more highly as a trial outcome than an important piece of information for decision-making (difference in mean 2.3, 95 % CI 1.9 to 2.8, p <0.0001). Specific complications and quality-of-life domains were rated similarly (difference in mean 0.18, 95 % CI -0.1 to 0.4, p = 0.2 and difference in mean 0.2, 95 % CI -0.1 to 0.5, p = 0.2, respectively)., Conclusions: Whilst clinicians want to measure key outcomes in trials, they rate these as less important to communicate in decision-making with patients. This discrepancy needs to be explored and addressed to maximize the impact of trials on clinical practice.

Background: The information surgeons impart to patients and information patients want about surgery for cancer is important but rarely examined. This study explored information provided by surgeons and patient preferences for information in consultations in which surgery for oesophageal cancer surgery was discussed., Methods: Pre-operation consultations in which oesophagectomy was discussed were studied in three United Kingdom hospitals and patients were subsequently interviewed. Consultations and interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed in full and anonymized. Interviews elicited views about the information provided by surgeons and patients' preferences for information. Thematic analysis of consultation-interview pairs was used to investigate similarities and differences in the information provided by surgeons and desired by patients., Results: Fifty two audio-recordings from 31 patients and 7 surgeons were obtained (25 consultations and 27 patient interviews). Six consultations were not recorded because of equipment failure and four patients declined an interview. Surgeons all provided consistent, extensive information on technical operative details and in-hospital surgical risks. Consultations rarely included discussion of the longer-term outcomes of surgery. Whilst patients accepted that information about surgery and risks was necessary, they really wanted details about long-term issues including recovery, impact on quality of life and survival., Conclusions: This study demonstrated a need for surgeons to provide information of importance to patients concerning the longer term outcomes of surgery. It is proposed that "core information sets" are developed, based on surgeons' and patients' views, to use as a minimum in consultations to initiate discussion and meet information needs prior to cancer surgery.

Introduction: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are critical to evaluate clinically effective treatments and evidence suggests that PROs might predict survival. The prognostic value of PROs in patients with isolated liver metastases from colorectal cancer (CRC) who undergo surgery is unclear. In this study we investigated whether baseline PROs are prognostic in this patient group., Patients and Methods: From April 2004 to May 2007, consecutive patients who underwent curative resection of CRC liver metastases completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ)-C30 and QLQ-LMC21 questionnaires before surgery. Patients were followed until death or data were censored on April 9, 2012. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the effect of PROs on survival controlling for predefined clinical covariates. Models were simplified using a backwards stepwise approach and model utility appraised using the Harrell C and Somers D statistics and bootstrap methods., Results: Two hundred thirty-two patients underwent liver resection and 101 (43.5%) survived 5 years. Multivariate analysis controlling for relevant clinical covariates showed that a 10-point improvement in baseline global quality of life scores was associated with a 54% improvement in survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33-0.63; P < .001), and a clinically significant weight loss was associated with 75% worse survival (HR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.20-2.55; P = .004). Smaller effects were noted for worsening abdominal pain, taste problems, and fatigue (30%-38% poorer survival). Results of bootstrap resampling suggested that global health and weight loss most reliably predicted survival., Conclusion: Results of this study demonstrated that patients who reported worse baseline global quality of life and increased weight loss before liver resection for CRC liver metastases had significantly poorer survival. These findings if externally validated might be used to inform patients, and could also influence treatment planning and advise follow-up strategies and supportive care., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Multimodal strategies before surgery are often used to improve outcomes, but disease progression (precluding surgical resection) and inoperability at planned surgery still occur following neoadjuvant treatment. The standards of reporting of these outcomes have not previously been considered. This study examined reporting of rates of progression to surgical resection and inoperability at planned surgery following neoadjuvant treatment in surgical oncology, using esophageal cancer as a case study., Methods: A systematic review identified randomized trials and prospective nonrandomized studies reporting short-term outcomes of neoadjuvant treatment and surgery for esophageal cancer., Results: Of 4,763 abstracts, 224 papers were retrieved and 76 studies included (8 randomized trials and 68 cohort studies of 19,441 esophagectomies). Articles reported outcomes of preoperative chemotherapy (n = 33, 43.4 %), chemoradiotherapy (n = 13, 17.1 %), or both within one paper (n = 18, 23.7 %) and 12 (15.8 %) did not specify the type of neoadjuvant treatment. Also, 20 papers (26.3 %) reported numbers of patients not progressing to surgery after neoadjuvant treatment (with rates of nonprogression ranging between 2.0 and 35.3 %). In addition, 24 papers (31.6 %) reported rates of inoperability at planned surgery (with inoperability rates ranging between 0 and 26.2 %). More randomized controlled trials (RCTs) than observational studies reported nonprogression (4 randomized and 16 nonrandomized studies, 95 % CI -9.6 to 62.6 %, p = 0.108) and inoperability (6 randomized trials and 18 observational studies, 95 % CI 16.8-80.3 %, p = 0.005). Some 17 and 10 articles provided reasons for the observed rates of nonprogression and inoperability, respectively., Conclusions: Reporting rates of progression to surgery after neoadjuvant treatment and inoperability at planned surgery for esophageal cancer were poor, limiting data synthesis and comparisons. It is suggested that core outcome sets for trials in surgical oncology are developed with inclusion of these important endpoints. Collaboration between medical and surgical oncologists is necessary to achieve this.

Objective: This review summarizes reporting of complications of esophageal cancer surgery., Background: Accurate assessment of morbidity and mortality after surgery for cancer is essential to compare centers, allow data synthesis, and inform clinical decision-making. A lack of defined standards may distort clinically relevant treatment effects., Methods: Systematic literature searches identified articles published between 2005 and 2009 reporting morbidity and mortality after esophagectomy for cancer. Data were analyzed for frequency of complication reporting and to check whether outcomes were defined and classified for severity and whether a validated system for grading complications was used. Information about reporting outcomes adjusting for baseline risk factors was collated, and a descriptive summary of the results of included outcomes was undertaken., Results: Of 3458 abstracts, 224 full papers were reviewed and 122 were included (17 randomized trials and 105 observational studies), reporting outcomes of 57,299 esophagectomies. No single complication was reported in all papers, and 60 (60.6%) did not define any of the measured complications. Anastomotic leak was the most commonly reported morbidity, assessed in 80 (80.1%) articles, defined in 28 (28.3%), but 22 different descriptions were used. Five papers (5.1%) categorized morbidity with a validated grading system. One hundred fifteen papers reported postoperative mortality rates, 25 defining the term using 10 different definitions. In-hospital mortality was the most commonly used term for postoperative death, with 6 different interpretations of this phrase. Eighteen papers adjusted outcomes for baseline risk factors and 60 presented baseline measures of comorbidity., Conclusions: Outcome reporting after esophageal cancer surgery is heterogeneous and inconsistent, and it lacks methodological rigor. A consensus approach to reporting clinical outcomes should be considered, and at the minimum it is recommended that a "core outcome set" is defined and used in all studies reporting outcomes of esophageal cancer surgery. This will allow meaningful cross study comparisons and analyses to evaluate surgery.

PURPOSE Evidence suggests that patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from randomized trials in oncology may not influence clinical decision making and patient choice. Reasons for this are currently unclear and little is known about patients' interpretation of PROs. This study assessed patients' understanding of multidimensional PROs in a graphical format. PATIENTS AND METHODS Semistructured interviews in which patients interpreted a series of graphs depicting simple, then multiple different hypothetical PROs associated with two treatments with identical chances of survival were audio recorded. The interviewer and a blinded observer (listening to audio recordings) scored patients' understanding of the graphs. Logistic regression examined the associations between patient understanding of the graphs and clinical and sociodemographic details. Results One hundred thirty-two patients with esophageal and gastric cancer were interviewed and 115 understood the first two graphs depicting different PROs of two treatments (87%; 95% CI,81 to 93). Simultaneous interpretation of adverse and beneficial treatment effects was achieved by 74 (66%; 95% CI, 57 to 75). Graphs showing complex, longitudinal data were correctly interpreted by 97 (73%; 95% CI, 66 to 81) and 108 (81%; 95% CI, 75 to 88), respectively. Univariable analyses demonstrated associations between patient understanding and patient age, educational level, and cancer site (P < or = .02 for all); however, in a multivariable model each of these associations was attenuated. CONCLUSION Most patients understand graphical multidimensional PROs, although a smaller majority were able to interpret more complex, or simultaneous, presentations. Additional work is needed to define methods for communicating clinical and PRO data from trials to allow patients to make informed treatment choices.