Development Of Core Outcome Set Research Articles

Fetal lower urinary tract obstruction: international Delphi consensus on management and core outcomes set.

To reach a Delphi-generated international expert consensus on the diagnosis, prognostic, management, and core outcome set (COS) of fetal Lower Urinary Tract Obstruction (LUTO). A three-round Delphi procedure was conducted among an international panel of LUTO experts. The panel was provided with a list of literature review-generated parameters for the diagnosis, prognostic, management, and outcomes. A parallel procedure was conducted along with patient groups during the development of COS. A total of 160 experts were approached, of whom 99 completed the first round and 80 (80/99, 80.8%) completed all three rounds. In the first trimester, an objective measurement of longitudinal bladder diameter (with ≥7 mm being abnormal) should be used to suspect LUTO. In the second trimester, imaging parameters of LUTO could include: a) an enlarged bladder, b) a keyhole sign, c) bladder wall thickening, d) bilateral hydro (uretero) nephrosis, and e) male sex. There was a lack of consensus on the current prognostic scoring literature. However, experts agreed on the value of amniotic fluid volume (< 24 weeks) to predict survival and that the value of fetal intervention is to improve neonatal survival. While experts endorsed the role of sonographic parameters of renal dysplasia, at least one vesicocentesis, and urine biochemistry for prognosis and counseling, these items did not reach a consensus for determining fetal intervention candidacy. On the other hand, imaging parameters suggestive of LUTO, absence of life-limiting structural or genetic anomalies, gestational age of ≥16 weeks, and oligohydramnios defined as deepest vertical pocket (DVP) <2 cm should be used as candidacy criteria for fetal intervention based on experts' consensus. If a bladder refill was evaluated, it should be assessed subjectively. Vesicoamniotic shunt should be the first line of fetal intervention. In the presence of suspected fetal renal failure, serial amnioinfusion should only be offered as an experimental procedure under research protocols. The core outcome set for future studies was agreed upon. International consensus on the diagnosis, prognosis, and management of fetal LUTO, as well as the Core Outcome Set, should inform clinical care and research to optimize perinatal outcomes. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Fostering Connections at OMERACT 2023: A Collaborative Approach to Core Outcome Set Development

none

Development of a Core Outcome Set for Family and Community Nursing: Protocol for a Delphi Study.

Family and community nurses (FCNs) play a crucial role in delivering primary care to patients within their homes and communities. A key aspect of their role involves various health interventions, which are influenced by their unique competencies, such as health promotion, advanced clinical knowledge, and strong interpersonal skills. However, it is essential to understand which specific health outcomes these interventions impact to better understand the relationship between FCNs' skills and the health results. This study aims to outline the steps we will take to develop a set of core outcomes. These outcomes will be particularly sensitive to the health interventions carried out by FCNs, providing a clearer picture of their practice's impact. A Delphi survey will be used for this research, conducted from January to December 2024. The process will involve 5 steps and input from 3 stakeholder categories. These stakeholders will help identify a preliminary list of outcomes that will form the basis of our core outcome set (COS). This guideline will be beneficial for a wide range of stakeholders involved in COS development, including COS developers, trialists, systematic reviewers, journal editors, policy makers, and patient groups. As of January 2024, we have successfully completed the first stage of the study, with the stakeholder group approving the reported outcomes and assigning participant lists for each stakeholder group. This study will provide a roadmap for identifying the key health outcomes influenced by the interventions of FCNs. The multistakeholder, multiphase approach will ensure a comprehensive and inclusive process. Ultimately, the findings will enhance our understanding of FCNs' impact on health outcomes, leading to more effective primary care strategies and policies. PRR1-10.2196/51084.

The methodological quality of systematic reviews regarding the Core Outcome Set (COS) development

BackgroundThe Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) working group proposed core outcome sets (COS) to address the heterogeneity in outcome measures in clinical studies. According to the recommendations of COMET, performing systematic reviews (SRs) usually was the first step for COS development. However, the SRs that serve as a basis for COS are not specifically appraised by organizations such as COMET regarding their quality. Here, we investigated the status of SRs related to development of COS and evaluated their methodological quality.MethodsWe conducted a search on PubMed to identify SRs related to COS development published from inception to May 2022. We qualitatively summarized the disease included in SR topics, and the studies included in the SRs. We evaluated the methodological quality of the SRs using AMSTAR 2.0 and compared the overall quality of SRs with and without protocols using the Mann-Whitney U test.ResultsWe included 175 SRs from 23 different countries or regions, and they mainly focused on five diseases: musculoskeletal system or connective tissue disease (n = 19, 10.86%), injury, poisoning, or certain other consequences of external causes (n = 18, 10.29%), digestive system disease (n = 16, 9.14%), nervous system disease (n = 15, 8.57%), and genitourinary system disease (n = 15, 8.57%). Although 88.00% of SRs included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), only a few SRs (23.38%) employed appropriate tools to assess the risk of bias in RCTs. The assessment results on the basis of AMSTAR 2.0 indicated that most SRs (93.71%) were rated as ‘’critically low’’ to ‘’low’’ in terms of overall confidence. The overall confidence of SRs with protocols was significantly higher than that without protocols (P <.001). Compared to the SRs with protocols on Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET), SRs with protocols on PROSPERO were of better overall confidence (P = .017).ConclusionThe overall quality of published SRs regarding COS development was poor. Our findings emphasize the need for researchers to carefully select the disease topic and strictly adhere to the requirements of optimal methodology when conducting a SR for the establishment of a COS.

Harmonising outcome measurement for child focused domestic abuse interventions. Reflections on the development and implementation of a core outcome set.

There is appetite in the UK to better measure the impact of domestic violence and abuse (DVA) interventions on children. The spread of outcomes-based commissioning means outcome measurement is no longer just the territory of academic researchers but is now firmly within the purview of practitioners and policy makers. However, outcomes measured in trials only partially represent the views of those delivering and using services with respect to how success should be defined and captured. Even within trials there is huge inconsistency in the definition and measurement of important endpoints. This yields a body of evidence that is difficult to make sense of, defeating the ends for which it was produced - to improve the response to children and families who have experienced abuse. Development of Core Outcome Sets (COS) is seen as a solution to this problem, by establishing consensus across key stakeholder groups regarding a minimum standard for outcome measurement in trials, and increasingly in service delivery contexts. To date COS development has addressed outcomes relating to health conditions or interventions, with limited application to public health challenges. We reflect on our efforts to develop a COS to evaluate psychosocial interventions for children and families experiencing DVA. We highlight the value of COS development as a mechanism for improving evidence quality and the response to families experiencing abuse. Finally, we make recommendations to researchers and COS guideline developers to support this broader application of COS methodology.

Sharing Experiences in Selecting Clinical Outcome and Approving Validated Questionnaires : Insights from an Elderly Registry Study

Objectives: Underpinned by the context of a Korean traditional medicine cohort study on healthy aging, this research primarily aims to guide the selection of Clinical Outcome Assessments (COAs) for elderly healthy aging patient registry research, offering insights into the selection process; and secondly, to streamline the resource-intensive process of obtaining permissions for validated COAs, benefiting future traditional Korean medicine clinical researchers.Methods : In this study, we identified outcomes through a review of previous studies, followed by a process involving expert consultations to select the final outcomes. Subsequently, for the selected outcomes that were Clinical Outcome Assessments (COAs) developed tools, we searched in commercial databases to confirm the availability of Korean versions and the necessity of obtaining permissions. Finally, we obtained permissions for their utilization and, when needed, acquired the original instrument questionnaire through payment.Results: Through a literature review of existing observational studies, a total of 57 outcomes were selected, with 19 of them identified as COA instruments. Upon verifying usage permissions for these 19 instruments, it was found that 17 required author-specific permissions, and among these, 2 needed a purchase as they were commercially available.Conclusion: This study provides a detailed overview of outcome selection and permission acquisition for elderly patient registry research. It underscores the importance of Clinical Outcome Assessment (COA) tools and the rigorous approval process, aiming to enhance research reliability. Continuous verification of COA information is essential, and future research should explore Core Outcome Set (COS) development through consensus-building approaches like Delphi studies.

Defining domains: developing consensus-based definitions for foundational domains in OMERACT core outcome sets

ObjectiveTo develop a set of detailed definitions for foundational domains commonly used in OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology) core domain sets. MethodsWe identified candidate domain definitions from prior OMERACT publications and websites and publications of major organizations involved in outcomes research for six domains commonly used in OMERACT Core Domain Sets: pain intensity, pain interference, physical function, fatigue, patient global assessment, and health-related quality of life. We conducted a two-round survey of OMERACT working groups, patient research partners, and then the OMERACT Technical Advisory Group to establish their preferred domain definitions. Results were presented at the OMERACT 2023 Methodology Workshop, where participants discussed their relevant lived experience and identified potential sources of variability giving the needed detail in our domain definitions. ResultsOne-hundred four people responded to both rounds of the survey, and a preferred definition was established for each of the domains except for patient global assessment for which no agreement was reached. Seventy-five participants at the OMERACT 2023 Methodology Workshop provided lived experience examples, which were used to contextualise domain definition reports for each of the five domains. ConclusionUsing a consensus-based approach, we have created a detailed definition for five of the foundational domains in OMERACT core domain sets; patient global assessment requires further research. These definitions, although not mandatory for working groups to use, may facilitate the initial domain-match assessment step of instrument selection, and reduce the time and resources required by future OMERACT groups when developing core outcome sets.

Strategies to promote implementation of core outcomes for medication adherence trials in rheumatology: A report from the OMERACT-Adherence Group

ObjectivesTo identify barriers, facilitators, and strategies for future implementation of the OMERACT-Adherence Core Outcome Set (COS) in medication adherence trials for rheumatic conditions. MethodsPreliminary Delphi survey findings were discussed at OMERACT 2023, utilising the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research 2 to identify implementation barriers, facilitators, and solutions. ResultsImplementation strategies included simplifying the COS definitions, making it adaptabile for clinical practice and drug trials, adherence trial training workshops, and collaborating with key stakeholders such as payers and other COS developers. ConclusionOngoing collaboration with individuals and organisations within and beyond rheumatology ensures broader applicability of OMERACT-Adherence COS.

Protocol for the development of a Core Outcome Set (COS) for Adolescents and Young Adults (AYAs) with cancer

BackgroundAdolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer, defined as individuals aged 15–39 years at initial cancer diagnosis, form a unique population; they face age-specific issues as they transition to adulthood. This paper presents the protocol for the development of a core outcome set (COS) for AYAs with cancer.MethodsThe methodological standards from the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) and the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) for COS development will guide the development of the COS for AYAs with cancer. The project will consist of the following phases: (1) define the scope of the COS; (2) establish the need for a COS in this field (3) assemble an international, multi-stakeholder working group; (4) develop a detailed protocol; (5) determine “what to measure” (i.e., outcomes); (6) determine “how to measure” (i.e., measures); and (7) determine “case-mix” variables.ConclusionsThe development of a COS for AYAs with cancer will facilitate the implementation of efficient and relevant standards for data collection, both for clinical trials and in routine healthcare, thereby increasing the usefulness of these data to improve the value of the care given to these underserved young cancer patients.

Developing a Core Outcome Set for Cytoreductive Surgery for Colorectal Cancer with Peritoneal Metastases: A Mixed-Method Study Protocol

As the number of centres offering cytoreductive surgery (CRS) for colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastases (CPMs) is increasing worldwide, research is focused on establishing better patient selection and ensuring that new techniques have positive impacts on survival. However, high-impact comparative research in this field is limited by the heterogeneity of outcome measurement and reporting. Additionally, as there are comparatively few randomised controlled trials reporting comprehensive patient-reported outcomes, it is possible that key stakeholders such as patients and carers are underrepresented in the current literature. A core outcome set (COS) for CRS with or without intraperitoneal chemotherapy for the treatment of CPMs, supported by clinicians and patients, will promote homogenous comparison across trials and optimise the utility of research findings. We have established a comprehensive protocol based on the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMETs) method to facilitate this. A systematic review will identify all the outcomes reported in the literature, whereas a semi-structured interview will identify outcomes considered important by patients and carers. The identified outcomes will populate an international Delhi survey, distributed to patients, carers, surgeons, oncologists, nurses, and allied health clinicians. Outcomes reaching international consensus of importance will be further discussed in a face-to-face workshop between patients, carers, and clinicians. This process will inform the development of a final COS for CRS for patients with CPMs.

An international consensus study to identify "what" outcomes should be included in a core outcome set for endodontic treatments (COSET) for utilization in clinical practice and research.

Development of a standardized set of topic-specific outcomes known as a Core Outcome Set (COS) is important to address issues of heterogeneity in reporting research findings in order to streamline evidence synthesis and clinical decision making. The aim of the current international consensus study is to identify "what" outcomes to include in the Core Outcome Set for Endodontic Treatments (COSET). Outcomes of various endodontic treatments (non-surgical root canal treatment, surgical endodontics, vital pulp treatmentand revitalization procedures) performed on permanent teeth were considered. A standard validated methodology for COS development and reporting was adopted. The process involved identification of existing outcomes through four published scoping reviews. This enabled creation of a list of outcomes to be prioritized via semi-structured patient interviews, e-Delphi processand a consensus meeting with a range of relevant global stakeholders. Outcomes were prioritized using a 1-9 Likert scale, with outcomes rated 7-9 considered critical, 4-6 are important and 1-3 are less important. Outcomes rated 7-9 by ≥70% and 1-3 by <15% of participants were considered to achieve consensus for inclusion in the COS. The outcomes that did not achieve consensus in the first round were considered for further prioritization in the second Delphi round and consensus meeting. Final decisions about the outcomes to include in COSET were made by voting during the consensus panel meeting using the Zoom Poll function. A total of 95 participants including patients contributed to the COS development process. The consensus panel recommended, with strong consensus, eight outcomes shared across all treatment modalities for inclusion in COSET: pain; signs of infection (swelling, sinus tract); further intervention/exacerbation; tenderness to percussion/palpation; radiographic evidence of disease progression/healing; function; tooth survival; and patient satisfaction. Additional treatment specific outcomes were also recommended. Many of the outcomes included in COSET are patient reported. All should be included in future outcomes studies. COSET identified outcomes that are important for patients and clinicians and validated these using a rigorous methodology. Further work is ongoing to determine "how" and "when" these outcomes should be measured.

Development of a core outcome set for cardiovascular diabetology: a methodological framework.

Cardiovascular diabetology is an emergent field focusing on all aspects of diabetes/cardiovascular interrelationship and metabolic syndrome. High-quality evidence needs to be provided to determine the efficacy and safety of interventions in cardiovascular diabetology. The heterogeneity of outcomes among trials limits the comparison of results, and some outcomes are not always meaningful to end-users. The cardiovascular diabetology core outcome set (COS) study aims to develop a COS of interventions for cardiovascular diabetology. In this paper, we introduce the methodological framework for developing the COS. The COS development will include the following steps: (a) establish the COS groups of stakeholders, including international steering committee, Delphi survey group, and consensus meeting group; (b) systematic reviews of outcomes used in trials of cardiovascular diabetology; (c) semistructured interview of stakeholders for outcomes of cardiovascular diabetology; (d) generate a list of candidate outcomes and determine the original outcome pool; (e) Delphi survey with stakeholders of cardiovascular diabetology to select potential core outcomes; and (f) review and endorse the cardiovascular diabetology COS by expert consensus meeting. This current study reports the methodological framework to develop a COS in cardiovascular diabetology and will provide evidence for the future development of COS in cardiovascular diabetology.

Awareness and experiences on core outcome set development and use amongst stakeholders from low- and middle- income countries: An online survey.

Harmonization of outcomes to be measured in clinical trials can reduce research waste and enhance research translation. One of the ways to standardize measurement is through development and use of core outcome sets (COS). There is limited involvement of low- and middle-income country (LMIC) stakeholders in COS development and use. This study explores the level of awareness and experiences of LMIC stakeholders in the development and use of COS. We conducted an online survey of LMIC stakeholders. Three existing COS (pre-eclampsia, COVID-19, palliative care) were presented as case scenarios, and respondents asked to state (with reason(s)) if they would or would not use the COS if they were working in that area. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively while qualitative data were analyzed thematically. Of 81 respondents, 26 had COS experience, 9 of whom had been involved in COS development. Personal research interests and prevalence of disease are key drivers for initiation/participation in a given COS project. Most respondents would use the COS for pre-eclampsia (18/26) and COVID-19 (19/26) since the development process included key stakeholders. More than half of the respondents were not sure or would not use the palliative care COS as they felt stakeholder engagement was limited and it was developed for a different resource setting. Respondents reported that use of COS can be limited by (i) feasibility of measuring the outcomes in the COS, (ii) knowledge on the usefulness and availability of COS and (iii) lack of wide stakeholder engagement in the COS development process including having patients and carers in the development process. To ensure the development and use of COS in LMICs, collaborations are essential in awareness raising on COS utility, training, and COS development. The COS also needs to be made accessible in locally understandable languages and feasible to measure in LMICs.

Development of an international core outcome set for treatment trials in paediatric inguinal hernia: protocol for a three-phase study including a systematic review and Delphi survey

IntroductionIn children, open inguinal hernia repair has been the gold standard for treatment, but with recent technical advancements in laparoscopy, laparoscopic hernia repair is gaining popularity. Despite available results from...

A core outcome set (COS) for dementia with Lewy bodies

AbstractBackgroundMethodological heterogeneity in the outcome measurements adopted in DLB trials impedes effective evidence synthesis, rigorous meta‐analysis, and clinical translation. We aimed to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS), an agreed standardised set of outcomes that should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all clinical DLB trials.MethodWe adopted a multi‐faceted approach to COS development, adopting the principles of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative. We conducted systematic reviews of outcomes used in intervention trials, qualitative studies, and health economic studies in DLB. A resulting shortlist of outcome measures formed the basis of an e‐Delphi consensus process, piloted among members of the study group, before it was administered in two rounds to clinicians, scientists, policy and third sector leads. Lay stakeholders, including people with DLB and their caregivers, also contributed to the e‐Delphi process. Consensus on inclusion was determined by at least 70% of respondents grading an outcome measure as “critical for inclusion” and less than 15% grading as “not important”. After appraisal of each outcome using Consensus‐based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines, a consensus meeting was conducted, in which all participants were invited to agree on final outcomes and rate each outcome on impact, relevance and clinical feasibility.ResultsThrough validated mechanisms we constructed a COS including measurements of motor, cognitive, neuropsychiatric, autonomic, health economic, health provision, and quality of life. A diverse group of international and intersectional stakeholders have lent approval to its use.ConclusionWe propose a COS; a benchmark which all DLB trials should meet. This standardised approach will could optimise research resources, facilitate multicentre collaboration, and minimize methodological bias.

Development Methodology, Availability, and Implementation of Core Outcome Sets in Pediatric Surgery.

Core outcome sets (COSs) provide a mechanism to guide researchers and clinicians when deciding which outcomes to report in research related to a specific clinical condition or intervention. The intention behind creating a COS for a specific condition is to improve the reporting of important and meaningful outcomes, thus enhancing the relevance of research. Additionally, a COS helps facilitate comparison of outcomes between different clinical studies and reduces research waste. In this paper, we discuss the availability of COSs in the field of pediatric general surgery. We provide an overview of the methodologies used to develop a COS, including common pitfalls, and finally, we discuss COS uptake and implementation. An understanding of all these aspects is important for researchers considering developing a new COS and for those reading research where a COS has been developed or used within a study. Failure to adequately appreciate the nuances of COS development, in particular, risks fundamental flaws that may jeopardize COS validity and subsequently hinder COS uptake and implementation.

A Decade of Efforts to Add Value to Child Health Research Practices

To identify practices that add value to improve the design, conduct, and reporting of child health research and reduce research waste. In order to categorize the contributions of members of Standards for Research (StaR) in Child Health network, we developed a novel Child Health Improving Research Practices (CHIRP) framework comprised of 5 domains meant to counteract avoidable child health research waste and improve quality: 1) address research questions relevant to children, their families, clinicians, and researchers; 2) apply appropriate research design, conduct and analysis; 3) ensure efficient research oversight and regulation; 4) Provide accessible research protocols and reports; and 5) develop unbiased and usable research reports, including 17 responsible research practice recommendations. All child health research relevant publications by the 48 original StaR standards' authors over the last decade were identified, and main topic areas were categorized using this framework. A total of 247 publications were included in the final sample: 100 publications (41%) in domain 1 (3 recommendations), 77 publications (31%) in domain 2 (3), 35 publications (14%) in domain 3 (4), 20 publications (8%) in domain 4 (4), and 15 publications (6%) in domain 5 (3). We identified readily implementable "responsible" research practices to counter child health research waste and improve quality, especially in the areas of patients and families' engagement throughout the research process, developing Core Outcome Sets, and addressing ethics and regulatory oversight issues. While most of the practices are readily implementable, increased awareness of methodological issues and wider guideline uptake is needed to improve child health research. The CHIRP Framework can be used to guide responsible research practices that add value to child health research.

Harmonization of outcomes in epidermolysis bullosa: report of the Core Outcome Sets for Epidermolysis Bullosa (COSEB) kick-off meeting.

The COSEB kick-off meeting was organized in April 2023, and highlighted the stakeholder perspectives on the unmet and urgent need to work towards reasonable harmonization of outcome measurement in epidermolysis bullosa (EB) by developing core outcome sets for the different EB types. Standardized and uniform outcome assessment holds great promise to reduce selective reporting, improve the comparability and pooling of treatment outcomes, and enhance the efficacy of future research in EB.

P09.03.A DEVELOPMENT OF A CORE OUTCOME SET FOR USE IN ADULT PRIMARY GLIOMA PHASE III INTERVENTIONAL TRIALS - A MIXED METHODS STUDY

Abstract BACKGROUND Glioma patients’ high symptom burden and the poor prognosis of high grade glioma has emphasised quality of survival and overall health-related quality of life (HRQOL) throughout the disease trajectory in clinical trials. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) allow insight into how investigative treatment affects patients’ perceived functioning, complementing other outcome data (e.g. survival, radiological response) in clinical decision-making. Creating robust evidence requires effective data synthesis and meta-analyses across trials, underpinned by consistent trial outcome measurement, analysis and reporting. However, a standard ontology is lacking in cancer clinical trials, and brain tumours specifically, and selective outcome reporting is common. Core outcome set (COS) development is one means to improve data synthesis. The COBra project aimed to develop a COS for use in glioma phase III trials in support of those goals. Given stakeholder interest in PROs and prioritising the patient perspective, we also undertook initial exploration of which items could be patient reportable. MATERIAL AND METHODS A COS for adult primary glioma phase III interventional trials was developed through: (1) trial registry review and systematic review of qualitative studies; (2) interviews with glioma patients and caregivers; (3) outcome list de-duplication; (4) two-round Delphi process and outcome list rating; (5) a consensus meeting to finalise the COS. Patient-reportable COS outcomes were identified by cross-referencing the final COS outcomes with outcomes and PRO measures (PROMs) reported in the trial registry review. Activities were guided by UK Patient and Public Involvement standards and public contributors were core research team members. RESULTS A COS consisting of 19 outcomes grouped into seven outcome domains (Survival, Adverse Events, Activities of Daily Living, HRQOL, Seizure Activity, Cognitive Function and Physical Function) was finalised for use in glioma trials using this structured approach. Mapping PROMs identified in the registry review suggests that sub-domains of 6/7 outcome domains in the final COS can be patient-reported (adverse events, activities of daily living, HRQOL, seizure activity, neurocognitive function, physical function). Other currently unidentified instruments may also be suitable. Further research will identify appropriate measurement tools, promote accessible PRO delivery, and validate this COS for wider use. CONCLUSION A COS for glioma trials was developed, comprising seven outcome domains. Development of this COS coincides with growing regulatory interest in patient-reported data. To optimise data synthesis and prioritise the patient perspective, opportunities to collect data in this way should be promoted and taken. As such, this COS could be considered for use in registrational trials after further validation.

Multi-Round versus Real-Time Delphi survey approach for achieving consensus in the COHESION core outcome set: a randomised trial

BackgroundDelphi surveys are commonly used to prioritise critical outcomes in core outcome set (COS) development. This trial aims to compare a three-round (Multi-Round) Delphi (MRD) with a Real-Time Delphi (RTD) in the prioritisation of outcomes for inclusion in a COS for neonatal encephalopathy treatments and explore whether ‘feedback’, ‘iteration’, and ‘initial condition’ effects may occur in the two survey methods.MethodsWe recruited 269 participants (parents/caregivers, healthcare providers and researchers/academics) of which 222 were randomised to either the MRD or the RTD. We investigated the outcomes prioritised in each survey and the ‘feedback’, ‘iteration’, and ‘initial condition’ effects to identify differences between the two survey methods.ResultsIn the RTD, n = 92 participants (83%) fully completed the survey. In the MRD, n = 60 participants (54%) completed all three rounds. Of the 92 outcomes presented, 26 (28%) were prioritised differently between the RTD and MRD. Significantly fewer participants amended their scores when shown stakeholder responses in the RTD compared to the MRD (‘feedback effect’). The ‘iteration effect’ analysis found most experts appeared satisfied with their initial ratings in the RTD and did not amend their scores following stakeholder response feedback. Where they did amend their scores, ratings were amended substantially, suggesting greater convergence. Variance in scores reduced with subsequent rounds of the MRD (‘iteration effect’). Whilst most participants did not change their initial scores in the RTD, of those that did, later recruits tended to align their final score more closely to the group mean final score than earlier recruits (an ‘initial condition’ effect).ConclusionThe feedback effect differed between the two Delphi methods but the magnitude of this difference was small and likely due to the large number of observations rather than because of a meaningfully large difference. It did not appear to be advantageous to require participants to engage in three rounds of a survey due to the low change in scores. Larger drop-out through successive rounds in the MRD, together with a lesser convergence of scores and longer time to completion, indicate considerable benefits of the RTD approach.Trial registrationNCT04471103. Registered on 14 July 2020.