This protocol outlines the development and implementation of a core outcome set for ulcerative colitis, suggesting a standardized approach for integrative Chinese and Western medicine trials.
To improve the consistency of outcome documentation and address the potential for outcome reporting bias in clinical trials involving integrative Chinese and Western medicine (ICWM) for ulcerative colitis (UC), we aim to develop a customized core outcome set (COS) that incorporates input from various stakeholders. The study design of this COS has been informed by the COMET Initiative Handbook, with adherence to the guidelines from the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COS-STAR) statement and COS-STAndards Reporting recommendations (COS-STAP) recommendations. Five groups of stakeholders will be invited to participate in the development of COS for clinical trials with ICWM for UC, including healthcare professionals, patients, COS developers, COS users, and methodologists. The process will involve five stages: (1) conducting a systematic review of outcomes reported in clinical trials and protocols to develop a list of potential outcome domains; (2) conducting semi-structured interviews to obtain important outcomes; (3) choosing the most important outcomes by conducting three-round Delphi surveys; (4) achieving a consensus in a face-to-face meeting to discuss the final COS; and (5) publication, dissemination and implementation of COS. Consequently, this specialized COS will be applicable to clinical trials involving both traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and ICWM interventions. Please cite this article as: Zhang X, Zhang L, Wang J, Lau CT, Wang NN, Zhang XQ, Wang P, Li J, Han F, Bian ZX. A protocol for developing, disseminating and implementing a core outcome set for clinical trials of integrative Chinese and Western medicine for ulcerative colitis. J Integr Med. 2025; Epub ahead of print.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: