Key result
A review of current practice highlights the need for a standardized core outcome set in aphasia treatment research to improve comparison, meta-analysis, and transparency.
Developing a core outcome set for aphasia treatment research could improve standardisation, comparability, and meta-analysis of trial results.
Current aphasia trial heterogeneity limits synthesis; supports core outcome set development but should not yet change practice.
Background: Aphasia treatment research lacks a uniform approach to outcome measurement. A wide range of outcome instruments are used across trials and there is a lack of research evidence exploring the outcomes most important to stakeholders. This lack of standardisation produces research outcomes that are difficult to compare and combine, limiting the potential to strengthen treatment evidence through meta-analysis and data pooling. The current heterogeneity in aphasia treatment research outcome measurement may be addressed through the development of a core outcome set (COS)—an agreed standardised set of outcomes for use in treatment trials.Aims: This article aims to provide a rationale and agenda for the development of a COS for aphasia treatment research.Main Contribution: A review of the literature reveals heterogeneity in the way outcome measurement is performed in aphasia treatment research. COSs have been developed in a wide range of health fields to introduce standardisation to research outcome measurement. Potential benefits of COSs include easier comparison and combination of research outcomes, improved quality of systematic reviews and greater transparency in research reporting. The use of broad stakeholder consultation also supports the development of research outcomes that are meaningful. It is proposed that a COS for aphasia treatment research could be developed in three stages. First, consensus-based techniques would be used to reach international agreement on the outcomes that are most important to stakeholders. Second, a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcome instruments would provide synthesised evidence to support the choice of tools to most effectively capture the effects of aphasia treatments. Third, final agreement on a COS would be sought through an international consensus conference.Conclusions: There is an identified need for standardisation in the way outcomes are selected and measured in aphasia treatment research. COS development may provide an effective, consensus-based solution to this need.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wallace et al. (2014) conducted a review in Aphasia. Core outcome set (COS) development was evaluated. A review of current practice highlights the need for a standardized core outcome set in aphasia treatment research to improve comparison, meta-analysis, and transparency.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: