Developing a core outcome set (COS) for Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB)

Emilia Grycuk; Emily Eichenholtz; Dag Aarsland; Sara Betzhold; Gillian Daly; Rachel Fitzpatrick; Ann-Kristin Folkerts; Elke Kalbe; Joseph PM Kane; Irina Kinchin; Ian J Saldanha; Valerie Smith; John-Paul Taylor; Rachel Thompson; Iracema Leroi

doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.13590.2

Home Browse Developing a core outcome set (COS) for Dementia with Lewy bodies...

ALL Metrics

-

Views

95

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Study Protocol

Revised

Developing a core outcome set (COS) for Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB)

[version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]

Emilia Grycuk¹, Emily Eichenholtz², Dag Aarsland³, [...] Sara Betzhold⁴, Gillian Daly², Rachel Fitzpatrick², Ann-Kristin Folkerts⁵, Elke Kalbe⁵, Joseph PM Kane⁶, Irina Kinchin⁷, Ian J Saldanha⁸, Valerie Smith⁹, John-Paul Taylor¹⁰, Rachel Thompson^11,12, Iracema Leroi¹³

Emilia Grycuk¹, Emily Eichenholtz², [...] Dag Aarsland³, Sara Betzhold⁴, Gillian Daly², Rachel Fitzpatrick², Ann-Kristin Folkerts⁵, Elke Kalbe⁵, Joseph PM Kane⁶, Irina Kinchin⁷, Ian J Saldanha⁸, Valerie Smith⁹, John-Paul Taylor¹⁰, Rachel Thompson^11,12, Iracema Leroi¹³

PUBLISHED 10 Oct 2023

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
² Trinity College Institute of Neuroscience, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
³ Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College, London, UK
⁴ School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
⁵ Medical Psychology | Neuropsychology and Gender Studies & Centre for Neuropsychological Diagnostics and Intervention (CeNDI), Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Germany
⁶ Centre for Public Health, Queens University Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
⁷ Global Brain Health Institute, and Centre for Health Policy and Management, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland
⁸ Brown School of Public Health, Brown University, USA
⁹ School of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland
¹⁰ Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, UK
¹¹ Dementia U.K., Aldgate, UK
¹² Lewy Body Society U.K., Wigan, UK
¹³ Global Brain Health Institute, and Department of Psychiatry, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland

Emilia Grycuk
Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Emily Eichenholtz
Roles: Investigation, Project Administration, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Dag Aarsland
Roles: Methodology

Sara Betzhold
Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Gillian Daly
Roles: Project Administration, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Rachel Fitzpatrick
Roles: Project Administration, Writing – Review & Editing

Ann-Kristin Folkerts
Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Elke Kalbe
Roles: Methodology

Joseph PM Kane
Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Irina Kinchin
Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Ian J Saldanha
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Valerie Smith
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

John-Paul Taylor
Roles: Writing – Review & Editing

Rachel Thompson
Roles: Writing – Review & Editing

Iracema Leroi
Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Dementia Trials Ireland (DTI) and Dementia Research Network Ireland (DRNI) gateway.

Abstract

Background: Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) is an important cause of dementia with a range of clinical manifestations, including motor, neuropsychiatric, and autonomic symptoms. Compared with more common forms of dementia such as Alzheimer’s disease, DLB has been the focus of significantly fewer treatment studies, often with diverse outcome measures, making comparison and clinical implementation difficult. A core outcome set (COS) can address this by ensuring that data are comparable, relevant, useful, and usable for making the best healthcare decisions.
Methods: Using a multi-stage approach, development of the DLB-COS will include the following stages: (1) A systematic review, following PRISMA guidelines to create an initial long list of outcomes; (2) A two-round online Delphi including clinicians, scientists, policymakers, and individuals with lived experience of DLB and their representatives; (3) An online consensus meeting to agree on the final core list of outcomes (the final DLB-COS) for use in research and clinical practice; (4) A literature search to identify appropriate measurement instruments for the DLB-COS outcomes; (5) A final consensus meeting of the professional stakeholders who attended the online consensus meeting to agree on the instruments that should be used to measure the outcomes in the DLB-COS; and (6) Global dissemination.
Discussion: This is a multi-stage project to develop a COS to be used in treatment trials for DLB. A DLB-COS will ensure the selection of relevant outcomes and will identify the instruments to be used to measure DLB globally.

Keywords

Dementia, Dementia with Lewy Bodies, Core Outcome Set, Delphi, Systematic Review, Ageing, Cognition, Memory

Corresponding author: Iracema Leroi

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: Health Research Board Ireland, Clinical Research Network grant, CTN-2021-003, Dementia Trials Ireland, lead, I Leroi; Health Research Board Ireland [CTN-2021-003] for Dementia Trials Ireland (lead: I Leroi)
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2023 Grycuk E 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 work is properly cited.

How to cite: Grycuk E, Eichenholtz E, Aarsland D et al. Developing a core outcome set (COS) for Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. HRB Open Res 2023, 5:57 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13590.2) First published: 18 Aug 2022, 5:57 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13590.1) Latest published: 10 Oct 2023, 5:57 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13590.2)

Revised Amendments from Version 1

We have updated the protocol paper to address the comments of reviewers. The changes we made were as follows: 1) we changed "literature search" to "systematic review" throughout the paper; 2) we elaborated on ascertaining outcome measurement tools; 3) we corrected the missing stage in the design section; 4) we changed future tenses to past tenses when referring to the systematic review, and added in the PROSPERO link; 5) we got rid of grey literature as an exclusion criteria; 6) we clarified that the number of COS items will not be prespecified, but rather we will adopt a pragmatic approach to ensure that the COS will be clinically useful in a clinical and research context; 7) we clarified that we will pilot the survey among lay stakeholders as well as working group members; 8) we clarified that, when creating the final COS, outcomes falling under the same domain will be grouped into single outcomes; 9) we changed the statement that the consensus meeting will aim to have "proportional representation from the two stakeholder groups" to "all respondents from the two stakeholder groups"; 10) we made amendments to the quality assessment and recommendations section; 11) instead of selecting "only one" outcome measurement instrument per outcome, we will select "the most appropriate" measurement instrument per outcome; and 12) we elaborated the discussion to acknowledge limitations.

To read any peer review reports and author responses for this article, follow the "read" links in the Open Peer Review table.

Introduction

Dementia with Lewy Bodies (DLB) and Parkinson’s disease dementia (PDD) together constitute 10–15% of cases, the second most common dementia worldwide¹. DLB is characterized by clinical features including cognitive impairment, parkinsonism, visual hallucinations, REM sleep behaviour disorder (RBD), and fluctuations in cognition². As the global population ages, the prevalence and incidence of DLB is rising, as are the associated healthcare costs³.

Considerably fewer studies are conducted in DLB than in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and Parkinson’s disease (PD), despite the close biological relationship between these disorders⁴; fewer specifically investigate interventions or treatments. Comparison of the treatments examined in existing research is complicated by the wide range of clinical outcomes reported⁵. Digital, mobile, and wearable technology for outcome data collection add to this complex picture, creating methodological heterogeneity in how outcomes are measured. This complexifies evidence synthesis of DLB trial data, precludes rigorous meta-analysis, and weakens translation of evidence into clinical care. A core outcome set (COS) is an agreed standardized set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials. Standardization of clinical trial outcomes supports consistent measurement of patient symptoms, decreases healthcare costs, and minimizes bias.

This project aims to address the methodological heterogeneity in future DLB clinical trials through development and dissemination of a COS for DLB. In developing this, we will consider the number and type of outcomes measured, and the existence of any standardized data collection methods. We will also ascertain the most appropriate outcome rating tool to represent each outcome in the final COS; however, if more than one candidate tool is available, inclusion will be agreed at the level of the consensus meeting.

Protocol

Scope

The DLB-COS and the identified measurement instruments are aimed to be used in future research in randomized and non-randomized pharmacological and non-pharmacological intervention studies and in clinical practice. The target population are individuals diagnosed with DLB.

Design

This study will follow methodological principles developed by COMET and COSMIN and with modifications where necessary^6–9. The DLB-COS was registered with COMET and is publicly available (https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1963). The study Working Group (WG) will include researchers, clinicians, health economists, and methodologists who will steer and monitor the progress of the study. Any significant changes to the protocol will be communicated to the ethics committee, the journal, and the founders.

This study will involve six distinct stages:

1. Identifying outcomes from a systematic review, and developing a preliminary list
2. Reaching consensus on a preliminary DLB-COS from the perspective of professional and lay stakeholders via two rounds of Delphi surveys;
3. Building on the preliminary list of outcomes (Objective 2), develop a final DLB-COS for use in future DLB research and clinical practice, via an online consensus meeting with professional and lay stakeholders;
4. Identifying and reaching consensus on the most appropriate instruments to measure outcomes in the final DLB-COS, via an online consensus meeting attended by professional stakeholders;
5. Agreeing on the instruments that should be used to measure the outcomes in the DLB-COS via a final consensus meeting of the professional stakeholders who attended the online consensus meeting;
6. Disseminating and promoting the implementation of the DLB-COS globally.

Phase 1: Stage 1: Protocol design and evidence synthesis through systematic review

We conducted a systematic review, building on the narrative review on outcome measures in DLB trials, led by Rodriguez-Porcel et al.¹⁰.

Our systematic review examined and synthesized evidence from qualitative and health economics studies, as well as that reported by clinical trials. Eligibility criteria for the systematic review of outcomes used in the DLB literature can be found in Table 1. The review will be prospectively registered and posted at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), and can be found at the following link: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=346808.

Table 1. Eligibility criteria for the systematic review of outcomes used in the dementia with Lewy bodies literature.

	Inclusion criteria	Exclusion criteria
Publication year	• Any
Language	• No restriction for abstract screening
Types of articles	• Scientific articles published in peer-reviewed journals with available full texts	• Popular articles • Editorials, commentaries etc. • Study protocols • Abstracts only • Conference abstracts • Trial registries
Study design	• Comparative clinical trials (regardless of randomization) • Intervention trials with pre-/post assessments regardless of randomization, case reports	• Observational studies • Reviews, meta analysis (for further trials)
Population/ Setting	• People with dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) • 18 years and older; all sexes	• Parkinson’s disease (with and without mild cognitive impairment; PD-MCI) • Atypical parkinsonism (e.g., PPS, MSA) • Other dementias (e.g., AD, FTD) • Mixed study samples (e.g., Involving participants with different dementia subtypes) without separate reporting for Individuals with DLB
Interventions	Any pharmacological, surgical Or non-pharmacological approach for treating motor and non-motor symptoms in Individuals with DLB at any disease stage and in any setting (e.g., outpatients as well as inpatients)
Comparators	Any: • None • Placebo/Passive control groups/Wait-list • Active control groups (comparison of different pharmacological/ surgical/non-pharmacological interventions)
Outcomes	Any: • Standardized quantitative assessments, including neurological examinations, assessments and tests, and questionnaires (self-and proxy-rating) across all domains, e.g.; ○ Disease severity, motor- and non-motor symptoms ○ Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) including quality of life ○ Biomarkers, imaging outcomes ○ Changes in housing and care situation (e.g., institution) • Carer outcomes included in the patient targeted interventions will be considered (cf. Rigby 2021: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.) gov/33554912/) • Qualitative approaches to evaluate intervention success across all domains (e.g., outcomes obtained through patient interviews, focus groups) • Economic evaluation outcomes (cost analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, cost-benefit analysis)

Search strategy

The search identified studies through bibliographic databases, trial registers and the grey literature. Bibliographic Databases and trial registers included the following: Medline Ovid (1946-present); EMBASE (1974-present); PsycInfo (1806-present); CINAHL (1981-present); CENTRAL; Web of Science and specific economic databases including NHS EED and EconLit.

Studies were identified using an elaborated search string including keywords regarding the population and the types of studies that will be covered by the COS.

Study selection and data extraction

Study selection and data extraction will be performed according to PRISMA reporting guidelines.

Reporting the outcomes

As recommended by Williamson et al.⁶, the outcome matrix recommended by the ORBIT project¹¹ will be used to display the outcomes reported in eligible studies. This can demonstrate the inconsistency of outcomes measured to date and identify potential outcome reporting bias.

Phase 2: Stage 2: A 2-round online Delphi survey

Delphi Technique and Design

An e-Delphi survey will be used to reach consensus for the final list of COS for DLB. The outcomes will likely include commonly reported outcomes addressing the key domains affected by DLB: functioning and quality of life, motor and non-motor parkinsonisms, cognitive ability and fluctuations, health economic outcomes, and psychiatric and sleep-related symptoms¹⁰. The number of COS items will not be prespecified, but we will adopt a pragmatic approach to ensure that the COS will be clinically useful in a clinical and research context. The survey will be completed by professional and lay stakeholders. Delphi technique is a widely used approach applied to elicit consensus from domain experts regarding real-world knowledge and defined clinical issues for which no previous consensus existed^12–14. This process gathers information from multiple stakeholders while maintaining anonymity and minimizing the challenges of group dynamics among experts^6,9,15–17. The administration of e-Delphi usually involves at least two series of questionnaires (referred to as “rounds”), after which structured feedback is provided to all participants. Then, an online or face-to-face meeting takes place to reach consensus^6,11. Even though this component was not a part of the original Delphi process¹¹, it was adopted from the modified e-Delphi procedure, which allowed for experts’ interaction to reach a final consensus^18,19. This method has proven to be effective^17,20,21.

The e-Delphi will be administered through the DelphiManager software (http://www.comet-initiative.org/delphimanager/), with each round lasting three weeks and reminders sent at 14 and 18 days. The data from each round will be analyzed and presented to all participants in the subsequent e-Delphi round. Prior to initiation of the first e-Delphi round, the questionnaire will be piloted among work group members as well as lay stakeholders to assess its validity and clarity.

Delphi panel participant composition and selection

There is no consensus on the recommended sample size for a Delphi study^7,22–24 and it is common practice to use the existing literature as a guiding example^23–26. We will recruit different groups of lay and professional stakeholders representing the DLB field. We will include enough participants so at least two representatives from each subgroup can attend the consensus meeting^7,23,24.

Eligibility

(1) Professional respondents will include geriatric psychiatrists, neurologists, geriatricians, general practitioners, nurses, psychologists, occupational therapists, health economists, researchers, neural engineers, pharmaceutical industry representatives, and representatives of drug regulatory authorities. Should they know other DLB experts, they can nominate them²⁷.

(2) Lay stakeholders will include people with DLB and their care partners or supporters. They will be recruited through relevant civic society organizations.

Delphi rounds and consensus criteria

Following previous Delphi studies^{17,23,24,28,29}, survey respondents will assess the importance and meaningfulness of the outcomes. Moreover, following the design adopted by the studies that included people with lived experience of the disease^{22,26,30–32}. At the end of the first e-Delphi round, the participants will have the opportunity to suggest additional outcome domains to be included in the second e-Delphi round (open text option)6,9,22,24,26.

Rating scale

In line with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)³³ and with the RAND appropriateness method³⁴, each outcome will be scored on a 9-point Likert scale, where 1 designates the lowest and 9 the highest score. Overall, scores from 1 to 3 will be defined as ‘not important’, 4 to 6 will be defined as ‘important but not critical’, and scores from 7 to 9 will be defined as ‘critical for inclusion’.

The criteria dictating inclusion of outcomes for both versions will follow the ’70/15’ consensus approach^{6,23,24,28,29,35}. This is defined by at least 70% of stakeholders scoring an outcome between 7–9 and less than 15% scoring it between 1–3. Outcomes which receive at least 70% of scores between 1–3 and less than 15% of scores between 7–9 will not be included in the second e-Delphi round. These thresholds are based on the common agreement that the outcomes constituting the final COS are regarded as critical for inclusion, with a clear minority of stakeholders deeming them 'not important'^6,35. Note, outcomes falling under the same domain will be grouped into single outcomes.

Stage 3: Consensus meeting finalizing LBD-COS

Some participants who complete both e-Delphi rounds will be invited via e-mail to an online consensus meeting, hosted on Zoom. The meeting will aim to have all respondents from the two stakeholder groups. They will discuss, vote, and agree on the final outcomes. Each outcome will be rated according to four additional criteria³⁶:

• Frequency of the outcome in people with DLB;
• Impact of the outcome on people with DLB;
• Preventability/treatability of the outcome;
• Feasibility to address the outcome in clinical practice and research intervention studies.

Consensus will include at least one lay stakeholder voting for inclusion of the outcome, as established by Wuytack et al.²⁴.

Phase 3: Stage 4: Systematic review identifying measurement instruments to be used in the core outcome set

We will undertake a systematic review for the instruments measuring specific outcomes, following COSMIN guidelines³⁷. We will use the following databases: Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and CENTRAL. We will use the key sources of measurement in DLB, such as the DIAMOND Lewy toolkit³⁸ and the Movement Disorders Society Recommendations for measurement tools (https://www.movementdisorders.org/).

Quality assessment and recommendations

In developing our COS protocol, we will follow the steps outlined by the COSMIN checklist to ensure quality of the procedure³⁹. Recommendations for outcome measurement instruments will be selected based on the preliminary DLB-COS, according to the quality of evidence and feasibility of the outcomes to be used in research and clinical practice.

Stage 5: Final consensus meeting finalizing the choice of instruments measuring the core outcome set

A final consensus meeting attended by professional stakeholders will take place to discuss, vote, and agree on the instruments measuring the selected DLB-COS. We aim to select the most appropriate outcome measurement instrument per outcome. Consensus will be defined as at least 70% of participants voting for inclusion of a measurement instrument²⁴.

Stage 6: Reporting and dissemination

The development of this DLB-COS will be reported based on the Core Outcome Set–Standards for Reporting (COS-STAR) guidelines⁸.

Our dissemination plan will leverage the wider professional, civic society, and lived experience networks in this area. Professional dissemination will include participation in international Lewy Body conferences and dissemination through the International Alzheimer Association ISTAART PIA group. Dissemination through civic society organisations will include Lewy Body Society (LBS), Lewy Body Ireland (LBI), and Lewy Body Dementia Association (LBDA). They will help us by sharing information on their websites and social media, using accessible language, and highlighting the contribution of PPI and the third sector partners.

The systematic review is registered and posted at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, (PROSPERO 2022 CRD42022346808).

The development of this DLB-COS will be reported based on the Core Outcome Set–Standards for Reporting (COS-STAR) guidelines⁸.

Ethical approval

Since we will be working with sensitive information and including people with lived experience in our work, we will apply for ethical approval from the TCD Faculty of Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee. We will also complete a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA), following General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) guidelines. Professional and lay participants will receive information about the study via email. If they choose to participate, prior to the first e-Delphi round, they will receive and sign a consent form. The e-Delphi responses will be confidential, and participants will have the right to withdraw at any point prior to data analysis.

Discussion

Currently, no COS for DLB exists. Since there are very few DLB intervention and clinical research studies, a well-developed and globally disseminated DLB-COS for research and clinical use is required. It is imperative that the measured outcomes have relevance to people with DLB and their care partners. This COS will include the views of a wide range of stakeholders. By developing a standardized COS and ensuring that outcomes are measured with appropriate instruments we aim to increase trial efficiency, improve evidence synthesis, reduce research waste, and improve the development of interventions for people with DLB.

However, we acknowledge that the online nature of the survey is a potential limitation in our methods as this may disadvantage people with limited digital access. Nonetheless, increasingly, online Delphi surveys are acceptable and reflect the experience of the majority of stakeholders. We have had to balance the practical elements of completing the surveys and obtaining transnational representation with the need to include under-served groups.

Study status

At present, our systematic review has been completed and this has been used to develop a long list of outcomes to be rated in our e-Delphi survey. The e-Delphi survey has been composed and is ready to go live once ethical approval is received.

Data availability

Underlying data

Underlying data which is relevant to this protocol include the following studies;

- Rodriguez-Porcel, F., Wyman-Chick, K.A., Abdelnour Ruiz, C. et al. Clinical outcome measures in dementia with Lewy bodies trials: critique and recommendations. Transl Neurodegener 11, 24 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40035-022-00299-w
- Patel B, Irwin DJ, Kaufer D, Boeve BF, Taylor A, Armstrong MJ. Outcome Measures for Dementia With Lewy Body Clinical Trials: A Review. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2022;36(1):64-72. doi: 10.1097/WAD.0000000000000473

These studies highlight the need for development of a COS in this area.

Author contributions

Contributor Role	Role Definition
Conceptualization Iracema Leroi	Ideas; formulation or evolution of overarching research goals and aims.
Data Curation N/A	Management activities to annotate (produce metadata), scrub data and maintain research data (including software code, where it is necessary for interpreting the data itself) for initial use and later reuse.
Formal Analysis N/A	Application of statistical, mathematical, computational, or other formal techniques to analyze or synthesize study data.
Funding Acquisition Iracema Leroi	Acquisition of the financial support for the project leading to this publication.
Investigation Ann-Kristin Folkerts Irina Kinchin Emily Eichenholtz Joseph Kane Emilia Grycuk Sara Betzhold	Conducting a research and investigation process, specifically performing the experiments, or data/evidence collection.
Methodology Elke Kalbe Dag Aarsland Iracema Leroi Valerie Smith Ian Saldanha Federico Emilia Grycuk Joseph Kane Irina Kinchin Ann-Kristin Folkerts Sara Betzhold	Development or design of methodology; creation of models.
Project Administration Emilia Grycuk Gillian Daly Emily Eichenholtz Rachel Fitzpatrick	Management and coordination responsibility for the research activity planning and execution.
Resources https://www.comet-initiative.org/ delphimanager/contact.html	Provision of study materials, reagents, materials, patients, laboratory samples, animals, instrumentation, computing resources, or other analysis tools.
Software https://www.comet-initiative.org/ delphimanager/contact.html	Programming, software development; designing computer programs; implementation of the computer code and supporting algorithms; testing of existing code components.
Supervision Iracema Leroi	Oversight and leadership responsibility for the research activity planning and execution, including mentorship external to the core team.
Validation NA	Verification, whether as a part of the activity or separate, of the overall replication/reproducibility of results/experiments and other research outputs.
Visualization Gillian Daly Emily Eichenholtz Iracema Leroi Joseph Kane	Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically visualization/data presentation.
Writing – Original Draft Preparation Emily Eichenholtz Iracema Leroi Emilia Grycuk Joseph Kane	Creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically writing the initial draft (including substantive translation).
Writing – Review & Editing Gillian Daly Emily Eichenholtz Rachel Fitzpatrick Iracema Leroi Emilia Grycuk Joseph Kane Ann-Kristin Folkerts Valerie Smith Ian Saldanha Irina Kinchin John-Paul Taylor Rachel Thompson Sara Betzhold	Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work by those from the original research group, specifically critical review, commentary or revision – including pre- or post-publication stages.

Acknowledgments

1) Paula Williamson and the Delphi Group, University of Liverpool, England.

2) JP Connelly, Trinity College Institute of Neuroscience, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland.

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

1. Stevens T, Livingston G, Kitchen G, et al.: Islington study of dementia subtypes in the community. Br J Psychiatry. 2002; 180: 270–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. McKeith IG, Boeve BF, Dickson DW, et al.: Diagnosis and management of dementia with Lewy bodies. Neurology. 2017; 89(1): 88–100. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
3. Prince M, Bryce R, Albanese E, et al.: The global prevalence of dementia: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Alzheimers Dement. 2013; 9(1): 63–75.e2. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. Orme T, Guerreiro R, Bras J: The Genetics of Dementia with Lewy Bodies: Current Understanding and Future Directions. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2018; 18(10): 67. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
5. Goldman JG, Forsberg LK, Boeve BF, et al.: Challenges and opportunities for improving the landscape for Lewy body dementia clinical trials. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2020; 12(1): 137. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
6. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, et al.: Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: Issues to consider. Trials. 2012; 13: 132. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
7. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H, et al.: The COMET Handbook: version 1.0. Trials. 2017; 18(Suppl 3): 280. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
8. Kirkham JJ, Gorst S, Altman DG, et al.: Cos-star: A reporting guideline for Studies Developing Core Outcome Sets (protocol). Trials. 2015; 16(1): 373. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
9. Sinha IP, Smyth RL, Williamson PR: Using the Delphi technique to determine which outcomes to measure in clinical trials: Recommendations for the future based on a systematic review of existing studies. PLoS Med. 2011; 8(1): e1000393. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
10. Armijo-Olivo S, Stiles CR, Hagen NA, et al.: Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: A comparison of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool: Methodological research. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012; 18(1): 12–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
11. Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, et al.: The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ. 2010; 340(7747): c365. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
12. Hsu CC, Sandford BA: The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Pract Assessment Res Eval. 2007; 12(10): 1–8. Publisher Full Text
13. Murphy MK, Black NA, Lamping DL, et al.: Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technol Assess. 1998; 2(3): i–iv, 1–88. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
14. Powell C: The delphi technique: Myths and realities. J Adv Nurs. 2003; 41(4): 376–382. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
15. Dalkey N, Helmer O: An Experimental Application of the DELPHI Method to the Use of Experts. Management Science. 1963; 9(3): 351–515. Publisher Full Text
16. Barrett D, Heale R: What are Delphi studies? Evid Based Nurs. 2020; 23(3): 68–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
17. Kales HC, Lyketsos CG, Miller EM, et al.: Management of behavioral and psychological symptoms in people with alzheimer's disease: An international delphi consensus. Int Psychogeriatr. 2019; 31(1): 83–90. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
18. Lafave MR, Butterwick DJ, Murray RP, et al.: Content validity of the rodeo-scat. Int J Sports Med. 2013; 34(2): 170–175. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
19. Lafave M, Katz L, Butterwick D: Development of a content-valid standardized Orthopedic Assessment Tool (SOAT). Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2008; 13(4): 397–406. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
20. Graefe A, Armstrong JS: Comparing face-to-face meetings, nominal groups, Delphi and prediction markets on an estimation task. Int J Forecast. 2011; 27(1): 183–195. Publisher Full Text
21. Gustafson DH, Shukla RK, Delbecq A, et al.: A comparative study of differences in subjective likelihood estimates made by individuals, interacting groups, Delphi groups, and nominal groups. Organ Behav Hum Perform. 1973; 9(2): 280–291. Publisher Full Text
22. Gonçalves AC, Samuel D, Ramsay M, et al.: A core outcome set to evaluate physical activity interventions for people living with dementia. Gerontologist. 2020; 60(4): 682–692. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
23. Katiri R, Hall DA, Buggy N, et al.: Core rehabilitation outcome set for single sided deafness (CROSSSD) study: Protocol for an international consensus on outcome measures for single sided deafness interventions using a modified Delphi survey. Trials. 2020; 21(1): 238. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
24. Wuytack F, Gutke A, Stuge B, et al.: Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for pelvic girdle pain, including methods for measuring the outcomes: The PGP-cos study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018; 18(1): 158. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
25. Harman NL, Wilding J, Curry D, et al.: Selecting Core Outcomes for Randomised Effectiveness trials In Type 2 Diabetes (SCORE-IT): study protocol for the development of a core outcome set. Trials. 2018; 19(1): 427. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
26. Ramsey I, Corsini N, Hutchinson AD, et al.: A core set of patient-reported outcomes for population-based cancer survivorship research: A consensus study. J Cancer Surviv. 2021; 15(2): 201–212. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
27. Okoli C, Pawlowski SD: The delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. Inform Manage. 2004; 42(1): 15–29. Publisher Full Text
28. De Meyer D, Kottner J, Beele H, et al.: Delphi procedure in Core Outcome Set Development: Rating scale and consensus criteria determined outcome selection. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019; 111: 23–31. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
29. Harding AJ, Morbey H, Ahmed F, et al.: Developing a core outcome set for people living with dementia at home in their neighbourhoods and communities: Study protocol for use in the evaluation of non-pharmacological community-based health and Social Care Interventions. Trials. 2018; 19(1): 247. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
30. Ropacki MT, Hannesdottir K, Hendrix S, et al.: Clinically Meaningful Outcomes in Early Alzheimer Disease: A Consortia-Driven Approach to Identifying What Matters to Patients. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2017; 51(3): 380–390. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
31. Reilly ST, Harding AJ, Morbey H, et al.: What is important to people with dementia living at home? A set of core outcome items for use in the evaluation of non-pharmacological community-based health and Social Care Interventions. Age Ageing. 2020; 49(4): 664–671. Publisher Full Text
32. Rose L, Agar M, Burry LD, et al.: Development of core outcome sets for effectiveness trials of interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium (Del-CORS): Study protocol. BMJ Open. 2017; 7(9): e016371. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
33. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al.: Grade guidelines: 2. framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64(4): 395–400. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
34. Campbell SM, Cantrill JA: Consensus methods in prescribing research. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2001; 26(1): 5–14. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
35. Alkhaffaf B, Glenny AM, Blazeby JM, et al.: Standardising the reporting of outcomes in Gastric cancer surgery trials: Protocol for the development of a core outcome set and accompanying outcome measurement instrument set (the GASTROS study). Trials. 2017; 18(1): 370. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
36. de Roos P, Bloem BR, Kelley TA, et al.: A consensus set of outcomes for parkinson's disease from the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement. J Parkinsons Dis. 2017; 7(3): 533–543. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
37. Prinsen CA, Vohra S, Rose MR, et al.: How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a "Core outcome set" - a practical guideline. Trials. 2016; 17(1): 449. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
38. Thomas AJ, Taylor JP, McKeith I, et al.: Revision of assessment toolkits for improving the diagnosis of Lewy body dementia: The DIAMOND Lewy study. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2018; 33(10): 1293–1304. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
39. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al.: The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010; 19(4): 539–49. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 18 Aug 2022

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
² Trinity College Institute of Neuroscience, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
³ Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College, London, UK
⁴ School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
⁵ Medical Psychology | Neuropsychology and Gender Studies & Centre for Neuropsychological Diagnostics and Intervention (CeNDI), Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Germany
⁶ Centre for Public Health, Queens University Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
⁷ Global Brain Health Institute, and Centre for Health Policy and Management, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland
⁸ Brown School of Public Health, Brown University, USA
⁹ School of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland
¹⁰ Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, UK
¹¹ Dementia U.K., Aldgate, UK
¹² Lewy Body Society U.K., Wigan, UK
¹³ Global Brain Health Institute, and Department of Psychiatry, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland

Emilia Grycuk
Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Emily Eichenholtz
Roles: Investigation, Project Administration, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Dag Aarsland
Roles: Methodology

Sara Betzhold
Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Gillian Daly
Roles: Project Administration, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Rachel Fitzpatrick
Roles: Project Administration, Writing – Review & Editing

Ann-Kristin Folkerts
Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Elke Kalbe
Roles: Methodology

Joseph PM Kane
Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Irina Kinchin
Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Ian J Saldanha
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Valerie Smith
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

John-Paul Taylor
Roles: Writing – Review & Editing

Rachel Thompson
Roles: Writing – Review & Editing

Iracema Leroi
Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

Health Research Board Ireland, Clinical Research Network grant, CTN-2021-003, Dementia Trials Ireland, lead, I Leroi; Health Research Board Ireland [CTN-2021-003] for Dementia Trials Ireland (lead: I Leroi)
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (2)

version 2

Revised

Published: 10 Oct 2023, 5:57

https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13590.2

version 1

Published: 18 Aug 2022, 5:57

https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13590.1

Copyright

© 2023 Grycuk E 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 work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

VIEWS

1240

downloads

95

Citations

0

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Grycuk E, Eichenholtz E, Aarsland D et al. Developing a core outcome set (COS) for Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. HRB Open Res 2023, 5:57 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13590.2)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 2

VERSION 2

PUBLISHED 10 Oct 2023

Revised

Views

27

Reviewer Report 23 Nov 2023

Catriona McDaid, Department of Health Sciences, York Trials Unit, University of York, York, UK

Approved

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15045.r36500

No further comments. Thank-you ... Continue reading

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 18 Aug 2022

Views

31

Reviewer Report 21 Dec 2022

Catriona McDaid, Department of Health Sciences, York Trials Unit, University of York, York, UK

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.14846.r33188

This protocol outlines methods for a systematic review to generate a long-list of outcomes for dementia with Lewy bodies, a delphi consensus study to develop an agreed list of outcomes and a literature search (or possibly systematic review), followed by ... Continue reading

This protocol outlines methods for a systematic review to generate a long-list of outcomes for dementia with Lewy bodies, a delphi consensus study to develop an agreed list of outcomes and a literature search (or possibly systematic review), followed by a consensus meeting, to agree a single measurement instrument to assess each outcome. The overall proposed study design is appropriate for the research question, though there is a lack of detail in the reporting in parts.

Systematic review

The systematic review to identify the long-list of outcomes is appropriately registered with PROSPERO. The authors report that the review has now been fully completed therefore it is not helpful to comment on the methods as these cannot be changed. I have reservations about whether it is appropriate to describe this review in the future tense in the paper given it is fully completed. A much briefer account with a link through to the PROSPERO registration may be more appropriate - I will leave this for editorial direction. If the review is retained then my comments are as follows:

overall the review is appropriate and a relevant range of databases are searched.
more detail needs to be added on what the plans were for synthesis of data, in particular the qualitative data - how was it planned to extract this data and what synthesis method was planned to generate from the qualitative data. This could be moved across from the PROSPERO registration only as it would not be approriate to add information post-hoc.
Table 1 says grey literature was excluded but the search strategy says studies were identified through grey literature.
excluding study protocols for ongoing studies seems a missed opportunity in terms of currency of outcome included.
PRISMA is a reporting guideline not a methods guideline so avoid statements such as saying the review methods followed PRISMA.

Other aspects of design

It is good to see the study registered with COMET. The link needs to be checked as I could not get it to work - though I did find the registration by a search of COMET.
How will outcomes be prepared for presentation in the delphi - is it just a raw list or will there be any consolidation or grouping?
It is good to see a plan to pilot the delphi survey with the Working Group before circulating it. However there does not appear to be any patients or carers on the Working Group. It is important to pilot the delphi with patients and carers to ensure that the terminology is understandable.
It is good to see a pre-specified definition of consensus for the survey and offering the opportunity to suggest new outcomes at round 1. However, there does not appear to be a plan to account for different priorities amongst patients and carers compared to healthcare professionals during the two survey rounds or to report on this. This could be clarified and justification added for the specific approach used.
Consensus meeting - what is meant by 'proportional representation from the two stakeholder groups'? How will this be determined and what will be done to ensure the patient and carer perspective is adequately represented? Some thought has been given to this in that, at the consensus meeting, consensus will require at least one lay stakeholder voting for inclusion of an outcome. However, this seems quite late on in the process, arguably it is a low bar, and is there a risk of patients important to patients being voted out in the earlier stages? Again justification and rationale for methods used would strengthen the paper.
'feasibility to treat the outcome in clinical practice' - how is this being defined and does it include outcomes that could be addressed in non-clinical settings such as social care?
Phase 3 Stage 4 - this is described as a literature search in the Abstract and in the section heading in the methods. Yet, in the text it says 'we will undertake a systematic review'. These are not the same thing and this needs clarified. If it is a systematic review I would expect much more detail on the methods. It is not enough just to say that COSMIN guidelines will be followed as these are not entirely prescriptive.
The statement 'We will conduct a quality assessment of our COS development process using the COSMIN checklist' is unclear.
The Design section refers to 'six distinct stages' but 5 are listed

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Applied health research, systematic reviews, RCTs, outcomes

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

37

Reviewer Report 29 Nov 2022

Panagiotis Alexopoulos, Department of Psychiatry, Patras University General Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Patras, Patras, Greece

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.14846.r33000

This a study protocol which will contribute to harmonization of studies focusing on the treatment/management of symptoms of DLB.

The following comments may help the authors clarify a number of issues.

The authors may

This a study protocol which will contribute to harmonization of studies focusing on the treatment/management of symptoms of DLB.

The following comments may help the authors clarify a number of issues.

The authors may consider in their systematic review papers focusing also on MCI due to LB. MCI due to AD increasingly attracts scientific attention with regard to cognitive and non-cognitive symptoms as well as biomarkers.
Even though grey literature belongs to the exclusion criteria, the authors mention that "the search will identify studies through bibliographic databases, trial registers and the grey literature".
Taking into account the paradigm change in dementia definitions towards biological defined clinical entities, it is worth considering not only symptoms, but also biomarkers as outcomes. Biomarkers are not established in DLB. Nonetheless, they can serve as useful indirect markers. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5496518/)
It is recommended that sport therapists/physiotherapists and speech therapists are included in the Delphi panel.
It is not depicted on what criteria the collection of participants for the consensus meeting be based. Will the collection be exclusively based on the proportional representation criterion?
The authors aim to select only one outcome measurement instrument per outcome. Is this not a reductionist approach, taking into account the different nature of tools assessing the same symptoms/phenomena (e.g. imaging vs. neurochemical markers, self rating scales vs. scales relying on care partner reports)?

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

References

1. McKeith IG, Boeve BF, Dickson DW, Halliday G, et al.: Diagnosis and management of dementia with Lewy bodies: Fourth consensus report of the DLB Consortium.Neurology. 2017; 89 (1): 88-100 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Mild cognitive impairment, dementia

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

69

Reviewer Report 29 Sep 2022

Parichita Choudhury, Banner Sun Health Research Institute, Sun City, AZ, USA

Andrew Ho, Banner University Medical Center Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ, USA

Approved

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.14846.r32799

A number of clinical trials for Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) have been completed and more are coming for both disease-modifying therapies and symptomatic therapies. Currently, there are no outcome measures specific to DLB. Previous trials have borrowed from the ... Continue reading

A number of clinical trials for Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) have been completed and more are coming for both disease-modifying therapies and symptomatic therapies. Currently, there are no outcome measures specific to DLB. Previous trials have borrowed from the Alzheimer’s disease or Parkinson’s disease outcome measures. Hence, developing a core outcome set for Dementia with Lewy Body is a high-yield undertaking and is essential for patients who live with this disease, as well as their practitioners and care partners who support them. In this article, Grycuk et al. provide an overview of a protocol aimed at developing core outcome measures, which encompasses the varied phenotypes and presentations of DLB.

The design of this study, in which a questionnaire is formed from the current literature and then placed through two rounds of consensus is an efficient and effective version of the Delphi method for obtaining a comprehensive set of the most impactful symptoms in DLB. Starting with an open-ended questionnaire, a common form of the Delphi method, can lead to superfluous and irrelevant topics, thus prolonging the process. One of the major flaws of the Delphi method is retaining participants through the multiple rounds, and so by taking on the research by reviewing the literature themselves, the authors will be effectively reducing one round from the Delphi process that may yield a loss of participants, as well as ensuring that the first round of questionnaire is of high impact. Additionally, the two rounds of consensus, with a consensus percentage of 70%, will not only include researchers, but also patients, practitioners, and care partners, so all involved parties will have a sufficient voice when approaching decisions regarding what is most important in the disease trajectory, therefore leading to outcomes that truly matter to all parties.

There are some limitations to this method. One limitation is the omission of biomarkers. Biomarkers are becoming an essential aspect of diagnosing neurocognitive disorders including DLB, but this is an acceptable exclusion as time is a limitation, and the inclusion of biomarkers may further complicate the process. Another limitation is regarding the selection of the outcomes themselves for the questionnaire. There was no mention of how many outcomes are intended to be surveyed once placed through the ORBIT matrix. If there is no cap, there may need to be some flexibility to increase the number of rounds needed during the Delphi surveys if question volumes are high. Finally, the implementation methodology (an online Delphi) disadvantages stakeholders from under-represented and socio-economically underprivileged backgrounds.

The development of core outcome sets for DLB is an important undertaking. The five stages presented to obtain these core outcome sets are concise and deliberate. The protocol in its current form is, therefore, publishable, despite some limitations.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Neurodegenerative disease, Dementia with Lewy bodies, Alzheimer's Disease

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 18 Aug 2022

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3
Version 2 (revision) 10 Oct 23			read
Version 1 18 Aug 22	read	read	read

Parichita Choudhury, Banner Sun Health Research Institute, Sun City, USA

Andrew Ho, Banner University Medical Center Phoenix, Phoenix, USA
Panagiotis Alexopoulos, University of Patras, Patras, Greece
Catriona McDaid, University of York, York, UK

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Sign up for content alerts

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

27 Views

23 Nov 2023 | for Version 2

Catriona McDaid, Department of Health Sciences, York Trials Unit, University of York, York, UK

27 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

No further comments. Thank-you for your considered responses.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Applied health research, systematic reviews, RCTs, outcomes

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

31 Views

21 Dec 2022 | for Version 1

Catriona McDaid, Department of Health Sciences, York Trials Unit, University of York, York, UK

31 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

This protocol outlines methods for a systematic review to generate a long-list of outcomes for dementia with Lewy bodies, a delphi consensus study to develop an agreed list of outcomes and a literature search (or possibly systematic review), followed by a consensus meeting, to agree a single measurement instrument to assess each outcome. The overall proposed study design is appropriate for the research question, though there is a lack of detail in the reporting in parts.

Systematic review

The systematic review to identify the long-list of outcomes is appropriately registered with PROSPERO. The authors report that the review has now been fully completed therefore it is not helpful to comment on the methods as these cannot be changed. I have reservations about whether it is appropriate to describe this review in the future tense in the paper given it is fully completed. A much briefer account with a link through to the PROSPERO registration may be more appropriate - I will leave this for editorial direction. If the review is retained then my comments are as follows:

overall the review is appropriate and a relevant range of databases are searched.
more detail needs to be added on what the plans were for synthesis of data, in particular the qualitative data - how was it planned to extract this data and what synthesis method was planned to generate from the qualitative data. This could be moved across from the PROSPERO registration only as it would not be approriate to add information post-hoc.
Table 1 says grey literature was excluded but the search strategy says studies were identified through grey literature.
excluding study protocols for ongoing studies seems a missed opportunity in terms of currency of outcome included.
PRISMA is a reporting guideline not a methods guideline so avoid statements such as saying the review methods followed PRISMA.

Other aspects of design

It is good to see the study registered with COMET. The link needs to be checked as I could not get it to work - though I did find the registration by a search of COMET.
How will outcomes be prepared for presentation in the delphi - is it just a raw list or will there be any consolidation or grouping?
It is good to see a plan to pilot the delphi survey with the Working Group before circulating it. However there does not appear to be any patients or carers on the Working Group. It is important to pilot the delphi with patients and carers to ensure that the terminology is understandable.
It is good to see a pre-specified definition of consensus for the survey and offering the opportunity to suggest new outcomes at round 1. However, there does not appear to be a plan to account for different priorities amongst patients and carers compared to healthcare professionals during the two survey rounds or to report on this. This could be clarified and justification added for the specific approach used.
Consensus meeting - what is meant by 'proportional representation from the two stakeholder groups'? How will this be determined and what will be done to ensure the patient and carer perspective is adequately represented? Some thought has been given to this in that, at the consensus meeting, consensus will require at least one lay stakeholder voting for inclusion of an outcome. However, this seems quite late on in the process, arguably it is a low bar, and is there a risk of patients important to patients being voted out in the earlier stages? Again justification and rationale for methods used would strengthen the paper.
'feasibility to treat the outcome in clinical practice' - how is this being defined and does it include outcomes that could be addressed in non-clinical settings such as social care?
Phase 3 Stage 4 - this is described as a literature search in the Abstract and in the section heading in the methods. Yet, in the text it says 'we will undertake a systematic review'. These are not the same thing and this needs clarified. If it is a systematic review I would expect much more detail on the methods. It is not enough just to say that COSMIN guidelines will be followed as these are not entirely prescriptive.
The statement 'We will conduct a quality assessment of our COS development process using the COSMIN checklist' is unclear.
The Design section refers to 'six distinct stages' but 5 are listed

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Applied health research, systematic reviews, RCTs, outcomes

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

37 Views

29 Nov 2022 | for Version 1

Panagiotis Alexopoulos, Department of Psychiatry, Patras University General Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Patras, Patras, Greece

37 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

This a study protocol which will contribute to harmonization of studies focusing on the treatment/management of symptoms of DLB.

The following comments may help the authors clarify a number of issues.

The authors may consider in their systematic review papers focusing also on MCI due to LB. MCI due to AD increasingly attracts scientific attention with regard to cognitive and non-cognitive symptoms as well as biomarkers.
Even though grey literature belongs to the exclusion criteria, the authors mention that "the search will identify studies through bibliographic databases, trial registers and the grey literature".
Taking into account the paradigm change in dementia definitions towards biological defined clinical entities, it is worth considering not only symptoms, but also biomarkers as outcomes. Biomarkers are not established in DLB. Nonetheless, they can serve as useful indirect markers. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5496518/)
It is recommended that sport therapists/physiotherapists and speech therapists are included in the Delphi panel.
It is not depicted on what criteria the collection of participants for the consensus meeting be based. Will the collection be exclusively based on the proportional representation criterion?
The authors aim to select only one outcome measurement instrument per outcome. Is this not a reductionist approach, taking into account the different nature of tools assessing the same symptoms/phenomena (e.g. imaging vs. neurochemical markers, self rating scales vs. scales relying on care partner reports)?

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

References

1. McKeith IG, Boeve BF, Dickson DW, Halliday G, et al.: Diagnosis and management of dementia with Lewy bodies: Fourth consensus report of the DLB Consortium.Neurology. 2017; 89 (1): 88-100 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Mild cognitive impairment, dementia

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

69 Views

29 Sep 2022 | for Version 1

Parichita Choudhury, Banner Sun Health Research Institute, Sun City, AZ, USA

Andrew Ho, Banner University Medical Center Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ, USA

69 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

A number of clinical trials for Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) have been completed and more are coming for both disease-modifying therapies and symptomatic therapies. Currently, there are no outcome measures specific to DLB. Previous trials have borrowed from the Alzheimer’s disease or Parkinson’s disease outcome measures. Hence, developing a core outcome set for Dementia with Lewy Body is a high-yield undertaking and is essential for patients who live with this disease, as well as their practitioners and care partners who support them. In this article, Grycuk et al. provide an overview of a protocol aimed at developing core outcome measures, which encompasses the varied phenotypes and presentations of DLB.

The design of this study, in which a questionnaire is formed from the current literature and then placed through two rounds of consensus is an efficient and effective version of the Delphi method for obtaining a comprehensive set of the most impactful symptoms in DLB. Starting with an open-ended questionnaire, a common form of the Delphi method, can lead to superfluous and irrelevant topics, thus prolonging the process. One of the major flaws of the Delphi method is retaining participants through the multiple rounds, and so by taking on the research by reviewing the literature themselves, the authors will be effectively reducing one round from the Delphi process that may yield a loss of participants, as well as ensuring that the first round of questionnaire is of high impact. Additionally, the two rounds of consensus, with a consensus percentage of 70%, will not only include researchers, but also patients, practitioners, and care partners, so all involved parties will have a sufficient voice when approaching decisions regarding what is most important in the disease trajectory, therefore leading to outcomes that truly matter to all parties.

There are some limitations to this method. One limitation is the omission of biomarkers. Biomarkers are becoming an essential aspect of diagnosing neurocognitive disorders including DLB, but this is an acceptable exclusion as time is a limitation, and the inclusion of biomarkers may further complicate the process. Another limitation is regarding the selection of the outcomes themselves for the questionnaire. There was no mention of how many outcomes are intended to be surveyed once placed through the ORBIT matrix. If there is no cap, there may need to be some flexibility to increase the number of rounds needed during the Delphi surveys if question volumes are high. Finally, the implementation methodology (an online Delphi) disadvantages stakeholders from under-represented and socio-economically underprivileged backgrounds.

The development of core outcome sets for DLB is an important undertaking. The five stages presented to obtain these core outcome sets are concise and deliberate. The protocol in its current form is, therefore, publishable, despite some limitations.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Neurodegenerative disease, Dementia with Lewy bodies, Alzheimer's Disease

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

[1] 1. Stevens T, Livingston G, Kitchen G, et al.: Islington study of dementia subtypes in the community. Br J Psychiatry. 2002; 180: 270–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[2] 2. McKeith IG, Boeve BF, Dickson DW, et al.: Diagnosis and management of dementia with Lewy bodies. Neurology. 2017; 89(1): 88–100. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[3] 3. Prince M, Bryce R, Albanese E, et al.: The global prevalence of dementia: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Alzheimers Dement. 2013; 9(1): 63–75.e2. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[4] 4. Orme T, Guerreiro R, Bras J: The Genetics of Dementia with Lewy Bodies: Current Understanding and Future Directions. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2018; 18(10): 67. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[5] 5. Goldman JG, Forsberg LK, Boeve BF, et al.: Challenges and opportunities for improving the landscape for Lewy body dementia clinical trials. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2020; 12(1): 137. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[6] 6. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, et al.: Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: Issues to consider. Trials. 2012; 13: 132. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[7] 7. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H, et al.: The COMET Handbook: version 1.0. Trials. 2017; 18(Suppl 3): 280. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[8] 8. Kirkham JJ, Gorst S, Altman DG, et al.: Cos-star: A reporting guideline for Studies Developing Core Outcome Sets (protocol). Trials. 2015; 16(1): 373. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[9] 9. Sinha IP, Smyth RL, Williamson PR: Using the Delphi technique to determine which outcomes to measure in clinical trials: Recommendations for the future based on a systematic review of existing studies. PLoS Med. 2011; 8(1): e1000393. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[10] 10. Armijo-Olivo S, Stiles CR, Hagen NA, et al.: Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: A comparison of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool: Methodological research. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012; 18(1): 12–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[11] 11. Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, et al.: The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ. 2010; 340(7747): c365. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[12] 12. Hsu CC, Sandford BA: The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Pract Assessment Res Eval. 2007; 12(10): 1–8. Publisher Full Text

[13] 13. Murphy MK, Black NA, Lamping DL, et al.: Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technol Assess. 1998; 2(3): i–iv, 1–88. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[14] 14. Powell C: The delphi technique: Myths and realities. J Adv Nurs. 2003; 41(4): 376–382. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[15] 15. Dalkey N, Helmer O: An Experimental Application of the DELPHI Method to the Use of Experts. Management Science. 1963; 9(3): 351–515. Publisher Full Text

[16] 16. Barrett D, Heale R: What are Delphi studies? Evid Based Nurs. 2020; 23(3): 68–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[17] 17. Kales HC, Lyketsos CG, Miller EM, et al.: Management of behavioral and psychological symptoms in people with alzheimer's disease: An international delphi consensus. Int Psychogeriatr. 2019; 31(1): 83–90. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Lafave MR, Butterwick DJ, Murray RP, et al.: Content validity of the rodeo-scat. Int J Sports Med. 2013; 34(2): 170–175. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Lafave M, Katz L, Butterwick D: Development of a content-valid standardized Orthopedic Assessment Tool (SOAT). Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2008; 13(4): 397–406. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[20] 20. Graefe A, Armstrong JS: Comparing face-to-face meetings, nominal groups, Delphi and prediction markets on an estimation task. Int J Forecast. 2011; 27(1): 183–195. Publisher Full Text

[21] 21. Gustafson DH, Shukla RK, Delbecq A, et al.: A comparative study of differences in subjective likelihood estimates made by individuals, interacting groups, Delphi groups, and nominal groups. Organ Behav Hum Perform. 1973; 9(2): 280–291. Publisher Full Text

[22] 22. Gonçalves AC, Samuel D, Ramsay M, et al.: A core outcome set to evaluate physical activity interventions for people living with dementia. Gerontologist. 2020; 60(4): 682–692. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[23] 23. Katiri R, Hall DA, Buggy N, et al.: Core rehabilitation outcome set for single sided deafness (CROSSSD) study: Protocol for an international consensus on outcome measures for single sided deafness interventions using a modified Delphi survey. Trials. 2020; 21(1): 238. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[24] 24. Wuytack F, Gutke A, Stuge B, et al.: Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for pelvic girdle pain, including methods for measuring the outcomes: The PGP-cos study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018; 18(1): 158. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[25] 25. Harman NL, Wilding J, Curry D, et al.: Selecting Core Outcomes for Randomised Effectiveness trials In Type 2 Diabetes (SCORE-IT): study protocol for the development of a core outcome set. Trials. 2018; 19(1): 427. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[26] 26. Ramsey I, Corsini N, Hutchinson AD, et al.: A core set of patient-reported outcomes for population-based cancer survivorship research: A consensus study. J Cancer Surviv. 2021; 15(2): 201–212. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[27] 27. Okoli C, Pawlowski SD: The delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. Inform Manage. 2004; 42(1): 15–29. Publisher Full Text

[28] 28. De Meyer D, Kottner J, Beele H, et al.: Delphi procedure in Core Outcome Set Development: Rating scale and consensus criteria determined outcome selection. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019; 111: 23–31. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[29] 29. Harding AJ, Morbey H, Ahmed F, et al.: Developing a core outcome set for people living with dementia at home in their neighbourhoods and communities: Study protocol for use in the evaluation of non-pharmacological community-based health and Social Care Interventions. Trials. 2018; 19(1): 247. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[30] 30. Ropacki MT, Hannesdottir K, Hendrix S, et al.: Clinically Meaningful Outcomes in Early Alzheimer Disease: A Consortia-Driven Approach to Identifying What Matters to Patients. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2017; 51(3): 380–390. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[31] 31. Reilly ST, Harding AJ, Morbey H, et al.: What is important to people with dementia living at home? A set of core outcome items for use in the evaluation of non-pharmacological community-based health and Social Care Interventions. Age Ageing. 2020; 49(4): 664–671. Publisher Full Text

[32] 32. Rose L, Agar M, Burry LD, et al.: Development of core outcome sets for effectiveness trials of interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium (Del-CORS): Study protocol. BMJ Open. 2017; 7(9): e016371. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[33] 33. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al.: Grade guidelines: 2. framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64(4): 395–400. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[34] 34. Campbell SM, Cantrill JA: Consensus methods in prescribing research. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2001; 26(1): 5–14. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[35] 35. Alkhaffaf B, Glenny AM, Blazeby JM, et al.: Standardising the reporting of outcomes in Gastric cancer surgery trials: Protocol for the development of a core outcome set and accompanying outcome measurement instrument set (the GASTROS study). Trials. 2017; 18(1): 370. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[36] 36. de Roos P, Bloem BR, Kelley TA, et al.: A consensus set of outcomes for parkinson's disease from the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement. J Parkinsons Dis. 2017; 7(3): 533–543. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[37] 37. Prinsen CA, Vohra S, Rose MR, et al.: How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a "Core outcome set" - a practical guideline. Trials. 2016; 17(1): 449. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[38] 38. Thomas AJ, Taylor JP, McKeith I, et al.: Revision of assessment toolkits for improving the diagnosis of Lewy body dementia: The DIAMOND Lewy study. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2018; 33(10): 1293–1304. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[39] 39. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al.: The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010; 19(4): 539–49. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

Developing a core outcome set (COS) for Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB)

Abstract

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Introduction

Protocol

Scope

Design

Phase 1: Stage 1: Protocol design and evidence synthesis through systematic review

Table 1. Eligibility criteria for the systematic review of outcomes used in the dementia with Lewy bodies literature.

Search strategy

Study selection and data extraction

Reporting the outcomes

Phase 2: Stage 2: A 2-round online Delphi survey

Delphi Technique and Design

Delphi panel participant composition and selection

Eligibility

Delphi rounds and consensus criteria

Rating scale

Stage 3: Consensus meeting finalizing LBD-COS

Phase 3: Stage 4: Systematic review identifying measurement instruments to be used in the core outcome set

Quality assessment and recommendations

Stage 5: Final consensus meeting finalizing the choice of instruments measuring the core outcome set

Stage 6: Reporting and dissemination

Ethical approval

Discussion

Study status

Data availability

Underlying data

Author contributions

Acknowledgments

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated

Are you a HRB-funded researcher?

Thank you!