Report from ROMA: an update on the development of a core outcome set for aphasia research
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
"Report from ROMA: an update on the development of a core outcome set for aphasia research." Aphasiology, 32(sup1), pp. 241–242KEYWORDS: Aphasiacore outcome set Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.Background: A Core Outcome Set (COS) is a minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in research trials of a specific health condition or population. The use of a COS does not preclude the measurement of study-specific outcomes, but rather represents the minimum outcomes that should be collected and reported. Benefits of COSs include: (1) increased transparency and reliability of research findings through the recommended reporting of a minimum set of outcomes; (2) production of compatible research data which can be efficiently synthesised in subsequent meta-analyses; and (3) reduced research wastage through the measurement of relevant outcomes which are more likely to inform treatment decision-making.This presentation provides an update on ongoing works to develop a COS for aphasia treatment research (Wallace, Worrall, Rose, & Le Dorze, 2016 Wallace, S. J., Worrall, L., Rose, T., & Le Dorze, G. (2016). Core outcomes in aphasia treatment research: an e-Delphi consensus study of international aphasia researchers. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 25, S729–S742.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], 2017a Wallace, S. J., Worrall, L., Rose, T., & Le Dorze, G. (2017a). Using the international classification of functioning, disability, and health to identify outcome domains for a core outcome set for aphasia: A comparison of stakeholder perspectives. Disabil Rehabil, 1–10. doi:10.1080/09638288.2017.1400593[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], 2017b Wallace, S. J., Worrall, L., Rose, T., & Le Dorze, G. (2017b). Which treatment outcomes are most important to aphasia clinicians and managers? An international e-Delphi consensus study. Aphasiology, 31, 643–673.[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Wallace, Worrall, Rose, Le Dorze, et al., 2017 Wallace, S. J., Worrall, L., Rose, T., Le Dorze, G., Cruice, M., Isaksen, J., … Gauvreau, C. A. (2017). Which outcomes are most important to people with aphasia and their families? An international nominal group technique study framed within the ICF. Disabil Rehabil, 39, 1364–1379.[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Research to date has identified essential outcome constructs as: language, communication, patient-reported satisfaction with treatment and impact of treatment, emotional wellbeing, and quality of life (Wallace, Worrall, Rose, & Le Dorze, 2017a Wallace, S. J., Worrall, L., Rose, T., & Le Dorze, G. (2017a). Using the international classification of functioning, disability, and health to identify outcome domains for a core outcome set for aphasia: A comparison of stakeholder perspectives. Disabil Rehabil, 1–10. doi:10.1080/09638288.2017.1400593[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). During the first ROMA consensus meeting, consensus was reached for measures of language (The Western Aphasia Battery-Revised (WAB-R); 74%), emotional wellbeing (General Health Questionnaire (GHQ)-12 (83% consensus); and quality of life (Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale (SAQOL-39); 96%).Aims: To provide an update on the ROMA (Improving Research Outcome Measurement in Aphasia) project to develop a COS for aphasia treatment research.Methods & Procedures: This presentation will provide an update on the ROMA consensus statement and current research exploring measures of communication for inclusion in the COS. Outcomes from the 2nd ROMA international consensus meeting will be discussed.Outcomes & Results: ROMA COS consensus statement. The ROMA consensus statement provides recommendations for a COS for aphasia treatment research. The consensus statement has been endorsed by the Collaboration of Aphasia Trialists, the British Aphasiology Society, The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, and the German Society for Aphasia Research and Therapy.Measuring communication as a core outcome in aphasia trials: Updates will be provided on current research examining the measurement of communication in aphasia trials. The outcomes from the 2nd ROMA international consensus meeting, which aims to develop a research agenda for the identification of a core measure of communication, will be discussed.Conclusions: How an outcome is defined and measured is critical in research design. Well-chosen outcome measures not only allow the detection of meaningful change within individual studies, but also facilitate synthesis across trials (Brady et al., 2014 Brady, M. C., Ali, M., Fyndanis, C., Kambanaros, M., Grohmann, K. K., Laska, A.-C., … Varlokosta, S. (2014). Time for a step change? Improving the efficiency, relevance, reliability, validity and transparency of aphasia rehabilitation research through core outcome measures, a common data set and improved reporting criteria. Aphasiology, 1–8. doi:10.1080/02687038.2014.930261[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). The development and implementation of a COS has the potential to improve the quality of aphasia treatment studies.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,264 | 0,325 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,008 | 0,017 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,017 | 0,014 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,008 | 0,014 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,011 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,012 | 0,010 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; l’étiquette directe de Gemma et le classifieur distillé Codex s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».