P066 Core outcome set implementation in vitiligo clinical trials: barriers and facilitators from a survey of lead researchers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Core outcome sets (COSs) standardize outcome measures across clinical trials, ensuring consistency and comparability of results. In 2015, an internationally agreed COS for vitiligo randomized clinical trials (RCTs) identified three essential outcomes: repigmentation, side-effects/harms, and maintenance of gained repigmentation. Despite its significance, adoption of the COS across vitiligo trials has been inconsistent. This study evaluated COS uptake, barriers to implementation, and facilitators. Eighty-five authors of vitiligo RCTs between 2016 and 2021 were identified through a systematic review evaluating COS uptake, and were contacted via email. Recruitment occurred between July and November 2024, and 36 authors completed the Google Forms survey (response rate 42%). Respondents, predominantly dermatologists worldwide, described awareness and integration of COS domains within their trials. Quantitative results revealed that all respondents incorporated repigmentation as an outcome, and 97% assessed side-effects/harms. However, maintenance of gained repigmentation was measured by only 64% of respondents. Among the four recommended outcomes, 67% of respondents evaluated cosmetic acceptability and quality of life, while tolerability/burden of treatment and cessation of spreading were assessed less frequently (50% and 47%, respectively). Thematic analysis identified barriers to COS implementation. The most cited challenge (44%) concerned long-term follow-up to assess maintenance of gained repigmentation, with many noting cost and resource constraints. Additionally, 28% highlighted the impracticality of assessing maintenance in early-phase trials, where efficacy was the primary focus – despite only late-phase trials being surveyed. Ambiguity in defining certain domains, such as cessation of spreading, was reported by 19%, particularly in trials of stable vitiligo. Some respondents (8%) noted that repetitive data collection burdened patients and trial staff, contributing to incomplete datasets. To enhance uptake, respondents recommended increasing awareness of COS outcomes through public campaigns and academic presentations (53%). Simplifying and validating measurement tools for COS outcomes was suggested by 36%, alongside calls for journal reviewers to require COS adherence during manuscript submission (32%). A tiered outcome collection approach was also proposed, prioritizing repigmentation and side-effects in initial trials, with maintenance in long-term follow-ups. This evaluation underscores the need for flexible COS implementation reflecting practical challenges of vitiligo RCTs. While adoption of repigmentation and side-effects measures reflects COS awareness, gaps in assessing maintenance of repigmentation highlight persistent barriers. Given that most vitiligo RCTs span 52–54 weeks, yet 40% of patients relapse within 3–4 months post-treatment, tracking long-term maintenance is vital. Addressing logistical and definitional challenges, refining outcome frameworks, and fostering collaboration between researchers, industry and journal reviewers will be essential to facilitate COS adherence. These findings will inform ongoing COS refinement and support a planned complementary survey of dermatology journal editors to evaluate COS uptake at the publication level.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.535 | 0.742 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".