IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0242811.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An evidence-based methodology for systematic evaluation of clinical outcome assessment measures for traumatic brain injury

Author

Listed:
  • Andrea N Christoforou
  • Melissa J Armstrong
  • Michael J G Bergin
  • Ann Robbins
  • Shannon A Merillat
  • Patricia Erwin
  • Thomas S D Getchius
  • Michael McCrea
  • Amy J Markowitz
  • Geoffrey T Manley
  • Joseph T Giacino

Abstract

Introduction: The high failure rate of clinical trials in traumatic brain injury (TBI) may be attributable, in part, to the use of untested or insensitive measurement instruments. Of more than 1,000 clinical outcome assessment measures (COAs) for TBI, few have been systematically vetted to determine their performance within specific “contexts of use (COU).” As described in guidance issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the COU specifies the population of interest and the purpose for which the COA will be employed. COAs are commonly used for screening, diagnostic categorization, outcome prediction, and establishing treatment effectiveness. COA selection typically relies on expert consensus; there is no established methodology to match the appropriateness of a particular COA to a specific COU. We developed and pilot-tested the Evidence-Based Clinical Outcome assessment Platform (EB-COP) to systematically and transparently evaluate the suitability of TBI COAs for specific purposes. Methods and findings: Following a review of existing literature and published guidelines on psychometric standards for COAs, we developed a 6-step, semi-automated, evidence-based assessment platform to grade COA performance for six specific purposes: diagnosis, symptom detection, prognosis, natural history, subgroup stratification and treatment effectiveness. Mandatory quality indicators (QIs) were identified for each purpose using a modified Delphi consensus-building process. The EB-COP framework was incorporated into a Qualtrics software platform and pilot-tested on the Glasgow Outcome Scale—Extended (GOSE), the most widely-used COA in TBI clinical studies. Conclusion: The EB-COP provides a systematic methodology for conducting more precise, evidence-based assessment of COAs by evaluating performance within specific COUs. The EB-COP platform was shown to be feasible when applied to a TBI COA frequently used to detect treatment effects and can be modified to address other populations and COUs. Additional testing and validation of the EB-COP are warranted.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea N Christoforou & Melissa J Armstrong & Michael J G Bergin & Ann Robbins & Shannon A Merillat & Patricia Erwin & Thomas S D Getchius & Michael McCrea & Amy J Markowitz & Geoffrey T Manley & Jose, 2020. "An evidence-based methodology for systematic evaluation of clinical outcome assessment measures for traumatic brain injury," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(12), pages 1-21, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0242811
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242811
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0242811
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0242811&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0242811?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0242811. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.