A Core Outcome Set (COS) for treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is essential to ensure that the most meaningful outcomes are evaluated and used consistently. Measuring the same outcomes ensures evidence from clinical trials and routine clinical practice of different treatments can be more easily compared and combined, therefore increasing the quality of the evidence base. The SPINE-COS-AYA project aims to develop a gold standard COS which can be used internationally in research and routine clinical practice to evaluate the treatment (surgical and bracing) of AIS. In this qualitative study, the views of adolescents and young adults with AIS (10-25 years of age), their family members and healthcare professionals in a UK region were sought, via interviews, on treatment outcomes. Participants were purposively recruited from a variety of sources including NHS outpatient clinics and social media. Semi-structured interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. Key findings will be presented, to include potential core outcome domains identified by the different subgroups. The core outcome domains identified in this research programme will subsequently form part of an international consensus survey to agree a COS. In future, if the COS is used by healthcare staff and researchers, it will be easier for everyone, including patients and their families, to assess which treatment works best

Background and purpose:. Inconsistent outcome reporting is a problematic issue in systematic reviews of clinical trials in non-specific LBP (NSLBP). To facilitate statistical pooling and improve reliability of reviews, the development of a core outcome set (COS) is recommended. In 1998, Deyo et al. proposed a standardized set of domains and measurement instruments for LBP clinical research. An international steering committee (ISC) was formed to update 1998 recommendations, and to determine, at first, which outcome domains should be included in a COS for clinical trials in NSLBP. Methods:. The ISC used the OMERACT framework 2.0 to draw a list of potential core domains. This list was presented in a 3-round Delphi survey, in which researchers, clinicians and patients were invited to participate. Criteria for consensus were established a-priori and quantitative responses were analysed together with arguments provided by Delphi participants. The ISC discussed the results and made final decisions. Results:. 280 ‘experts’ were selected and invited to participate in the Delphi survey. Response rates in the three rounds were: 52%, 50%, and 45%. A list of 41 potential core domains was presented but 28 of them did not reach sufficient consensus to be presented in the third round, where overall consensus was reached on three domains: ‘physical functioning’, ‘pain intensity’ and ‘health-related quality of life’. Conclusion:. ‘Physical functioning’, ‘pain intensity’ and ‘health-related quality of life’ were included in this COS, together with the reporting on ‘number of deaths’. The next step in the development of this COS will be to determine which measurement instruments are most fit-for-purpose to measure these outcome domains