Citations 1
Prioritization of outcome measures in regional anesthesia research
El‐Boghdadly, Kariem , Ayad, Amany E. , Memtsoudis, Stavros G. , Schreiber, Kristin L. , Radcliffe, Gillian , Rivett, Kate, Princova, Zuzana, Adhikary, Sanjib Das , Candido, Kenneth D., Coppens, Steve , Hanna, Marie N. , Kandil, Enas , Kohan, Lynn , Muse, Iyabo O. , Nsiri, Afak , Pasternak, Jeffrey J., Tolba, Reda, Wolmarans, Morné , Elkassabany, Nabil , Memtsoudis, Stavros G , Schreiber, Kristin L , Adhikary, Sanjib , Albrecht, Eric , Bowness, James , Coppens, Steve , Gupta, Rajnish K , Johnson, Rebecca L , Kohan, Lynn R , Kopp, Sandra , Lobo, Clara , Moka, Eleni , Pino, Carlos A , Singh, Vinita , Van de Putte, Peter B C , Wolmarans, Morné , Elkassabany, Nabil M , El-Boghdadly, K , Narouze, Samer , Myles, Paul S. , Albrecht, Éric , Gupta, Rajnish K. , Johnson, Rebecca L. , Kopp, Sandra L. , Lobo, Clara , Μoka, Εleni , Pino, Carlos A. , Singh, Vinita , Theron, Andre
Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine | October 29, 2025 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: rapm-2025-107087
Background Outcome selection in regional anesthesia and acute pain research is inconsistent, often lacking patient-centered priorities and validated instruments. We aimed to prioritize key outcomes and propose suitable measurement tools to improve the quality, consistency, and relevance of regional anesthesia research. Methods We conducted a multiround Delphi process, including two electronic voting rounds, a multiday in-person meeting, and a patient panel. Experts and patients evaluated existing and proposed outcomes for importance, validity, and relevance. Outcomes reaching ≥70% agreement were prioritized, and appropriate measurement instruments were identified. Results Thirty-two experts and three patients participated. Across three Delphi rounds, 10 outcomes were prioritized for future regional anesthesia research: seven efficacy outcomes (pain scores; opioid consumption; Brief Pain Inventory; functional outcomes; cognitive function; length of stay; block duration); two multidimensional outcomes (quality of recovery and development of a regional anesthesia-specific quality-of-recovery instrument); one safety outcome (chronic postsurgical pain). Patients prioritized cognitive recovery, function, chronic pain, and pain scores. Conclusions This consensus-based, patient-centered framework defines the core priorities for future regional anesthesia and acute pain research. Future work should focus on developing and validating a regional anesthesia-specific quality-of-recovery instrument, refining multidimensional measures such as functional recovery, cognitive outcomes, and the Brief Pain Inventory, and standardizing the reporting of chronic pain and opioid-related outcomes. Adoption of these priorities will enhance methodological consistency, comparability, and patient relevance in future clinical trials.