Prioritization of outcome measures in regional anesthesia research

Authors

Kariem El-Boghdadly, Department of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK elboghdadly@gmail.com.
Samer Narouze, University Hospitals, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Amany Ezzat Ayad, Anesthesia, ICU and Pain Department, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Stavros G. Memtsoudis, Hospital for Special Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA.
Kristin L. Schreiber, Department of Anesthesiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, USA.
Paul S. Myles, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Gillian Radcliffe, Department of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Kate Rivett, Patient Representative, London, UK.
Zuzana Princova, Patient Representative, London, UK.
Sanjib Adhikary, Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Penn State College of Medicine, and Veteran Affairs Lebanon, Lebanon, Pennsylvania, USA.
Eric Albrecht, Department of Anaesthesia, University Hospital of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
James Bowness, Department of Targeted Intervention, University College London Hospitals, London, UK.
Kenneth Candido, Advocate Health - MidwestFollow
et al

Recommended Citation

El-Boghdadly K, Narouze S, Ayad AE, et al. Prioritization of outcome measures in regional anesthesia research. Reg Anesth Pain Med. Published online October 28, 2025. doi:10.1136/rapm-2025-107087

Affiliations

Advocate Good Samaritan Hospital

Abstract

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.

Document Type

Article

PubMed ID

41151978