19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 5th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research

      research-article
      * , ,
      PLoS ONE
      Public Library of Science

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          A systematic review of core outcome sets (COS) for research is updated annually to populate an online database. It is a resource intensive review to do annually but automation techniques have potential to aid the process. The production of guidance and standards in COS development means that there is now an expectation that COS are being developed and reported to a higher standard. This is the fifth update to the systematic review and will explore these issues.

          Methods

          Searches were carried out to identify studies published or indexed in 2018. Automated screening methods were used to rank the citations in order of relevance. The cut-off for screening was set to the top 25% in ranked priority order, following development and validation of the algorithm. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported the development of a COS, regardless of any restrictions by age, health condition or setting. COS were assessed against each of the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD).

          Results

          Thirty studies describing the development of 44 COS were included in this update. Six COS (20%) were deemed to have met all 12 criteria representing the 11 minimum standards for COS development (range = 4 to 12 criteria, median = 10 criteria). All 30 COS studies met all four minimum standards for scope. Twenty-one (70%) COS met all three minimum standards for stakeholders. Twenty-three studies (77%) included patients with the condition or their representatives. The number of countries involved in the development of COS ranged from 1 to 39 (median = 10). Six studies (20%) met all four minimum standards [five criteria] for the consensus process.

          Conclusion

          Automated ranking was successfully used to assist the screening process and reduce the workload of this systematic review update. With the provision of guidelines, COS are better reported and being developed to a higher standard.

          Related collections

          Most cited references12

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development: The COS-STAD recommendations

          Background The use of core outcome sets (COS) ensures that researchers measure and report those outcomes that are most likely to be relevant to users of their research. Several hundred COS projects have been systematically identified to date, but there has been no formal quality assessment of these studies. The Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) project aimed to identify minimum standards for the design of a COS study agreed upon by an international group, while other specific guidance exists for the final reporting of COS development studies (Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting [COS-STAR]). Methods and findings An international group of experienced COS developers, methodologists, journal editors, potential users of COS (clinical trialists, systematic reviewers, and clinical guideline developers), and patient representatives produced the COS-STAD recommendations to help improve the quality of COS development and support the assessment of whether a COS had been developed using a reasonable approach. An open survey of experts generated an initial list of items, which was refined by a 2-round Delphi survey involving nearly 250 participants representing key stakeholder groups. Participants assigned importance ratings for each item using a 1–9 scale. Consensus that an item should be included in the set of minimum standards was defined as at least 70% of the voting participants from each stakeholder group providing a score between 7 and 9. The Delphi survey was followed by a consensus discussion with the study management group representing multiple stakeholder groups. COS-STAD contains 11 minimum standards that are the minimum design recommendations for all COS development projects. The recommendations focus on 3 key domains: the scope, the stakeholders, and the consensus process. Conclusions The COS-STAD project has established 11 minimum standards to be followed by COS developers when planning their projects and by users when deciding whether a COS has been developed using reasonable methods.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: A Systematic Review

            Background A core outcome set (COS) is a standardised set of outcomes which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all effectiveness trials for a specific health area. This will allow results of studies to be compared, contrasted and combined as appropriate, as well as ensuring that all trials contribute usable information. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness Trials) Initiative aims to support the development, reporting and adoption of COS. Central to this is a publically accessible online resource, populated with all available COS. The aim of the review we report here was to identify studies that sought to determine which outcomes or domains to measure in all clinical trials in a specific condition and to describe the methodological techniques used in these studies. Methods We developed a multi-faceted search strategy for electronic databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Methodology Register). We included studies that sought to determine which outcomes/domains to measure in all clinical trials in a specific condition. Results A total of 250 reports relating to 198 studies were judged eligible for inclusion in the review. Studies covered various areas of health, most commonly cancer, rheumatology, neurology, heart and circulation, and dentistry and oral health. A variety of methods have been used to develop COS, including semi-structured discussion, unstructured group discussion, the Delphi Technique, Consensus Development Conference, surveys and Nominal Group Technique. The most common groups involved were clinical experts and non-clinical research experts. Thirty-one (16%) studies reported that the public had been involved in the process. The geographic locations of participants were predominantly North America (n = 164; 83%) and Europe (n = 150; 76%). Conclusions This systematic review identified many health areas where a COS has been developed, but also highlights important gaps. It is a further step towards a comprehensive, up-to-date database of COS. In addition, it shows the need for methodological guidance, including how to engage key stakeholder groups, particularly members of the public.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Core Outcome Set-STAndardised Protocol Items: the COS-STAP Statement

              Background Several hundred core outcome set (COS) projects have been systematically identified to date which, if adopted, ensure that researchers measure and report those outcomes that are most likely to be relevant to users of their research. The uptake of a COS by COS users will depend in part on the transparency and robustness of the methods used in the COS development study, which would be increased by the use of a standardised protocol. This article describes the development of the COS-STAP (Core Outcome Set-STAndardised Protocol Items) Statement for the content of a COS development study protocol. Methods The COS-STAP Statement was developed following the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency Of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network’s methodological framework for guideline development. This included an initial item generation stage, a two-round Delphi survey involving more than 150 participants representing three stakeholder groups (COS developers, journal editors and patient and public involvement researchers interested in COS development), followed by a consensus meeting with eight voting participants. Results The COS-STAP Statement consists of a checklist of 13 items considered essential documentation in a protocol, outlining the scope of the COS, stakeholder involvement, COS development plans and consensus processes. Conclusions Journal editors and peer reviewers can use the guidance to assess the completeness of a COS development study protocol submitted for publication. By providing guidance for key content, the COS-STAP Statement will enhance the drafting of high-quality protocols and determine how the COS development study will be carried out. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3230-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                12 December 2019
                2019
                : 14
                : 12
                : e0225980
                Affiliations
                [001]Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
                University of Rennes 1, FRANCE
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: EG and PW are members of the COMET Management Group. All other authors had no competing interests. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3848-0113
                Article
                PONE-D-19-22167
                10.1371/journal.pone.0225980
                6907830
                31830081
                9f6011a8-0fbc-48ae-acb9-346862707fa0
                © 2019 Gargon et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 7 August 2019
                : 15 November 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 7, Pages: 18
                Funding
                The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. Professor Williamson is a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Senior Investigator. The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Assessment
                Systematic Reviews
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Assessment
                Research Reporting Guidelines
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Database and Informatics Methods
                Database Searching
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Clinical Research Design
                Comparative Effectiveness Research
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pharmacology
                Drug Research and Development
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Assessment
                Research Quality Assessment
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Services Research
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Clinical Medicine
                Clinical Trials
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pharmacology
                Drug Research and Development
                Clinical Trials
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Clinical Trials
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article