Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials

Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and Identification of Gaps

General Information

Abstract:
Background: The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative promotes the development and application of core outcome sets (COS), including relevant studies in an online database. In order to keep the database current, an annual search of the literature is undertaken. This study aimed to update a previous systematic review, in order to identify any further studies where a COS has been developed. Furthermore, no prioritization for COS development has previously been undertaken, therefore this study also aimed to identify COS relevant to the world’s most prevalent health conditions.

Methods: The methods used in this updated review followed the same approach used in the original review and the previous update. A survey was also sent to the corresponding authors of COS identified for inclusion in this review, to ascertain what lessons they had learnt from developing their COS. Additionally, the COMET database was searched to identify COS that might be relevant to the conditions with the highest global prevalence.

Results: Twenty-five reports relating to 22 new studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. Further improvements were identified in relation to the description of the scope of the COS, use of the Delphi technique, and the inclusion of patient participants within the development process. Additionally, 33 published and ongoing COS were identified for 13 of the world’s most prevalent conditions.

Conclusion: The development of a reporting guideline and minimum standards should contribute towards future improvements in development and reporting of COS. This study has also described a first approach to identifying gaps in existing COS, and to priority setting in this area. Important gaps have been identified, on the basis of global burden of disease, and the development and application of COS in these areas should be considered a priority.

Aim:
This study aimed to update a previous systematic review, in order to identify any further studies where a COS has been developed. Furthermore, no prioritization for COS development has previously been undertaken, therefore this study also aimed to identify COS relevant to the world’s most prevalent health conditions.

Authors:
Gorst SL, Gargon E, Clarke M, Smith V, Williamson PR

Publication

Journal:
PLoS One
Volume:
11
Issue:
12
Pages:
e0168403 -
Year:
2016
DOI:
Further Study Information

Date:
January 2015 - January 2016
Funding source(s):
This work was funded by the NIHR (National Institute for Health Research), grant number NF-SI_0513-10025.

Health Area

Disease Category

Disease Name
N/A

Target Population

Age Range
-

Sex
Either


Nature / type of Intervention
Any

Method(s)

Survey
Systematic review

The methods used in this updated review followed the same approach used in the original review and the previous update. A survey was also sent to the corresponding authors of COS identified for inclusion in this review, to ascertain what lessons they had learnt from developing their COS. Additionally, the COMET database was searched to identify COS that might be relevant to the conditions with the highest global prevalence.


Stakeholders Involved

Researchers
Statisticians

Study Type

Systematic review of core outcome sets

The site uses cookies, some may have been set already. Please refer to our privacy policy & cookie usage statement.
If you continue to use the site we'll assume you're happy to accept the cookies.