Assessing the relevance and uptake of core outcome sets (an agreed minimum collection of outcomes to measure in research studies) in Cochrane systematic reviews: a review

Objectives A core outcome set (COS) is an agreed standardised minimum collection of outcomes that should be measured and reported in research in a specific area of health. Cochrane systematic reviews (‘reviews’) are rigorous reviews on health-related topics conducted under the auspices of Cochrane....

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Karen Hughes, Mike Clarke, Sarah L Gorst, Paula R Williamson, Ricardo de Ávila Oliveira, Ian J Saldanha, Jochen Schmitt
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMJ Publishing Group 2020-09-01
Series:BMJ Open
Online Access:https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/9/e036562.full
id doaj-b7892da2ebc943d7b41af08214c0df27
record_format Article
spelling doaj-b7892da2ebc943d7b41af08214c0df272021-07-21T16:02:30ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Open2044-60552020-09-0110910.1136/bmjopen-2019-036562Assessing the relevance and uptake of core outcome sets (an agreed minimum collection of outcomes to measure in research studies) in Cochrane systematic reviews: a reviewKaren Hughes0Mike Clarke1Sarah L Gorst2Paula R Williamson3Ricardo de Ávila Oliveira4Ian J Saldanha5Jochen Schmitt61 College of Health and Behavioural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK Northern Ireland Methodology Hub, Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, UK1 MRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK 1 MRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK DECIR Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, Uberlândia, BrazilCenter for Evidence Synthesis in Health, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island, USACenter for Evidence-based Healthcare, Medizinische Fakultät, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, GermanyObjectives A core outcome set (COS) is an agreed standardised minimum collection of outcomes that should be measured and reported in research in a specific area of health. Cochrane systematic reviews (‘reviews’) are rigorous reviews on health-related topics conducted under the auspices of Cochrane. This study examines the use of existing COS to inform the choice of outcomes in Cochrane systematic reviews (‘reviews’) and investigates the views of the coordinating editors of Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) on this topic.Methods A cohort of 100 recently published or updated Cochrane reviews were assessed for reference to a COS being used to inform the choice of outcomes for the review. Existing COS, published 2 or more years before the review publication, were then identified to assess how often a reviewer could have used a relevant COS if it was available. We asked 52 CRG coordinating editors about their involvement in COS development, how outcomes are selected for reviews in their CRG and their views of the advantages and challenges surrounding the standardisation of outcomes within their CRG.Results In the cohort of reviews from 2019, 40% (40/100) of reviewers noted problems due to outcome inconsistency across the included studies. In 7% (7/100) of reviews, a COS was referenced in relation to the choice of outcomes for the review. Relevant existing COS could be considered for a review update in 35% of the others (33/93). Most editors who responded (31/36, 86%) thought that COS should definitely or possibly be used to inform the choice of outcomes in a review.Conclusions Systematic reviewers are continuing to note outcome heterogeneity but are starting to use COS to inform their reviews. There is potential for greater uptake of COS in Cochrane reviews.https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/9/e036562.full
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Karen Hughes
Mike Clarke
Sarah L Gorst
Paula R Williamson
Ricardo de Ávila Oliveira
Ian J Saldanha
Jochen Schmitt
spellingShingle Karen Hughes
Mike Clarke
Sarah L Gorst
Paula R Williamson
Ricardo de Ávila Oliveira
Ian J Saldanha
Jochen Schmitt
Assessing the relevance and uptake of core outcome sets (an agreed minimum collection of outcomes to measure in research studies) in Cochrane systematic reviews: a review
BMJ Open
author_facet Karen Hughes
Mike Clarke
Sarah L Gorst
Paula R Williamson
Ricardo de Ávila Oliveira
Ian J Saldanha
Jochen Schmitt
author_sort Karen Hughes
title Assessing the relevance and uptake of core outcome sets (an agreed minimum collection of outcomes to measure in research studies) in Cochrane systematic reviews: a review
title_short Assessing the relevance and uptake of core outcome sets (an agreed minimum collection of outcomes to measure in research studies) in Cochrane systematic reviews: a review
title_full Assessing the relevance and uptake of core outcome sets (an agreed minimum collection of outcomes to measure in research studies) in Cochrane systematic reviews: a review
title_fullStr Assessing the relevance and uptake of core outcome sets (an agreed minimum collection of outcomes to measure in research studies) in Cochrane systematic reviews: a review
title_full_unstemmed Assessing the relevance and uptake of core outcome sets (an agreed minimum collection of outcomes to measure in research studies) in Cochrane systematic reviews: a review
title_sort assessing the relevance and uptake of core outcome sets (an agreed minimum collection of outcomes to measure in research studies) in cochrane systematic reviews: a review
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
series BMJ Open
issn 2044-6055
publishDate 2020-09-01
description Objectives A core outcome set (COS) is an agreed standardised minimum collection of outcomes that should be measured and reported in research in a specific area of health. Cochrane systematic reviews (‘reviews’) are rigorous reviews on health-related topics conducted under the auspices of Cochrane. This study examines the use of existing COS to inform the choice of outcomes in Cochrane systematic reviews (‘reviews’) and investigates the views of the coordinating editors of Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) on this topic.Methods A cohort of 100 recently published or updated Cochrane reviews were assessed for reference to a COS being used to inform the choice of outcomes for the review. Existing COS, published 2 or more years before the review publication, were then identified to assess how often a reviewer could have used a relevant COS if it was available. We asked 52 CRG coordinating editors about their involvement in COS development, how outcomes are selected for reviews in their CRG and their views of the advantages and challenges surrounding the standardisation of outcomes within their CRG.Results In the cohort of reviews from 2019, 40% (40/100) of reviewers noted problems due to outcome inconsistency across the included studies. In 7% (7/100) of reviews, a COS was referenced in relation to the choice of outcomes for the review. Relevant existing COS could be considered for a review update in 35% of the others (33/93). Most editors who responded (31/36, 86%) thought that COS should definitely or possibly be used to inform the choice of outcomes in a review.Conclusions Systematic reviewers are continuing to note outcome heterogeneity but are starting to use COS to inform their reviews. There is potential for greater uptake of COS in Cochrane reviews.
url https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/9/e036562.full
work_keys_str_mv AT karenhughes assessingtherelevanceanduptakeofcoreoutcomesetsanagreedminimumcollectionofoutcomestomeasureinresearchstudiesincochranesystematicreviewsareview
AT mikeclarke assessingtherelevanceanduptakeofcoreoutcomesetsanagreedminimumcollectionofoutcomestomeasureinresearchstudiesincochranesystematicreviewsareview
AT sarahlgorst assessingtherelevanceanduptakeofcoreoutcomesetsanagreedminimumcollectionofoutcomestomeasureinresearchstudiesincochranesystematicreviewsareview
AT paularwilliamson assessingtherelevanceanduptakeofcoreoutcomesetsanagreedminimumcollectionofoutcomestomeasureinresearchstudiesincochranesystematicreviewsareview
AT ricardodeavilaoliveira assessingtherelevanceanduptakeofcoreoutcomesetsanagreedminimumcollectionofoutcomestomeasureinresearchstudiesincochranesystematicreviewsareview
AT ianjsaldanha assessingtherelevanceanduptakeofcoreoutcomesetsanagreedminimumcollectionofoutcomestomeasureinresearchstudiesincochranesystematicreviewsareview
AT jochenschmitt assessingtherelevanceanduptakeofcoreoutcomesetsanagreedminimumcollectionofoutcomestomeasureinresearchstudiesincochranesystematicreviewsareview
_version_ 1721292549276041216