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....
Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |