Cargando…

Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and User Survey

BACKGROUND: A COS represents an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all trials of a specific condition. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) initiative aims to collate and stimulate the development and application of COS, by including data on r...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gorst, Sarah L., Gargon, Elizabeth, Clarke, Mike, Blazeby, Jane M., Altman, Douglas G., Williamson, Paula R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4718543/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26785121
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146444
_version_ 1782410815688671232
author Gorst, Sarah L.
Gargon, Elizabeth
Clarke, Mike
Blazeby, Jane M.
Altman, Douglas G.
Williamson, Paula R.
author_facet Gorst, Sarah L.
Gargon, Elizabeth
Clarke, Mike
Blazeby, Jane M.
Altman, Douglas G.
Williamson, Paula R.
author_sort Gorst, Sarah L.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: A COS represents an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all trials of a specific condition. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) initiative aims to collate and stimulate the development and application of COS, by including data on relevant studies within a publically available internet-based resource. In recent years, there has been an interest in increasing the development of COS. Therefore, this study aimed to provide an update of a previous review, and examine the quality of development of COS. A further aim was to understand the reasons why individuals are searching the COMET database. METHODS: A multi-faceted search strategy was followed, in order to identify studies that sought to determine which outcomes/domains to measure in clinical trials of a specific condition. Additionally, a pop up survey was added to the COMET website, to ascertain why people were searching the COMET database. RESULTS: Thirty-two reports relating to 29 studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. There has been an improvement in the description of the scope of a COS and an increase in the proportion of studies using literature/systematic reviews and the Delphi technique. Clinical experts continue to be the most common group involved in developing COS, however patient and public involvement has increased. The pop-up survey revealed the most common reasons for visiting the COMET website to be thinking about developing a COS and planning a clinical trial. CONCLUSIONS: This update demonstrates that recent studies appear to have adopted a more structured approach towards COS development and public representation has increased. However, there remains a need for developers to adequately describe details about the scope of COS, and for greater public engagement. The COMET database appears to be a useful resource for both COS developers and users of COS.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4718543
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47185432016-01-30 Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and User Survey Gorst, Sarah L. Gargon, Elizabeth Clarke, Mike Blazeby, Jane M. Altman, Douglas G. Williamson, Paula R. PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: A COS represents an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all trials of a specific condition. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) initiative aims to collate and stimulate the development and application of COS, by including data on relevant studies within a publically available internet-based resource. In recent years, there has been an interest in increasing the development of COS. Therefore, this study aimed to provide an update of a previous review, and examine the quality of development of COS. A further aim was to understand the reasons why individuals are searching the COMET database. METHODS: A multi-faceted search strategy was followed, in order to identify studies that sought to determine which outcomes/domains to measure in clinical trials of a specific condition. Additionally, a pop up survey was added to the COMET website, to ascertain why people were searching the COMET database. RESULTS: Thirty-two reports relating to 29 studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. There has been an improvement in the description of the scope of a COS and an increase in the proportion of studies using literature/systematic reviews and the Delphi technique. Clinical experts continue to be the most common group involved in developing COS, however patient and public involvement has increased. The pop-up survey revealed the most common reasons for visiting the COMET website to be thinking about developing a COS and planning a clinical trial. CONCLUSIONS: This update demonstrates that recent studies appear to have adopted a more structured approach towards COS development and public representation has increased. However, there remains a need for developers to adequately describe details about the scope of COS, and for greater public engagement. The COMET database appears to be a useful resource for both COS developers and users of COS. Public Library of Science 2016-01-19 /pmc/articles/PMC4718543/ /pubmed/26785121 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146444 Text en © 2016 Gorst et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Gorst, Sarah L.
Gargon, Elizabeth
Clarke, Mike
Blazeby, Jane M.
Altman, Douglas G.
Williamson, Paula R.
Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and User Survey
title Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and User Survey
title_full Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and User Survey
title_fullStr Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and User Survey
title_full_unstemmed Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and User Survey
title_short Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and User Survey
title_sort choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: an updated review and user survey
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4718543/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26785121
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146444
work_keys_str_mv AT gorstsarahl choosingimportanthealthoutcomesforcomparativeeffectivenessresearchanupdatedreviewandusersurvey
AT gargonelizabeth choosingimportanthealthoutcomesforcomparativeeffectivenessresearchanupdatedreviewandusersurvey
AT clarkemike choosingimportanthealthoutcomesforcomparativeeffectivenessresearchanupdatedreviewandusersurvey
AT blazebyjanem choosingimportanthealthoutcomesforcomparativeeffectivenessresearchanupdatedreviewandusersurvey
AT altmandouglasg choosingimportanthealthoutcomesforcomparativeeffectivenessresearchanupdatedreviewandusersurvey
AT williamsonpaular choosingimportanthealthoutcomesforcomparativeeffectivenessresearchanupdatedreviewandusersurvey