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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |