Cargando…

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

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gorst, Sarah L., Gargon, Elizabeth, Clarke, Mike, Smith, Valerie, 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/PMC5156438/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27973622
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168403
_version_ 1782481269606580224
author Gorst, Sarah L.
Gargon, Elizabeth
Clarke, Mike
Smith, Valerie
Williamson, Paula R.
author_facet Gorst, Sarah L.
Gargon, Elizabeth
Clarke, Mike
Smith, Valerie
Williamson, Paula R.
author_sort Gorst, Sarah L.
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5156438
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51564382016-12-28 Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and Identification of Gaps Gorst, Sarah L. Gargon, Elizabeth Clarke, Mike Smith, Valerie Williamson, Paula R. PLoS One Research Article 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. Public Library of Science 2016-12-14 /pmc/articles/PMC5156438/ /pubmed/27973622 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168403 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
Smith, Valerie
Williamson, Paula R.
Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and Identification of Gaps
title Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and Identification of Gaps
title_full Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and Identification of Gaps
title_fullStr Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and Identification of Gaps
title_full_unstemmed Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and Identification of Gaps
title_short Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and Identification of Gaps
title_sort choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: an updated review and identification of gaps
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5156438/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27973622
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168403
work_keys_str_mv AT gorstsarahl choosingimportanthealthoutcomesforcomparativeeffectivenessresearchanupdatedreviewandidentificationofgaps
AT gargonelizabeth choosingimportanthealthoutcomesforcomparativeeffectivenessresearchanupdatedreviewandidentificationofgaps
AT clarkemike choosingimportanthealthoutcomesforcomparativeeffectivenessresearchanupdatedreviewandidentificationofgaps
AT smithvalerie choosingimportanthealthoutcomesforcomparativeeffectivenessresearchanupdatedreviewandidentificationofgaps
AT williamsonpaular choosingimportanthealthoutcomesforcomparativeeffectivenessresearchanupdatedreviewandidentificationofgaps