Cargando…

Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: An updated systematic review and involvement of low and middle income countries

BACKGROUND: Core outcome sets (COS) comprise a minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all trials for a specific health condition. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative maintains an up to date, publicly accessible online database of published an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Davis, Katherine, Gorst, Sarah L., Harman, Nicola, Smith, Valerie, Gargon, Elizabeth, Altman, Douglas G., Blazeby, Jane M., Clarke, Mike, Tunis, Sean, Williamson, Paula R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5810981/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29438429
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190695
_version_ 1783299791188393984
author Davis, Katherine
Gorst, Sarah L.
Harman, Nicola
Smith, Valerie
Gargon, Elizabeth
Altman, Douglas G.
Blazeby, Jane M.
Clarke, Mike
Tunis, Sean
Williamson, Paula R.
author_facet Davis, Katherine
Gorst, Sarah L.
Harman, Nicola
Smith, Valerie
Gargon, Elizabeth
Altman, Douglas G.
Blazeby, Jane M.
Clarke, Mike
Tunis, Sean
Williamson, Paula R.
author_sort Davis, Katherine
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Core outcome sets (COS) comprise a minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all trials for a specific health condition. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative maintains an up to date, publicly accessible online database of published and ongoing COS. An annual systematic review update is an important part of this process. METHODS: This review employed the same, multifaceted approach that was used in the original review and the previous two updates. This approach has identified studies that sought to determine which outcomes/domains to measure in clinical trials of a specific condition. This update includes an analysis of the inclusion of participants from low and middle income countries (LMICs) as identified by the OECD, in these COS. RESULTS: Eighteen publications, relating to 15 new studies describing the development of 15 COS, were eligible for inclusion in the review. Results show an increase in the use of mixed methods, including Delphi surveys. Clinical experts remain the most common stakeholder group involved. Overall, only 16% of the 259 COS studies published up to the end of 2016 have included participants from LMICs. CONCLUSION: This review highlights opportunities for greater public participation in COS development and the involvement of stakeholders from a wider range of geographical settings, in particular LMICs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5810981
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58109812018-02-28 Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: An updated systematic review and involvement of low and middle income countries Davis, Katherine Gorst, Sarah L. Harman, Nicola Smith, Valerie Gargon, Elizabeth Altman, Douglas G. Blazeby, Jane M. Clarke, Mike Tunis, Sean Williamson, Paula R. PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Core outcome sets (COS) comprise a minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all trials for a specific health condition. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative maintains an up to date, publicly accessible online database of published and ongoing COS. An annual systematic review update is an important part of this process. METHODS: This review employed the same, multifaceted approach that was used in the original review and the previous two updates. This approach has identified studies that sought to determine which outcomes/domains to measure in clinical trials of a specific condition. This update includes an analysis of the inclusion of participants from low and middle income countries (LMICs) as identified by the OECD, in these COS. RESULTS: Eighteen publications, relating to 15 new studies describing the development of 15 COS, were eligible for inclusion in the review. Results show an increase in the use of mixed methods, including Delphi surveys. Clinical experts remain the most common stakeholder group involved. Overall, only 16% of the 259 COS studies published up to the end of 2016 have included participants from LMICs. CONCLUSION: This review highlights opportunities for greater public participation in COS development and the involvement of stakeholders from a wider range of geographical settings, in particular LMICs. Public Library of Science 2018-02-13 /pmc/articles/PMC5810981/ /pubmed/29438429 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190695 Text en © 2018 Davis 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
Davis, Katherine
Gorst, Sarah L.
Harman, Nicola
Smith, Valerie
Gargon, Elizabeth
Altman, Douglas G.
Blazeby, Jane M.
Clarke, Mike
Tunis, Sean
Williamson, Paula R.
Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: An updated systematic review and involvement of low and middle income countries
title Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: An updated systematic review and involvement of low and middle income countries
title_full Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: An updated systematic review and involvement of low and middle income countries
title_fullStr Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: An updated systematic review and involvement of low and middle income countries
title_full_unstemmed Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: An updated systematic review and involvement of low and middle income countries
title_short Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: An updated systematic review and involvement of low and middle income countries
title_sort choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: an updated systematic review and involvement of low and middle income countries
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5810981/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29438429
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190695
work_keys_str_mv AT daviskatherine choosingimportanthealthoutcomesforcomparativeeffectivenessresearchanupdatedsystematicreviewandinvolvementoflowandmiddleincomecountries
AT gorstsarahl choosingimportanthealthoutcomesforcomparativeeffectivenessresearchanupdatedsystematicreviewandinvolvementoflowandmiddleincomecountries
AT harmannicola choosingimportanthealthoutcomesforcomparativeeffectivenessresearchanupdatedsystematicreviewandinvolvementoflowandmiddleincomecountries
AT smithvalerie choosingimportanthealthoutcomesforcomparativeeffectivenessresearchanupdatedsystematicreviewandinvolvementoflowandmiddleincomecountries
AT gargonelizabeth choosingimportanthealthoutcomesforcomparativeeffectivenessresearchanupdatedsystematicreviewandinvolvementoflowandmiddleincomecountries
AT altmandouglasg choosingimportanthealthoutcomesforcomparativeeffectivenessresearchanupdatedsystematicreviewandinvolvementoflowandmiddleincomecountries
AT blazebyjanem choosingimportanthealthoutcomesforcomparativeeffectivenessresearchanupdatedsystematicreviewandinvolvementoflowandmiddleincomecountries
AT clarkemike choosingimportanthealthoutcomesforcomparativeeffectivenessresearchanupdatedsystematicreviewandinvolvementoflowandmiddleincomecountries
AT tunissean choosingimportanthealthoutcomesforcomparativeeffectivenessresearchanupdatedsystematicreviewandinvolvementoflowandmiddleincomecountries
AT williamsonpaular choosingimportanthealthoutcomesforcomparativeeffectivenessresearchanupdatedsystematicreviewandinvolvementoflowandmiddleincomecountries