Cargando…

Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 4th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research

BACKGROUND: The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database is a publically available, searchable repository of published and ongoing core outcome set (COS) studies. An annual systematic review update is carried out to maintain the currency of database content. METHODS: The method...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gargon, Elizabeth, Gorst, Sarah L., Harman, Nicola L., Smith, Valerie, Matvienko-Sikar, Karen, 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/PMC6310275/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30592741
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209869
_version_ 1783383409555406848
author Gargon, Elizabeth
Gorst, Sarah L.
Harman, Nicola L.
Smith, Valerie
Matvienko-Sikar, Karen
Williamson, Paula R.
author_facet Gargon, Elizabeth
Gorst, Sarah L.
Harman, Nicola L.
Smith, Valerie
Matvienko-Sikar, Karen
Williamson, Paula R.
author_sort Gargon, Elizabeth
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database is a publically available, searchable repository of published and ongoing core outcome set (COS) studies. An annual systematic review update is carried out to maintain the currency of database content. METHODS: The methods used in the fourth update of the systematic review followed the same approach used in the original review and previous updates. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported the development of a COS, regardless of any restrictions by age, health condition or setting. Searches were carried out in March 2018 to identify studies that had been published or indexed between January 2017 and the end of December 2017. RESULTS: Forty-eight new studies, describing the development of 56 COS, were included. There has been an increase in the number of studies clearly specifying the scope of the COS in terms of the population (n = 43, 90%) and intervention (n = 48, 100%) characteristics. Public participation has continued to rise with over half (n = 27, 56%) of studies in the current review including input from members of the public. The rate of inclusion of all stakeholder groups has increased, in particular participation from non-clinical research experts has risen from 32% (mean average in previous reviews) to 62% (n = 29). Input from participants located in Australasia (n = 17; 41%), Asia (n = 18; 44%), South America (n = 13; 32%) and Africa (n = 7; 17%) have all increased since the previous reviews. CONCLUSION: This update included a pronounced increase in the number of new COS identified compared to the previous three updates. There was an improvement in the reporting of the scope, stakeholder participants and methods used. Furthermore, there has been an increase in participation from Australasia, Asia, South America and Africa. These advancements are reflective of the efforts made in recent years to raise awareness about the need for COS development and uptake, as well as developments in COS methodology.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6310275
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63102752019-01-08 Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 4th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research Gargon, Elizabeth Gorst, Sarah L. Harman, Nicola L. Smith, Valerie Matvienko-Sikar, Karen Williamson, Paula R. PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database is a publically available, searchable repository of published and ongoing core outcome set (COS) studies. An annual systematic review update is carried out to maintain the currency of database content. METHODS: The methods used in the fourth update of the systematic review followed the same approach used in the original review and previous updates. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported the development of a COS, regardless of any restrictions by age, health condition or setting. Searches were carried out in March 2018 to identify studies that had been published or indexed between January 2017 and the end of December 2017. RESULTS: Forty-eight new studies, describing the development of 56 COS, were included. There has been an increase in the number of studies clearly specifying the scope of the COS in terms of the population (n = 43, 90%) and intervention (n = 48, 100%) characteristics. Public participation has continued to rise with over half (n = 27, 56%) of studies in the current review including input from members of the public. The rate of inclusion of all stakeholder groups has increased, in particular participation from non-clinical research experts has risen from 32% (mean average in previous reviews) to 62% (n = 29). Input from participants located in Australasia (n = 17; 41%), Asia (n = 18; 44%), South America (n = 13; 32%) and Africa (n = 7; 17%) have all increased since the previous reviews. CONCLUSION: This update included a pronounced increase in the number of new COS identified compared to the previous three updates. There was an improvement in the reporting of the scope, stakeholder participants and methods used. Furthermore, there has been an increase in participation from Australasia, Asia, South America and Africa. These advancements are reflective of the efforts made in recent years to raise awareness about the need for COS development and uptake, as well as developments in COS methodology. Public Library of Science 2018-12-28 /pmc/articles/PMC6310275/ /pubmed/30592741 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209869 Text en © 2018 Gargon 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
Gargon, Elizabeth
Gorst, Sarah L.
Harman, Nicola L.
Smith, Valerie
Matvienko-Sikar, Karen
Williamson, Paula R.
Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 4th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research
title Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 4th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research
title_full Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 4th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research
title_fullStr Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 4th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research
title_full_unstemmed Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 4th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research
title_short Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 4th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research
title_sort choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 4th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6310275/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30592741
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209869
work_keys_str_mv AT gargonelizabeth choosingimportanthealthoutcomesforcomparativeeffectivenessresearch4thannualupdatetoasystematicreviewofcoreoutcomesetsforresearch
AT gorstsarahl choosingimportanthealthoutcomesforcomparativeeffectivenessresearch4thannualupdatetoasystematicreviewofcoreoutcomesetsforresearch
AT harmannicolal choosingimportanthealthoutcomesforcomparativeeffectivenessresearch4thannualupdatetoasystematicreviewofcoreoutcomesetsforresearch
AT smithvalerie choosingimportanthealthoutcomesforcomparativeeffectivenessresearch4thannualupdatetoasystematicreviewofcoreoutcomesetsforresearch
AT matvienkosikarkaren choosingimportanthealthoutcomesforcomparativeeffectivenessresearch4thannualupdatetoasystematicreviewofcoreoutcomesetsforresearch
AT williamsonpaular choosingimportanthealthoutcomesforcomparativeeffectivenessresearch4thannualupdatetoasystematicreviewofcoreoutcomesetsforresearch