Cargando…
The standards of obstetrics and gynecology core outcome sets: A scoping review
BACKGROUND: Core outcome sets (COSs) are the minimum outcomes which should be measured and reported by researchers investigating a specific condition. The definition of standards of COSs vary across different health-related areas. This investigated the characteristics of COSs regarding obstetrics an...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8551850/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34745879 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.imr.2021.100776 |
_version_ | 1784591253898264576 |
---|---|
author | Shi, Jiyuan Gao, Ya Wu, Shuang Niu, MingMing Chen, Yamin Yan, Meili Song, Ziwei Feng, Hui Zhang, Junhua Tian, Jinhui |
author_facet | Shi, Jiyuan Gao, Ya Wu, Shuang Niu, MingMing Chen, Yamin Yan, Meili Song, Ziwei Feng, Hui Zhang, Junhua Tian, Jinhui |
author_sort | Shi, Jiyuan |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Core outcome sets (COSs) are the minimum outcomes which should be measured and reported by researchers investigating a specific condition. The definition of standards of COSs vary across different health-related areas. This investigated the characteristics of COSs regarding obstetrics and gynecology (OG) and examined the reports and designs of standards of OG COSs. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conduced on the COMET database on December 20, 2019 to identify systematic reviews on COSs. Two reviewers independently evaluated whether the reported OG COS met the reporting requirements as stipulated in the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting (COS-STAR) statement checklist and the minimum design recommendations as outlined in the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) checklist. RESULTS: Forty-four OG COSs related to 26 topics were identified. None of them met all the 25 standards of COS-STAR statement which representing 18 items considered essential for transparent and complete reporting list for all COS studies (range: 6.0-24.0, median: 14.0). The compliance rates to 16 standards of methods and result sections ranged from 27.3%–68.2%. Total COS-STAR compliance items for OG COSs with the prior protocol was significantly higher than without prior protocol (MD = 3.846, 95% CI: 0.835–6.858, P = 0.012). None of the OG COSs met all the 12 criteria in the COS-STAD minimum standards (range: 3.0-11.0, median: 5.0). The compliance rates for all three standards of stakeholders involved and all four standards of the consensus process were lower than 60%. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological and reporting standards of OG COSs should be improved. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8551850 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-85518502021-11-04 The standards of obstetrics and gynecology core outcome sets: A scoping review Shi, Jiyuan Gao, Ya Wu, Shuang Niu, MingMing Chen, Yamin Yan, Meili Song, Ziwei Feng, Hui Zhang, Junhua Tian, Jinhui Integr Med Res Original Article BACKGROUND: Core outcome sets (COSs) are the minimum outcomes which should be measured and reported by researchers investigating a specific condition. The definition of standards of COSs vary across different health-related areas. This investigated the characteristics of COSs regarding obstetrics and gynecology (OG) and examined the reports and designs of standards of OG COSs. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conduced on the COMET database on December 20, 2019 to identify systematic reviews on COSs. Two reviewers independently evaluated whether the reported OG COS met the reporting requirements as stipulated in the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting (COS-STAR) statement checklist and the minimum design recommendations as outlined in the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) checklist. RESULTS: Forty-four OG COSs related to 26 topics were identified. None of them met all the 25 standards of COS-STAR statement which representing 18 items considered essential for transparent and complete reporting list for all COS studies (range: 6.0-24.0, median: 14.0). The compliance rates to 16 standards of methods and result sections ranged from 27.3%–68.2%. Total COS-STAR compliance items for OG COSs with the prior protocol was significantly higher than without prior protocol (MD = 3.846, 95% CI: 0.835–6.858, P = 0.012). None of the OG COSs met all the 12 criteria in the COS-STAD minimum standards (range: 3.0-11.0, median: 5.0). The compliance rates for all three standards of stakeholders involved and all four standards of the consensus process were lower than 60%. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological and reporting standards of OG COSs should be improved. Elsevier 2022-03 2021-09-28 /pmc/articles/PMC8551850/ /pubmed/34745879 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.imr.2021.100776 Text en © 2021 Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine. Published by Elsevier B.V. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Original Article Shi, Jiyuan Gao, Ya Wu, Shuang Niu, MingMing Chen, Yamin Yan, Meili Song, Ziwei Feng, Hui Zhang, Junhua Tian, Jinhui The standards of obstetrics and gynecology core outcome sets: A scoping review |
title | The standards of obstetrics and gynecology core outcome sets: A scoping review |
title_full | The standards of obstetrics and gynecology core outcome sets: A scoping review |
title_fullStr | The standards of obstetrics and gynecology core outcome sets: A scoping review |
title_full_unstemmed | The standards of obstetrics and gynecology core outcome sets: A scoping review |
title_short | The standards of obstetrics and gynecology core outcome sets: A scoping review |
title_sort | standards of obstetrics and gynecology core outcome sets: a scoping review |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8551850/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34745879 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.imr.2021.100776 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT shijiyuan thestandardsofobstetricsandgynecologycoreoutcomesetsascopingreview AT gaoya thestandardsofobstetricsandgynecologycoreoutcomesetsascopingreview AT wushuang thestandardsofobstetricsandgynecologycoreoutcomesetsascopingreview AT niumingming thestandardsofobstetricsandgynecologycoreoutcomesetsascopingreview AT chenyamin thestandardsofobstetricsandgynecologycoreoutcomesetsascopingreview AT yanmeili thestandardsofobstetricsandgynecologycoreoutcomesetsascopingreview AT songziwei thestandardsofobstetricsandgynecologycoreoutcomesetsascopingreview AT fenghui thestandardsofobstetricsandgynecologycoreoutcomesetsascopingreview AT zhangjunhua thestandardsofobstetricsandgynecologycoreoutcomesetsascopingreview AT tianjinhui thestandardsofobstetricsandgynecologycoreoutcomesetsascopingreview AT shijiyuan standardsofobstetricsandgynecologycoreoutcomesetsascopingreview AT gaoya standardsofobstetricsandgynecologycoreoutcomesetsascopingreview AT wushuang standardsofobstetricsandgynecologycoreoutcomesetsascopingreview AT niumingming standardsofobstetricsandgynecologycoreoutcomesetsascopingreview AT chenyamin standardsofobstetricsandgynecologycoreoutcomesetsascopingreview AT yanmeili standardsofobstetricsandgynecologycoreoutcomesetsascopingreview AT songziwei standardsofobstetricsandgynecologycoreoutcomesetsascopingreview AT fenghui standardsofobstetricsandgynecologycoreoutcomesetsascopingreview AT zhangjunhua standardsofobstetricsandgynecologycoreoutcomesetsascopingreview AT tianjinhui standardsofobstetricsandgynecologycoreoutcomesetsascopingreview |