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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shi, Jiyuan, Gao, Ya, Wu, Shuang, Niu, MingMing, Chen, Yamin, Yan, Meili, Song, Ziwei, Feng, Hui, Zhang, Junhua, Tian, Jinhui
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