Assessing the relevance and uptake of core outcome sets (an agreed minimum collection of outcomes to measure in research studies) in Cochrane systematic reviews: a review
Objectives A core outcome set (COS) is an agreed standardised minimum collection of outcomes that should be measured and reported in research in a specific area of health. Cochrane systematic reviews (‘reviews’) are rigorous reviews on health-related topics conducted under the auspices of Cochrane....
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2020-09-01
|
| Series: | BMJ Open |
| Online Access: | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/9/e036562.full |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1841554728950956032 |
|---|---|
| author | Tianjing Li Karen Hughes Jamie J Kirkham Mike Clarke Sarah L Gorst Paula R Williamson Ricardo de Ávila Oliveira Ian J Saldanha Jochen Schmitt |
| author_facet | Tianjing Li Karen Hughes Jamie J Kirkham Mike Clarke Sarah L Gorst Paula R Williamson Ricardo de Ávila Oliveira Ian J Saldanha Jochen Schmitt |
| author_sort | Tianjing Li |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objectives A core outcome set (COS) is an agreed standardised minimum collection of outcomes that should be measured and reported in research in a specific area of health. Cochrane systematic reviews (‘reviews’) are rigorous reviews on health-related topics conducted under the auspices of Cochrane. This study examines the use of existing COS to inform the choice of outcomes in Cochrane systematic reviews (‘reviews’) and investigates the views of the coordinating editors of Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) on this topic.Methods A cohort of 100 recently published or updated Cochrane reviews were assessed for reference to a COS being used to inform the choice of outcomes for the review. Existing COS, published 2 or more years before the review publication, were then identified to assess how often a reviewer could have used a relevant COS if it was available. We asked 52 CRG coordinating editors about their involvement in COS development, how outcomes are selected for reviews in their CRG and their views of the advantages and challenges surrounding the standardisation of outcomes within their CRG.Results In the cohort of reviews from 2019, 40% (40/100) of reviewers noted problems due to outcome inconsistency across the included studies. In 7% (7/100) of reviews, a COS was referenced in relation to the choice of outcomes for the review. Relevant existing COS could be considered for a review update in 35% of the others (33/93). Most editors who responded (31/36, 86%) thought that COS should definitely or possibly be used to inform the choice of outcomes in a review.Conclusions Systematic reviewers are continuing to note outcome heterogeneity but are starting to use COS to inform their reviews. There is potential for greater uptake of COS in Cochrane reviews. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-b7892da2ebc943d7b41af08214c0df27 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2044-6055 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2020-09-01 |
| publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMJ Open |
| spelling | doaj-art-b7892da2ebc943d7b41af08214c0df272025-01-08T11:05:08ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Open2044-60552020-09-0110910.1136/bmjopen-2019-036562Assessing the relevance and uptake of core outcome sets (an agreed minimum collection of outcomes to measure in research studies) in Cochrane systematic reviews: a reviewTianjing Li0Karen Hughes1Jamie J Kirkham2Mike Clarke3Sarah L Gorst4Paula R Williamson5Ricardo de Ávila Oliveira6Ian J Saldanha7Jochen Schmitt8Department of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA2Public Health Wales, UKDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UKCentre for Public Health, Queen`s University Belfast School of Medicine Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Belfast, UKMRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, University of Liverpool and member of Liverpool Health Partners, Liverpool, UKDepartment of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UKDECIR Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, Uberlândia, BrazilCenter for Evidence Synthesis in Health, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island, USACenter for Evidence-based Healthcare, Medizinische Fakultät, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, GermanyObjectives A core outcome set (COS) is an agreed standardised minimum collection of outcomes that should be measured and reported in research in a specific area of health. Cochrane systematic reviews (‘reviews’) are rigorous reviews on health-related topics conducted under the auspices of Cochrane. This study examines the use of existing COS to inform the choice of outcomes in Cochrane systematic reviews (‘reviews’) and investigates the views of the coordinating editors of Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) on this topic.Methods A cohort of 100 recently published or updated Cochrane reviews were assessed for reference to a COS being used to inform the choice of outcomes for the review. Existing COS, published 2 or more years before the review publication, were then identified to assess how often a reviewer could have used a relevant COS if it was available. We asked 52 CRG coordinating editors about their involvement in COS development, how outcomes are selected for reviews in their CRG and their views of the advantages and challenges surrounding the standardisation of outcomes within their CRG.Results In the cohort of reviews from 2019, 40% (40/100) of reviewers noted problems due to outcome inconsistency across the included studies. In 7% (7/100) of reviews, a COS was referenced in relation to the choice of outcomes for the review. Relevant existing COS could be considered for a review update in 35% of the others (33/93). Most editors who responded (31/36, 86%) thought that COS should definitely or possibly be used to inform the choice of outcomes in a review.Conclusions Systematic reviewers are continuing to note outcome heterogeneity but are starting to use COS to inform their reviews. There is potential for greater uptake of COS in Cochrane reviews.https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/9/e036562.full |
| spellingShingle | Tianjing Li Karen Hughes Jamie J Kirkham Mike Clarke Sarah L Gorst Paula R Williamson Ricardo de Ávila Oliveira Ian J Saldanha Jochen Schmitt Assessing the relevance and uptake of core outcome sets (an agreed minimum collection of outcomes to measure in research studies) in Cochrane systematic reviews: a review BMJ Open |
| title | Assessing the relevance and uptake of core outcome sets (an agreed minimum collection of outcomes to measure in research studies) in Cochrane systematic reviews: a review |
| title_full | Assessing the relevance and uptake of core outcome sets (an agreed minimum collection of outcomes to measure in research studies) in Cochrane systematic reviews: a review |
| title_fullStr | Assessing the relevance and uptake of core outcome sets (an agreed minimum collection of outcomes to measure in research studies) in Cochrane systematic reviews: a review |
| title_full_unstemmed | Assessing the relevance and uptake of core outcome sets (an agreed minimum collection of outcomes to measure in research studies) in Cochrane systematic reviews: a review |
| title_short | Assessing the relevance and uptake of core outcome sets (an agreed minimum collection of outcomes to measure in research studies) in Cochrane systematic reviews: a review |
| title_sort | assessing the relevance and uptake of core outcome sets an agreed minimum collection of outcomes to measure in research studies in cochrane systematic reviews a review |
| url | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/9/e036562.full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT tianjingli assessingtherelevanceanduptakeofcoreoutcomesetsanagreedminimumcollectionofoutcomestomeasureinresearchstudiesincochranesystematicreviewsareview AT karenhughes assessingtherelevanceanduptakeofcoreoutcomesetsanagreedminimumcollectionofoutcomestomeasureinresearchstudiesincochranesystematicreviewsareview AT jamiejkirkham assessingtherelevanceanduptakeofcoreoutcomesetsanagreedminimumcollectionofoutcomestomeasureinresearchstudiesincochranesystematicreviewsareview AT mikeclarke assessingtherelevanceanduptakeofcoreoutcomesetsanagreedminimumcollectionofoutcomestomeasureinresearchstudiesincochranesystematicreviewsareview AT sarahlgorst assessingtherelevanceanduptakeofcoreoutcomesetsanagreedminimumcollectionofoutcomestomeasureinresearchstudiesincochranesystematicreviewsareview AT paularwilliamson assessingtherelevanceanduptakeofcoreoutcomesetsanagreedminimumcollectionofoutcomestomeasureinresearchstudiesincochranesystematicreviewsareview AT ricardodeavilaoliveira assessingtherelevanceanduptakeofcoreoutcomesetsanagreedminimumcollectionofoutcomestomeasureinresearchstudiesincochranesystematicreviewsareview AT ianjsaldanha assessingtherelevanceanduptakeofcoreoutcomesetsanagreedminimumcollectionofoutcomestomeasureinresearchstudiesincochranesystematicreviewsareview AT jochenschmitt assessingtherelevanceanduptakeofcoreoutcomesetsanagreedminimumcollectionofoutcomestomeasureinresearchstudiesincochranesystematicreviewsareview |