Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and User Survey.
<h4>Background</h4>A COS represents an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all trials of a specific condition. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) initiative aims to collate and stimulate the development and application of COS, by...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2016-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146444 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850125409681670144 |
|---|---|
| author | Sarah L Gorst Elizabeth Gargon Mike Clarke Jane M Blazeby Douglas G Altman Paula R Williamson |
| author_facet | Sarah L Gorst Elizabeth Gargon Mike Clarke Jane M Blazeby Douglas G Altman Paula R Williamson |
| author_sort | Sarah L Gorst |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <h4>Background</h4>A COS represents an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all trials of a specific condition. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) initiative aims to collate and stimulate the development and application of COS, by including data on relevant studies within a publically available internet-based resource. In recent years, there has been an interest in increasing the development of COS. Therefore, this study aimed to provide an update of a previous review, and examine the quality of development of COS. A further aim was to understand the reasons why individuals are searching the COMET database.<h4>Methods</h4>A multi-faceted search strategy was followed, in order to identify studies that sought to determine which outcomes/domains to measure in clinical trials of a specific condition. Additionally, a pop up survey was added to the COMET website, to ascertain why people were searching the COMET database.<h4>Results</h4>Thirty-two reports relating to 29 studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. There has been an improvement in the description of the scope of a COS and an increase in the proportion of studies using literature/systematic reviews and the Delphi technique. Clinical experts continue to be the most common group involved in developing COS, however patient and public involvement has increased. The pop-up survey revealed the most common reasons for visiting the COMET website to be thinking about developing a COS and planning a clinical trial.<h4>Conclusions</h4>This update demonstrates that recent studies appear to have adopted a more structured approach towards COS development and public representation has increased. However, there remains a need for developers to adequately describe details about the scope of COS, and for greater public engagement. The COMET database appears to be a useful resource for both COS developers and users of COS. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-dcb6ed13f660428b9fab0f684137f0ca |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2016-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj-art-dcb6ed13f660428b9fab0f684137f0ca2025-08-20T02:34:07ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032016-01-01111e014644410.1371/journal.pone.0146444Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and User Survey.Sarah L GorstElizabeth GargonMike ClarkeJane M BlazebyDouglas G AltmanPaula R Williamson<h4>Background</h4>A COS represents an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all trials of a specific condition. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) initiative aims to collate and stimulate the development and application of COS, by including data on relevant studies within a publically available internet-based resource. In recent years, there has been an interest in increasing the development of COS. Therefore, this study aimed to provide an update of a previous review, and examine the quality of development of COS. A further aim was to understand the reasons why individuals are searching the COMET database.<h4>Methods</h4>A multi-faceted search strategy was followed, in order to identify studies that sought to determine which outcomes/domains to measure in clinical trials of a specific condition. Additionally, a pop up survey was added to the COMET website, to ascertain why people were searching the COMET database.<h4>Results</h4>Thirty-two reports relating to 29 studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. There has been an improvement in the description of the scope of a COS and an increase in the proportion of studies using literature/systematic reviews and the Delphi technique. Clinical experts continue to be the most common group involved in developing COS, however patient and public involvement has increased. The pop-up survey revealed the most common reasons for visiting the COMET website to be thinking about developing a COS and planning a clinical trial.<h4>Conclusions</h4>This update demonstrates that recent studies appear to have adopted a more structured approach towards COS development and public representation has increased. However, there remains a need for developers to adequately describe details about the scope of COS, and for greater public engagement. The COMET database appears to be a useful resource for both COS developers and users of COS.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146444 |
| spellingShingle | Sarah L Gorst Elizabeth Gargon Mike Clarke Jane M Blazeby Douglas G Altman Paula R Williamson Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and User Survey. PLoS ONE |
| title | Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and User Survey. |
| title_full | Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and User Survey. |
| title_fullStr | Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and User Survey. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and User Survey. |
| title_short | Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and User Survey. |
| title_sort | choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research an updated review and user survey |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146444 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT sarahlgorst choosingimportanthealthoutcomesforcomparativeeffectivenessresearchanupdatedreviewandusersurvey AT elizabethgargon choosingimportanthealthoutcomesforcomparativeeffectivenessresearchanupdatedreviewandusersurvey AT mikeclarke choosingimportanthealthoutcomesforcomparativeeffectivenessresearchanupdatedreviewandusersurvey AT janemblazeby choosingimportanthealthoutcomesforcomparativeeffectivenessresearchanupdatedreviewandusersurvey AT douglasgaltman choosingimportanthealthoutcomesforcomparativeeffectivenessresearchanupdatedreviewandusersurvey AT paularwilliamson choosingimportanthealthoutcomesforcomparativeeffectivenessresearchanupdatedreviewandusersurvey |