Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and User Survey

被引:119
作者
Gorst, Sarah L. [1 ]
Gargon, Elizabeth [1 ]
Clarke, Mike [2 ]
Blazeby, Jane M. [3 ,4 ]
Altman, Douglas G. [5 ]
Williamson, Paula R. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Liverpool, Dept Biostat, Liverpool L69 3BX, Merseyside, England
[2] Queens Univ Belfast, Northern Ireland Network Trials Methodol Res, Belfast, Antrim, North Ireland
[3] Univ Bristol, Sch Social & Community Med, Bristol, Avon, England
[4] Univ Hosp NHS Fdn Trust, Div Surg Head & Neck, Bristol, Avon, England
[5] Univ Oxford, Ctr Stat Med, Oxford, England
来源
PLOS ONE | 2016年 / 11卷 / 01期
关键词
CLINICAL-TRIALS; WASTE; SETS;
D O I
10.1371/journal.pone.0146444
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Background 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions 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.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 10 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 2012, BRIEF NOT RES INV PU
  • [2] Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence
    Chalmers, Iain
    Glasziou, Paul
    [J]. LANCET, 2009, 374 (9683) : 86 - 89
  • [3] Collating the knowledge base for core outcome set development: developing and appraising the search strategy for a systematic review
    Gargon, Elizabeth
    Williamson, Paula R.
    Clarke, Mike
    [J]. BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2015, 15
  • [4] The COMET Initiative database: progress and activities from 2011 to 2013
    Gargon, Elizabeth
    Williamson, Paula R.
    Altman, Douglas G.
    Blazeby, Jane M.
    Clarke, Mike
    [J]. TRIALS, 2014, 15
  • [5] Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: A Systematic Review
    Gargon, Elizabeth
    Gurung, Binu
    Medley, Nancy
    Altman, Doug G.
    Blazeby, Jane M.
    Clarke, Mike
    Williamson, Paula R.
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2014, 9 (06):
  • [6] Horsley T, 2011, COCHRANE DATABASER S, V8
  • [7] COS-STAR: a reporting guideline for studies developing core outcome sets (protocol)
    Kirkham, Jamie J.
    Gorst, Sarah
    Altman, Douglas G.
    Blazeby, Jane
    Clarke, Mike
    Devane, Declan
    Gargon, Elizabeth
    Williamson, Paula R.
    [J]. TRIALS, 2015, 16
  • [8] Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste
    Macleod, Malcolm R.
    Michie, Susan
    Roberts, Ian
    Dirnagl, Ulrich
    Chalmers, Iain
    Ioannidis, John P. A.
    Salman, Rustam Al-Shahi
    Chan, An-Wen
    Glasziou, Paul
    [J]. LANCET, 2014, 383 (9912) : 101 - 104
  • [9] A systematic review of studies that aim to determine which outcomes to measure in clinical trials in children
    Sinha, Ian
    Jones, Leanne
    Smyth, Rosalind L.
    Williamson, Paula R.
    [J]. PLOS MEDICINE, 2008, 5 (04) : 569 - 578
  • [10] Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider
    Williamson, Paula R.
    Altman, Douglas G.
    Blazeby, Jane M.
    Clarke, Mike
    Devane, Declan
    Gargon, Elizabeth
    Tugwell, Peter
    [J]. TRIALS, 2012, 13