Dataset Information

Citation analysis did not provide a reliable assessment of core outcome set uptake.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The aim of the study was to evaluate citation analysis as an approach to measuring core outcome set (COS) uptake, by assessing whether the number of citations for a COS report could be used as a surrogate measure of uptake of the COS by clinical trialists.

Study design and setting

Citation data were obtained for COS reports published before 2010 in five disease areas (systemic sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, eczema, sepsis and critical care, and female sexual dysfunction). Those publications identified as a report of a clinical trial were examined to identify whether or not all outcomes in the COS were measured in the trial.

Results

Clinical trials measuring the relevant COS made up a small proportion of the total number of citations for COS reports. Not all trials citing a COS report measured all the recommended outcomes. Some trials cited the COS reports for other reasons, including the definition of a condition or other trial design issues addressed by the COS report.

Conclusion

Although citation data can be readily accessed, it should not be assumed that the citing of a COS report indicates that a trial has measured the recommended COS. Alternative methods for assessing COS uptake are needed.

SUBMITTER: Barnes KL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5513440 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Citation analysis did not provide a reliable assessment of core outcome set uptake.

Barnes Karen L KL Kirkham Jamie J JJ Clarke Mike M Williamson Paula R PR

Journal of clinical epidemiology 20170323

<h4>Objectives</h4>The aim of the study was to evaluate citation analysis as an approach to measuring core outcome set (COS) uptake, by assessing whether the number of citations for a COS report could be used as a surrogate measure of uptake of the COS by clinical trialists.<h4>Study design and setting</h4>Citation data were obtained for COS reports published before 2010 in five disease areas (systemic sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, eczema, sepsis and critical care, and female sexual dysfuncti ...[more]

PMID: 28342906

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesMore children are surviving critical illness but are at risk of residual or new health conditions. An evidence-informed and stakeholder-recommended core outcome set is lacking for pediatric critical care outcomes. Our objective was to create a multinational, multistakeholder-recommended pediatric critical care core outcome set for inclusion in clinical and research programs.DesignA two-round modified Delphi electronic survey was conducted with 333 invited research, clinical, and family/advocate stakeholders. Stakeholders completing the first round were invited to participate in the second. Outcomes scoring greater than 69% "critical" and less than 15% "not important" advanced to round 2 with write-in outcomes considered. The Steering Committee held a virtual consensus conference to determine the final components.SettingMultinational survey.PatientsStakeholder participants from six continents representing clinicians, researchers, and family/advocates.Measurements and main resultsOverall response rates were 75% and 82% for each round. Participants voted on seven Global Domains and 45 Specific Outcomes in round 1, and six Global Domains and 30 Specific Outcomes in round 2. Using overall (three stakeholder groups combined) results, consensus was defined as outcomes scoring greater than 90% "critical" and less than 15% "not important" and were included in the final PICU core outcome set: four Global Domains (Cognitive, Emotional, Physical, and Overall Health) and four Specific Outcomes (Child Health-Related Quality of Life, Pain, Survival, and Communication). Families (n = 21) suggested additional critically important outcomes that did not meet consensus, which were included in the PICU core outcome set-extended.ConclusionsThe PICU core outcome set and PICU core outcome set-extended are multistakeholder-recommended resources for clinical and research programs that seek to improve outcomes for children with critical illness and their families.

Project description:BackgroundMalignant bowel obstruction is experienced by 15% of people with advanced cancer, preventing them from eating and drinking and causing pain, nausea and vomiting. Surgery is not always appropriate. Management options include tube or stent drainage of intestinal contents and symptom control using medication. Published literature describing palliative interventions uses a broad range of outcome measures, few of which are patient-relevant. This hinders evidence synthesis, and fails to consider the perspectives of people undergoing treatment.AimsTo develop a Core Outcome Set for the assessment of inoperable malignant bowel obstruction with clinician, patient and caregiver involvement, using COMET methodology (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials).MethodsA systematic review of clinical trials and observational studies, a rapid review of the qualitative literature and in-depth patient and clinician interviews were conducted to identify a comprehensive list of outcomes. Outcomes were compared and consolidated by the study Steering Group and Patient and Public Involvement contributors, and presented to an international clinical Expert Panel for review. Outcomes from the finalised list were rated for importance in a three-round international Delphi process: results of two survey rounds were circulated to respondents, and two separate consensus meetings were conducted with clinicians and with patients and caregivers via virtual conferencing, using live polling to reach agreement on a Core Outcome Set.Results130 unique outcomes were identified. Following the independent Expert Panel review, 82 outcomes were taken into round 1 of the Delphi survey; 24 outcomes reached criteria for critical importance across all stakeholder groups and none reached criteria for dropping. All outcomes rated critically important were taken forward for re-rating in round 2 and all other outcomes dropped. In round 2, all outcomes were voted critically important by at least one stakeholder group. Round 2 outcomes were presented again at online consensus meetings, categorised as high ranking (n = 9), middle ranking (n = 7) or low ranking (n = 8). Stakeholders reached agreement on 16 core outcomes across four key domains: Symptom control, Life impact, Treatment outcomes, and Communication and patient preferences.ConclusionUse of this Core Outcome Set can help to address current challenges in making sense of the evidence around treatment for inoperable malignant bowel obstruction to date, and underpin a more robust future approach. Clearer communication and an honest understanding between all stakeholders will help to provide a basis for responsible decision-making in this distressing situation in clinical practice.

Project description:The use of core outcome sets (COS) ensures that researchers measure and report those outcomes that are most likely to be relevant to users of their research. Several hundred COS projects have been systematically identified to date, but there has been no formal quality assessment of these studies. The Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) project aimed to identify minimum standards for the design of a COS study agreed upon by an international group, while other specific guidance exists for the final reporting of COS development studies (Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting [COS-STAR]).An international group of experienced COS developers, methodologists, journal editors, potential users of COS (clinical trialists, systematic reviewers, and clinical guideline developers), and patient representatives produced the COS-STAD recommendations to help improve the quality of COS development and support the assessment of whether a COS had been developed using a reasonable approach. An open survey of experts generated an initial list of items, which was refined by a 2-round Delphi survey involving nearly 250 participants representing key stakeholder groups. Participants assigned importance ratings for each item using a 1-9 scale. Consensus that an item should be included in the set of minimum standards was defined as at least 70% of the voting participants from each stakeholder group providing a score between 7 and 9. The Delphi survey was followed by a consensus discussion with the study management group representing multiple stakeholder groups. COS-STAD contains 11 minimum standards that are the minimum design recommendations for all COS development projects. The recommendations focus on 3 key domains: the scope, the stakeholders, and the consensus process.The COS-STAD project has established 11 minimum standards to be followed by COS developers when planning their projects and by users when deciding whether a COS has been developed using reasonable methods.

Dataset Information

Citation analysis did not provide a reliable assessment of core outcome set uptake.

Objectives

Study design and setting

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Citation analysis did not provide a reliable assessment of core outcome set uptake.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets