Dataset Information

A systematic review finds Core Outcome Set uptake varies widely across different areas of health.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The aim of our review was to bring together studies that had assessed the uptake of core outcome sets (COS) to explore the level of uptake across different COS and areas of health.

Study design and setting

We examined the citations of 337 COS reports to identify studies that had assessed the uptake of a particular COS in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or systematic reviews (SRs).

Results

We identified 24 studies that had assessed uptake in RCTs and two studies that had assessed uptake in SRs. The studies covered a total of 17/337 (5%) COS. Uptake rates reported for RCTs varied from 0% of RCTs (gout) to 82% RCTs (rheumatoid arthritis) measuring the full COS. Studies that assessed uptake of individual core outcomes showed a wide variation in uptake between the outcomes. Suggested barriers to uptake included lack of validated measures, lack of patient and other key stakeholder involvement in COS development, and lack of awareness of the COS.

Conclusions

Few studies have been undertaken to assess the uptake of COS in RCTs and SRs. Further studies are needed to assess whether COS have been implemented across a wider range of disease categories and to explore the barriers and facilitators to COS uptake.

SUBMITTER: Hughes KL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7815247 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic review finds Core Outcome Set uptake varies widely across different areas of health.

Hughes Karen L KL Clarke Mike M Williamson Paula R PR

Journal of clinical epidemiology 20200926

<h4>Objective</h4>The aim of our review was to bring together studies that had assessed the uptake of core outcome sets (COS) to explore the level of uptake across different COS and areas of health.<h4>Study design and setting</h4>We examined the citations of 337 COS reports to identify studies that had assessed the uptake of a particular COS in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or systematic reviews (SRs).<h4>Results</h4>We identified 24 studies that had assessed uptake in RCTs and two studie ...[more]

PMID: 32987162

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:ObjectivesA core outcome set (COS) describes a minimum set of outcomes to be reported by all clinical trials of one healthcare condition. Delphi surveys are frequently used to achieve consensus on core outcomes. International input is important to achieve global COS uptake. We aimed to investigate participant representation in international Delphi surveys, with reference to the inclusion of patients and participants from low and middle income countries as stakeholders (LMICs).DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesEMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, COMET database and hand-searching.Eligibility criteriaProtocols and studies describing Delphi surveys used to develop an international COS for trial reporting, published between 1 January 2017 and 6 June 2019.Data extraction and synthesisDelphi participants were grouped as patients or healthcare professionals (HCPs). Participants were considered international if their country of origin was different to that of the first or senior author. Data extraction included participant numbers, country of origin, country income group and whether Delphi surveys were translated. We analysed the impact these factors had on outcome prioritisation.ResultsOf 90 included studies, 69% (n=62) were completed and 31% (n=28) were protocols. Studies recruited more HCPs than patients (median 60 (IQR 30-113) vs 30 (IQR 14-66) participants, respectively). A higher percentage of HCPs was international compared with patients (57% (IQR 37-78) vs 20% (IQR 0-68)). Only 31% (n=28) studies recruited participants from LMICs. Regarding recruitment from LMICs, patients were under-represented (16% studies; n=8) compared with HCPs (22%; n=28). Few (7%; n=6) studies translated Delphi surveys. Only 3% studies (n=3) analysed Delphi responses by geographical location; all found differences in outcome prioritisation.ConclusionsThere is a disproportionately lower inclusion of international patients, compared with HCPs, in COS-development Delphi surveys, particularly within LMICs. Future international Delphi surveys should consider exploring for geographical and income-based differences in outcome prioritisation.Prospero registration numberCRD42019138519.

Project description:IntroductionHyperlipidemia is an underlying process behind cardiovascular disease. Chinese medicine (CM) may be effective in treating hyperlipidemia, but there is a lack of studies with high methodological quality. A major reason for this is heterogeneity in outcome reporting. Therefore, this study explores the degree of outcome reporting variation in CM trials for hyperlipidemia. It then generates a list of potentially important outcomes for developing a core outcome set (COS).MethodsA systematic review of literature focusing on studies of CM for hyperlipidemia was conducted. Outcomes were listed verbatim and grouped into 8 domains. Outcome frequency and definition uniformity were analyzed.Results3,702 studies and 452 individual outcomes were identified. These outcomes were reported 27,328 times, of which 1.6% were reported as primary outcomes, and 13.3% were defined. The most frequent outcome was total triglyceride, represented in 86.7% of the studies, followed by total cholesterol (86.0%), total effective rate (75.1%), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (73.2%), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (60.5%). However, 43.6% of outcomes were reported only once. The largest outcome domain was "pathological or pathophysiological outcomes," which included 67.0% of outcomes. Of the "response rate related outcomes" domain, total effective rate was the most frequently reported outcome (n = 2,780), and 95.3% of the studies gave a clear definition. However, these definitions were often contradictory. Only 10 papers reported cardiovascular events, 3 of which referred to them as primary outcomes. Moreover, ten patient-reported outcomes were reported in the retrieved literature 19 times in total. The majority of the outcomes did not report measurement instruments (MIs) (269/453, 59.4%). MIs of the surrogate outcomes were reported more frequently.ConclusionOutcome reporting in CM trials for hyperlipidemia is inconsistent and ill-defined, creating barriers to data synthesis and comparison. Thus, we propose and are developing a COS for CM trials for hyperlipidemia.

Dataset Information

A systematic review finds Core Outcome Set uptake varies widely across different areas of health.

Objective

Study design and setting

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A systematic review finds Core Outcome Set uptake varies widely across different areas of health.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets