IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1002148.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Core Outcome Set–STAndards for Reporting: The COS-STAR Statement

Author

Listed:
  • Jamie J Kirkham
  • Sarah Gorst
  • Douglas G Altman
  • Jane M Blazeby
  • Mike Clarke
  • Declan Devane
  • Elizabeth Gargon
  • David Moher
  • Jochen Schmitt
  • Peter Tugwell
  • Sean Tunis
  • Paula R Williamson

Abstract

Background: Core outcome sets (COS) can enhance the relevance of research by ensuring that outcomes of importance to health service users and other people making choices about health care in a particular topic area are measured routinely. Over 200 COS to date have been developed, but the clarity of these reports is suboptimal. COS studies will not achieve their goal if reports of COS are not complete and transparent. Methods and Findings: In recognition of these issues, an international group that included experienced COS developers, methodologists, journal editors, potential users of COS (clinical trialists, systematic reviewers, and clinical guideline developers), and patient representatives developed the Core Outcome Set–STAndards for Reporting (COS-STAR) Statement as a reporting guideline for COS studies. The developmental process consisted of an initial reporting item generation stage and a two-round Delphi survey involving nearly 200 participants representing key stakeholder groups, followed by a consensus meeting. The COS-STAR Statement consists of a checklist of 18 items considered essential for transparent and complete reporting in all COS studies. The checklist items focus on the introduction, methods, results, and discussion section of a manuscript describing the development of a particular COS. A limitation of the COS-STAR Statement is that it was developed without representative views of low- and middle-income countries. COS have equal relevance to studies conducted in these areas, and, subsequently, this guideline may need to evolve over time to encompass any additional challenges from developing COS in these areas. Conclusions: With many ongoing COS studies underway, the COS-STAR Statement should be a helpful resource to improve the reporting of COS studies for the benefit of all COS users. Paula Williamson and colleagues present reporting standards for studies that report core outcome sets for health research.

Suggested Citation

  • Jamie J Kirkham & Sarah Gorst & Douglas G Altman & Jane M Blazeby & Mike Clarke & Declan Devane & Elizabeth Gargon & David Moher & Jochen Schmitt & Peter Tugwell & Sean Tunis & Paula R Williamson, 2016. "Core Outcome Set–STAndards for Reporting: The COS-STAR Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-11, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002148
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002148
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002148
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002148&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002148?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ian P Sinha & Rosalind L Smyth & Paula R Williamson, 2011. "Using the Delphi Technique to Determine Which Outcomes to Measure in Clinical Trials: Recommendations for the Future Based on a Systematic Review of Existing Studies," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-5, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Belinda von Niederhäusern & Gordon H Guyatt & Matthias Briel & Christiane Pauli-Magnus, 2018. "Academic response to improving value and reducing waste: A comprehensive framework for INcreasing QUality In patient-oriented academic clinical REsearch (INQUIRE)," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-19, June.
    2. Carina Benstoem & Ajay Moza & Patrick Meybohm & Christian Stoppe & Rüdiger Autschbach & Declan Devane & Andreas Goetzenich, 2017. "A core outcome set for adult cardiac surgery trials: A consensus study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(11), pages 1-12, November.
    3. Alison Booth & Mike Clarke & Davina Ghersi & David Moher & Mark Petticrew & Lesley Stewart, 2011. "Establishing a Minimum Dataset for Prospective Registration of Systematic Reviews: An International Consultation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(11), pages 1-8, November.
    4. Benjamin M Davies & Maire McHugh & Ali Elgheriani & Angelos G Kolias & Lindsay A Tetreault & Peter J A Hutchinson & Michael G Fehlings & Mark R N Kotter, 2016. "Reported Outcome Measures in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-12, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002148. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.