IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0146444.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Sarah L Gorst
  • Elizabeth Gargon
  • Mike Clarke
  • Jane M Blazeby
  • Douglas G Altman
  • Paula R Williamson

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah L Gorst & Elizabeth Gargon & Mike Clarke & Jane M Blazeby & Douglas G Altman & Paula R Williamson, 2016. "Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and User Survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0146444
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146444
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0146444
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0146444&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0146444?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 Sinha & Leanne Jones & Rosalind L Smyth & Paula R Williamson, 2008. "A Systematic Review of Studies That Aim to Determine Which Outcomes to Measure in Clinical Trials in Children," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(4), pages 1-10, April.
    2. Elizabeth Gargon & Binu Gurung & Nancy Medley & Doug G Altman & Jane M Blazeby & Mike Clarke & Paula R Williamson, 2014. "Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-12, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sarah L Gorst & Elizabeth Gargon & Mike Clarke & Valerie Smith & Paula R Williamson, 2016. "Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and Identification of Gaps," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-14, December.
    2. Jamie J Kirkham & Katherine Davis & Douglas G Altman & Jane M Blazeby & Mike Clarke & Sean Tunis & Paula R Williamson, 2017. "Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development: The COS-STAD recommendations," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-10, November.

    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. Sarah Wigham & Helen McConachie, 2014. "Systematic Review of the Properties of Tools Used to Measure Outcomes in Anxiety Intervention Studies for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(1), pages 1-17, January.
    2. Mike Clarke, 2008. "Standardising Outcomes in Paediatric Clinical Trials," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(4), pages 1-2, April.
    3. Elizabeth Gargon & Binu Gurung & Nancy Medley & Doug G Altman & Jane M Blazeby & Mike Clarke & Paula R Williamson, 2014. "Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-12, June.
    4. Sarah L Gorst & Elizabeth Gargon & Mike Clarke & Valerie Smith & Paula R Williamson, 2016. "Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and Identification of Gaps," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-14, December.
    5. Ian P Sinha & Paula R Williamson & Rosalind L Smyth, 2009. "Outcomes in Clinical Trials of Inhaled Corticosteroids for Children with Asthma Are Narrowly Focussed on Short Term Disease Activity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(7), pages 1-8, July.
    6. Nicola L Harman & Iain A Bruce & Jamie J Kirkham & Stephanie Tierney & Peter Callery & Kevin O'Brien & Alex M D Bennett & Raouf Chorbachi & Per N Hall & Anne Harding-Bell & Victoria H Parfect & Nichol, 2015. "The Importance of Integration of Stakeholder Views in Core Outcome Set Development: Otitis Media with Effusion in Children with Cleft Palate," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-22, June.
    7. 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.

    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:pone00:0146444. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.