Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 5th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
07
08
2019
accepted:
15
11
2019
entrez:
13
12
2019
pubmed:
13
12
2019
medline:
31
3
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
A systematic review of core outcome sets (COS) for research is updated annually to populate an online database. It is a resource intensive review to do annually but automation techniques have potential to aid the process. The production of guidance and standards in COS development means that there is now an expectation that COS are being developed and reported to a higher standard. This is the fifth update to the systematic review and will explore these issues. Searches were carried out to identify studies published or indexed in 2018. Automated screening methods were used to rank the citations in order of relevance. The cut-off for screening was set to the top 25% in ranked priority order, following development and validation of the algorithm. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported the development of a COS, regardless of any restrictions by age, health condition or setting. COS were assessed against each of the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD). Thirty studies describing the development of 44 COS were included in this update. Six COS (20%) were deemed to have met all 12 criteria representing the 11 minimum standards for COS development (range = 4 to 12 criteria, median = 10 criteria). All 30 COS studies met all four minimum standards for scope. Twenty-one (70%) COS met all three minimum standards for stakeholders. Twenty-three studies (77%) included patients with the condition or their representatives. The number of countries involved in the development of COS ranged from 1 to 39 (median = 10). Six studies (20%) met all four minimum standards [five criteria] for the consensus process. Automated ranking was successfully used to assist the screening process and reduce the workload of this systematic review update. With the provision of guidelines, COS are better reported and being developed to a higher standard.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
A systematic review of core outcome sets (COS) for research is updated annually to populate an online database. It is a resource intensive review to do annually but automation techniques have potential to aid the process. The production of guidance and standards in COS development means that there is now an expectation that COS are being developed and reported to a higher standard. This is the fifth update to the systematic review and will explore these issues.
METHODS
Searches were carried out to identify studies published or indexed in 2018. Automated screening methods were used to rank the citations in order of relevance. The cut-off for screening was set to the top 25% in ranked priority order, following development and validation of the algorithm. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported the development of a COS, regardless of any restrictions by age, health condition or setting. COS were assessed against each of the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD).
RESULTS
Thirty studies describing the development of 44 COS were included in this update. Six COS (20%) were deemed to have met all 12 criteria representing the 11 minimum standards for COS development (range = 4 to 12 criteria, median = 10 criteria). All 30 COS studies met all four minimum standards for scope. Twenty-one (70%) COS met all three minimum standards for stakeholders. Twenty-three studies (77%) included patients with the condition or their representatives. The number of countries involved in the development of COS ranged from 1 to 39 (median = 10). Six studies (20%) met all four minimum standards [five criteria] for the consensus process.
CONCLUSION
Automated ranking was successfully used to assist the screening process and reduce the workload of this systematic review update. With the provision of guidelines, COS are better reported and being developed to a higher standard.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31830081
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225980
pii: PONE-D-19-22167
pmc: PMC6907830
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0225980Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/L004933/2
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
Pays : United Kingdom
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
EG and PW are members of the COMET Management Group. All other authors had no competing interests. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Références
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
PLoS Med. 2017 Nov 16;14(11):e1002447
pubmed: 29145404
Database (Oxford). 2019 Jan 1;2019:
pubmed: 31697361
PLoS One. 2018 Feb 13;13(2):e0190695
pubmed: 29438429
PLoS One. 2018 Dec 28;13(12):e0209869
pubmed: 30592741
PLoS Med. 2016 Oct 18;13(10):e1002148
pubmed: 27755541
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Dec;3(12):865-873
pubmed: 30507470
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Aug;112:36-44
pubmed: 31009657
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015 Mar 29;15:26
pubmed: 25888523
Br J Anaesth. 2019 Jan;122(1):120-130
pubmed: 30579390
PLoS One. 2016 Jan 19;11(1):e0146444
pubmed: 26785121
PLoS One. 2014 Jun 16;9(6):e99111
pubmed: 24932522
Trials. 2017 Jun 20;18(Suppl 3):280
pubmed: 28681707
PLoS One. 2016 Dec 14;11(12):e0168403
pubmed: 27973622
Trials. 2019 Feb 11;20(1):116
pubmed: 30744706