Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:
Ill health and treatments can affect people in many different ways, making it difficult to select the most appropriate outcomes for research. The Cochrane Handbook promotes consumer involvement in decisions about outcomes for reviews and the use of standardised core outcomes sets (COS), which have increasingly included patients in their development (91% of ongoing COS). Descriptive surveys exploring outcomes in over 1200 published Cochrane Reviews, however, indicated that no reviews described using a COS in their methods section or 'Summary of findings' (SoF) table.
In 2017, COMET and Cochrane co-facilitated a workshop about outcomes of importance to patients for systematic reviews, with delegates identifying the benefits and challenges. Questions were raised about what to do if a COS doesn’t exist or if it exists (agreed with patients) but has above the maximum of seven outcomes recommended for the SoF table.
Objectives:
- To explore the challenges of gaining a patient perspective about patient-important outcomes in reviews and possible ways to address this, including areas of advice needed by Cochrane authors.
- To explain COS and how these may help in a review.
- To promote the uptake of COS in Cochrane Reviews.
Description:
The 2018 workshop will comprise brief presentations about outcomes of importance to patients in Cochrane Reviews, core outcome sets (COS, including an animation of what COS are and their importance) and the work of the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative. A public contributor will briefly outline a COS that she is involved with.
In the small groups we will explore examples of where COS have been developed (with patient input) but Cochrane Reviews have not used them, discussing the possible reasons for this and examining the potential impact of this on evidence synthesis. We will consider ways to raise awareness of COS and the COMET database (which details both existing and developing COS studies internationally). We will also explore examples of where COS do not exist and work has been conducted with patients to agree outcomes for a Cochrane Review, considering some of the challenges of this work and identifying specific advice that Cochrane authors might welcome in this situation.
Ill health and treatments can affect people in many different ways, making it difficult to select the most appropriate outcomes for research. The Cochrane Handbook promotes consumer involvement in decisions about outcomes for reviews and the use of standardised core outcomes sets (COS), which have increasingly included patients in their development (91% of ongoing COS). Descriptive surveys exploring outcomes in over 1200 published Cochrane Reviews, however, indicated that no reviews described using a COS in their methods section or 'Summary of findings' (SoF) table.
In 2017, COMET and Cochrane co-facilitated a workshop about outcomes of importance to patients for systematic reviews, with delegates identifying the benefits and challenges. Questions were raised about what to do if a COS doesn’t exist or if it exists (agreed with patients) but has above the maximum of seven outcomes recommended for the SoF table.
Objectives:
- To explore the challenges of gaining a patient perspective about patient-important outcomes in reviews and possible ways to address this, including areas of advice needed by Cochrane authors.
- To explain COS and how these may help in a review.
- To promote the uptake of COS in Cochrane Reviews.
Description:
The 2018 workshop will comprise brief presentations about outcomes of importance to patients in Cochrane Reviews, core outcome sets (COS, including an animation of what COS are and their importance) and the work of the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative. A public contributor will briefly outline a COS that she is involved with.
In the small groups we will explore examples of where COS have been developed (with patient input) but Cochrane Reviews have not used them, discussing the possible reasons for this and examining the potential impact of this on evidence synthesis. We will consider ways to raise awareness of COS and the COMET database (which details both existing and developing COS studies internationally). We will also explore examples of where COS do not exist and work has been conducted with patients to agree outcomes for a Cochrane Review, considering some of the challenges of this work and identifying specific advice that Cochrane authors might welcome in this situation.