Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Outcomes are fundamental to systematic reviews. Core outcome sets (COS), which are agreed standardized sets of outcomes within topic areas, can help primary researchers as well as systematic reviewers consistently measure outcomes that are most important and relevant to decision-making. More than 330 published COS are available in an online, publicly-searchable database maintained by the Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative. The utilization and impact of COS on systematic reviews have not been examined.
Objectives: For a sample of recently conducted systematic reviews, we examined the proportion of reviews: (1) for which a relevant COS exists; (2) where the authors mentioned using a COS in choosing outcomes for the review; (3) which identified problems with outcome inconsistency in included studies; and (4) which noted the need for development of COS.
Methods: We examined all Cochrane intervention reviews addressing any topic and published by any Cochrane Review Group between January 1, 2019 and March 8, 2019 and all US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)-funded systematic reviews published between January 1, 2018 and March 15, 2020. We extracted the information relevant to our Objectives that may have been reported in any section of the report of the review.
Results:We included 100 Cochrane reviews and 61 AHRQ systematic reviews that addressed a range of diseases. Although a potentially relevant COS exists for 33/100 Cochrane reviews (33%) and 18/61 AHRQ reviews (30%), only 7/100 Cochrane reviews mentioned (or cited) a COS in relation to choosing outcomes for the review. This is despite 40/100 Cochrane reviews explicitly noting problems of inconsistency in outcomes in included studies. Among the 40 reviews that identified outcome inconsistency, only 6 reviews (15%) noted the need for development of a COS. At the Colloquium, we will present detailed findings about both Cochrane reviews and AHRQ reviews in terms of their use of COS.
Conclusions:This examination of recent systematic reviews suggests that although relevant COS exist for about a third of systematic reviews, very few reviews use COS to help inform their choice of outcomes. This is despite outcome inconsistency across included studies continuing to be a widespread problem. COS can help ensure that the most relevant outcomes are evaluated and that more included studies are incorporated into meta-analyses. We recommend that, when a relevant and well-developed COS exists, systematic reviewers should at least consider it to inform their process of choosing outcomes for their review. The COMET Database is online, free, searchable, and covers a range of health fields. No relevant COS exist for approximately two-thirds of the systematic reviews we examined. Authors of systematic reviews should push their respective fields forward by explicitly noting the need for COS, recommending COS development, and participating in COS development.
Consumer involvement: No, but COS are usually developed with consumer involvement.
Objectives: For a sample of recently conducted systematic reviews, we examined the proportion of reviews: (1) for which a relevant COS exists; (2) where the authors mentioned using a COS in choosing outcomes for the review; (3) which identified problems with outcome inconsistency in included studies; and (4) which noted the need for development of COS.
Methods: We examined all Cochrane intervention reviews addressing any topic and published by any Cochrane Review Group between January 1, 2019 and March 8, 2019 and all US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)-funded systematic reviews published between January 1, 2018 and March 15, 2020. We extracted the information relevant to our Objectives that may have been reported in any section of the report of the review.
Results:We included 100 Cochrane reviews and 61 AHRQ systematic reviews that addressed a range of diseases. Although a potentially relevant COS exists for 33/100 Cochrane reviews (33%) and 18/61 AHRQ reviews (30%), only 7/100 Cochrane reviews mentioned (or cited) a COS in relation to choosing outcomes for the review. This is despite 40/100 Cochrane reviews explicitly noting problems of inconsistency in outcomes in included studies. Among the 40 reviews that identified outcome inconsistency, only 6 reviews (15%) noted the need for development of a COS. At the Colloquium, we will present detailed findings about both Cochrane reviews and AHRQ reviews in terms of their use of COS.
Conclusions:This examination of recent systematic reviews suggests that although relevant COS exist for about a third of systematic reviews, very few reviews use COS to help inform their choice of outcomes. This is despite outcome inconsistency across included studies continuing to be a widespread problem. COS can help ensure that the most relevant outcomes are evaluated and that more included studies are incorporated into meta-analyses. We recommend that, when a relevant and well-developed COS exists, systematic reviewers should at least consider it to inform their process of choosing outcomes for their review. The COMET Database is online, free, searchable, and covers a range of health fields. No relevant COS exist for approximately two-thirds of the systematic reviews we examined. Authors of systematic reviews should push their respective fields forward by explicitly noting the need for COS, recommending COS development, and participating in COS development.
Consumer involvement: No, but COS are usually developed with consumer involvement.