IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0190695.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: An updated systematic review and involvement of low and middle income countries

Author

Listed:
  • Katherine Davis
  • Sarah L Gorst
  • Nicola Harman
  • Valerie Smith
  • Elizabeth Gargon
  • Douglas G Altman
  • Jane M Blazeby
  • Mike Clarke
  • Sean Tunis
  • Paula R Williamson

Abstract

Background: Core outcome sets (COS) comprise a minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all trials for a specific health condition. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative maintains an up to date, publicly accessible online database of published and ongoing COS. An annual systematic review update is an important part of this process. Methods: This review employed the same, multifaceted approach that was used in the original review and the previous two updates. This approach has identified studies that sought to determine which outcomes/domains to measure in clinical trials of a specific condition. This update includes an analysis of the inclusion of participants from low and middle income countries (LMICs) as identified by the OECD, in these COS. Results: Eighteen publications, relating to 15 new studies describing the development of 15 COS, were eligible for inclusion in the review. Results show an increase in the use of mixed methods, including Delphi surveys. Clinical experts remain the most common stakeholder group involved. Overall, only 16% of the 259 COS studies published up to the end of 2016 have included participants from LMICs. Conclusion: This review highlights opportunities for greater public participation in COS development and the involvement of stakeholders from a wider range of geographical settings, in particular LMICs.

Suggested Citation

  • Katherine Davis & Sarah L Gorst & Nicola Harman & Valerie Smith & Elizabeth Gargon & Douglas G Altman & Jane M Blazeby & Mike Clarke & Sean Tunis & Paula R Williamson, 2018. "Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: An updated systematic review and involvement of low and middle income countries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-14, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0190695
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190695
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190695
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190695&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0190695?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. Violaine Smaïl-Faugeron & Hélène Fron Chabouis & Pierre Durieux & Jean-Pierre Attal & Michèle Muller-Bolla & Frédéric Courson, 2013. "Development of a Core Set of Outcomes for Randomized Controlled Trials with Multiple Outcomes – Example of Pulp Treatments of Primary Teeth for Extensive Decay in Children," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, January.
    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. Karen L Hughes & Jamie J Kirkham & Mike Clarke & Paula R Williamson, 2019. "Assessing the impact of a research funder’s recommendation to consider core outcome sets," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-12, September.
    2. Christoffer Bruun Korfitsen & Marie-Louise Kirkegaard Mikkelsen & Anja Ussing & Karen Christina Walker & Jeanett Friis Rohde & Henning Keinke Andersen & Simon Tarp & Mina Nicole Händel, 2022. "Usefulness of Cochrane Reviews in Clinical Guideline Development—A Survey of 585 Recommendations," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-10, January.

    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.

      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:pone00:0190695. 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.