IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0225980.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 5th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research

Author

Listed:
  • Elizabeth Gargon
  • Sarah L Gorst
  • Paula R Williamson

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Elizabeth Gargon & Sarah L Gorst & Paula R Williamson, 2019. "Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 5th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-18, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0225980
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225980
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0225980
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0225980&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0225980?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
    ---><---

    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:pone00:0225980. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.