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


Autoři: Elizabeth Gargon aff001;  Sarah L. Gorst aff001;  Paula R. Williamson aff001
Působiště autorů: Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom aff001
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(12)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225980

Souhrn

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.

Klíčová slova:

Clinical trials – Comparative effectiveness research – Database searching – Drug research and development – Health services research – Research quality assessment – Research reporting guidelines – Systematic reviews


Zdroje

1. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H, Barnes KL, Blazeby JM, Brookes ST, et al. The COMET Handbook: version 1.0. Trials. 2017;18(Suppl 3):280. Epub 2017/07/07. doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-1978-4 28681707

2. Gargon E, Gurung B, Medley N, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, et al. Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(6):e99111. Epub 2014/06/17. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099111 24932522

3. Gorst SL, Gargon E, Clarke M, Blazeby JM, Altman DG, Williamson PR. Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and User Survey. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(1):e0146444. Epub 2016/01/20. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146444 26785121.

4. Gorst SL, Gargon E, Clarke M, Smith V, Williamson PR. Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and Identification of Gaps. PLoS One. 2016;11(12):e0168403. Epub 2016/12/16. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168403 27973622 to support COMET and related work. EG is a member of the COMET Management Group and is the COMET Project Co-ordinator. This does not alter the authors’ adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

5. Davis K, Gorst SL, Harman N, Smith V, Gargon E, Altman DG, et al. Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: An updated systematic review and involvement of low and middle income countries. PLoS One. 2018;13(2):e0190695. Epub 2018/02/14. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190695 29438429

6. Gargon E, Gorst SL, Harman NL, Smith V, Matvienko-Sikar K, Williamson PR. Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 4th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research. PLoS One. 2018;13(12):e0209869. Epub 2018/12/29. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209869 30592741.

7. Kirkham JJ, Davis K, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Tunis S, et al. Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development: The COS-STAD recommendations. PLoS Med. 2017;14(11):e1002447. Epub 2017/11/18. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002447 29145404

8. Kirkham JJ, Gorst S, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Devane D, et al. Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting: The COS-STAR Statement. PLoS Med. 2016;13(10):e1002148. Epub 2016/10/19. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002148 27755541 EG, PRW, and ST are members of the COMET Management Group. DM is a member of the Editorial Board of PLOS Medicine. DD, SG, JJK, JS, and PT declare no competing interests.

9. Kirkham JJ, Gorst S, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Tunis S, et al. Core Outcome Set-STAndardised Protocol Items: the COS-STAP Statement. Trials. 2019;20(1):116. doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3230-x 30744706

10. Gargon E, Williamson PR, Blazeby JM, Kirkham JJ. Improvement was needed in the standards of development for cancer core outcome sets. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019. Epub 2019/04/23. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.006 31009657.

11. Gargon E, Williamson PR, Clarke M. Collating the knowledge base for core outcome set development: developing and appraising the search strategy for a systematic review. BMC medical research methodology. 2015;15(1):26. Epub 2015/04/19. doi: 10.1186/s12874-015-0019-9 25888523

12. Norman C, Leeflang M, Zweigenbaum P, Névéol A. Automating Document Discovery in the Systematic Review Process: How to Use Chaff to Extract Wheat. International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation; 2018-05-01; Miyazaki, Japan2018.

13. Norman C, Gargon E, Leeflang M, Neveol A, Williamson PR. Evaluation of an automatic article selection method for timelier updates of the COMET Core Outcome Set database. Database 2019;2019(baz109). doi: 10.1093/database/baz109 31697361

14. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. Epub 2009/07/22. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 19621072

15. O’Donnell CM, Black N, McCourt KC, McBrien ME, Clarke M, Patterson CC, et al. Development of a Core Outcome Set for studies evaluating the effects of anaesthesia on perioperative morbidity and mortality following hip fracture surgery. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2019;122(1):120–30. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2018.08.017 30579390

16. Fish R, Sanders C, Adams R, Brewer J, Brookes ST, DeNardo J, et al. A core outcome set for clinical trials of chemoradiotherapy interventions for anal cancer (CORMAC): a patient and health-care professional consensus. The Lancet Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2018;3(12):865–73. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(18)30264-4 30507470


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 12