Review finds core outcome set uptake in new studies and systematic reviews needs improvement
To review evidence about the uptake of core outcome sets (COS). A COS is an agreed standardized set of outcomes that should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all clinical trials in a specific area of health or healthcare. This article provides an analysis of what is known about the uptake o...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of clinical epidemiology 2022-10, Vol.150, p.154-164 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 164 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | |
| container_start_page | 154 |
| container_title | Journal of clinical epidemiology |
| container_volume | 150 |
| creator | Williamson, Paula R. Barrington, Heather Blazeby, Jane M. Clarke, Mike Gargon, Elizabeth Gorst, Sarah Saldanha, Ian J. Tunis, Sean |
| description | To review evidence about the uptake of core outcome sets (COS). A COS is an agreed standardized set of outcomes that should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all clinical trials in a specific area of health or healthcare.
This article provides an analysis of what is known about the uptake of COS in research. Similarities between COS and outcomes recommended by stakeholders in the evidence ecosystem is reviewed and actions taken by them to facilitate COS uptake described.
COS uptake is low in most research areas. Common facilitators relate to trialist awareness and understanding. Common barriers were not including in the development process all specialties that might use the COS and the lack of recommendations for how to measure the outcomes. Increasingly, COS developers are considering strategies for promoting uptake earlier in the process, including actions beyond traditional dissemination approaches. An overlap between COS and outcomes in regulatory documents and health technology assessments is good. An increasing number and variety of organizations are recommending COS be considered.
We suggest actions for various stakeholders for improving COS uptake. Research is needed to assess the impact of these actions to identify effective evidence-based strategies. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.06.016 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2684103992</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0895435622001676</els_id><sourcerecordid>2684103992</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c444t-af82b268e53d7ef99801994449b8d0d3e7687ace9bae4f6551043678593e42f93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkEuLFTEQRoMoznX0LwwBN266zfuxUwYfAwOC6E4IuUk1pL2dvibpGebfm_HOuHDjqqDq1FfFQeiCkpESqt7O4xwOKcMxjYwwNhI19vYTtKNGm0FaRp-iHTFWDoJLdYZe1DoTQjXR8jk641Jra5jYoR9f4SbBLZ5SjhWHtQBetxbWBXCFhrdj8z8Bp4xzh2rbYoKKfY643tUGi28p4PInonYEekZajmW9gQVye4meTf5Q4dVDPUffP374dvl5uP7y6ery_fUQhBBt8JNhe6YMSB41TNYaQq3tI7s3kUQOWhntA9i9BzEpKSkRXGkjLQfBJsvP0ZtTbr_8a4Pa3JJqgMPBZ1i36nq2oIRbyzr6-h90XreS-3eOacmVFMSaTqkTFcpaa4HJHUtafLlzlLh7_252j_7dvX9HlOvtvnjxEL_tF4h_1x6Fd-DdCYDuo2srroYEOUBMBUJzcU3_u_Eb2wWaFA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2753654098</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Review finds core outcome set uptake in new studies and systematic reviews needs improvement</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><source>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</source><creator>Williamson, Paula R. ; Barrington, Heather ; Blazeby, Jane M. ; Clarke, Mike ; Gargon, Elizabeth ; Gorst, Sarah ; Saldanha, Ian J. ; Tunis, Sean</creator><creatorcontrib>Williamson, Paula R. ; Barrington, Heather ; Blazeby, Jane M. ; Clarke, Mike ; Gargon, Elizabeth ; Gorst, Sarah ; Saldanha, Ian J. ; Tunis, Sean</creatorcontrib><description>To review evidence about the uptake of core outcome sets (COS). A COS is an agreed standardized set of outcomes that should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all clinical trials in a specific area of health or healthcare.
This article provides an analysis of what is known about the uptake of COS in research. Similarities between COS and outcomes recommended by stakeholders in the evidence ecosystem is reviewed and actions taken by them to facilitate COS uptake described.
COS uptake is low in most research areas. Common facilitators relate to trialist awareness and understanding. Common barriers were not including in the development process all specialties that might use the COS and the lack of recommendations for how to measure the outcomes. Increasingly, COS developers are considering strategies for promoting uptake earlier in the process, including actions beyond traditional dissemination approaches. An overlap between COS and outcomes in regulatory documents and health technology assessments is good. An increasing number and variety of organizations are recommending COS be considered.
We suggest actions for various stakeholders for improving COS uptake. Research is needed to assess the impact of these actions to identify effective evidence-based strategies.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0895-4356</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1878-5921</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-5921</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.06.016</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35779824</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Clinical trials ; Core outcome set ; Coronaviruses ; COS ; COVID-19 ; Delphi Technique ; Ecosystem ; Endpoint Determination ; Epidemiology ; Humans ; Literature reviews ; Medical research ; Outcome Assessment, Health Care ; Outcome reporting bias ; Pandemics ; Research Design ; Research waste ; Systematic review ; Technology assessment ; Treatment Outcome ; Uptake</subject><ispartof>Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2022-10, Vol.150, p.154-164</ispartof><rights>2022 The Author(s)</rights><rights>Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>2022. The Author(s)</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c444t-af82b268e53d7ef99801994449b8d0d3e7687ace9bae4f6551043678593e42f93</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c444t-af82b268e53d7ef99801994449b8d0d3e7687ace9bae4f6551043678593e42f93</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-7818-9646 ; 0000-0001-9802-6636</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2753654098?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995,64385,64387,64389,72469</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35779824$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Williamson, Paula R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barrington, Heather</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blazeby, Jane M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clarke, Mike</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gargon, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gorst, Sarah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saldanha, Ian J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tunis, Sean</creatorcontrib><title>Review finds core outcome set uptake in new studies and systematic reviews needs improvement</title><title>Journal of clinical epidemiology</title><addtitle>J Clin Epidemiol</addtitle><description>To review evidence about the uptake of core outcome sets (COS). A COS is an agreed standardized set of outcomes that should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all clinical trials in a specific area of health or healthcare.
This article provides an analysis of what is known about the uptake of COS in research. Similarities between COS and outcomes recommended by stakeholders in the evidence ecosystem is reviewed and actions taken by them to facilitate COS uptake described.
COS uptake is low in most research areas. Common facilitators relate to trialist awareness and understanding. Common barriers were not including in the development process all specialties that might use the COS and the lack of recommendations for how to measure the outcomes. Increasingly, COS developers are considering strategies for promoting uptake earlier in the process, including actions beyond traditional dissemination approaches. An overlap between COS and outcomes in regulatory documents and health technology assessments is good. An increasing number and variety of organizations are recommending COS be considered.
We suggest actions for various stakeholders for improving COS uptake. Research is needed to assess the impact of these actions to identify effective evidence-based strategies.</description><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Core outcome set</subject><subject>Coronaviruses</subject><subject>COS</subject><subject>COVID-19</subject><subject>Delphi Technique</subject><subject>Ecosystem</subject><subject>Endpoint Determination</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Literature reviews</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Outcome Assessment, Health Care</subject><subject>Outcome reporting bias</subject><subject>Pandemics</subject><subject>Research Design</subject><subject>Research waste</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Technology assessment</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Uptake</subject><issn>0895-4356</issn><issn>1878-5921</issn><issn>1878-5921</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkEuLFTEQRoMoznX0LwwBN266zfuxUwYfAwOC6E4IuUk1pL2dvibpGebfm_HOuHDjqqDq1FfFQeiCkpESqt7O4xwOKcMxjYwwNhI19vYTtKNGm0FaRp-iHTFWDoJLdYZe1DoTQjXR8jk641Jra5jYoR9f4SbBLZ5SjhWHtQBetxbWBXCFhrdj8z8Bp4xzh2rbYoKKfY643tUGi28p4PInonYEekZajmW9gQVye4meTf5Q4dVDPUffP374dvl5uP7y6ery_fUQhBBt8JNhe6YMSB41TNYaQq3tI7s3kUQOWhntA9i9BzEpKSkRXGkjLQfBJsvP0ZtTbr_8a4Pa3JJqgMPBZ1i36nq2oIRbyzr6-h90XreS-3eOacmVFMSaTqkTFcpaa4HJHUtafLlzlLh7_252j_7dvX9HlOvtvnjxEL_tF4h_1x6Fd-DdCYDuo2srroYEOUBMBUJzcU3_u_Eb2wWaFA</recordid><startdate>202210</startdate><enddate>202210</enddate><creator>Williamson, Paula R.</creator><creator>Barrington, Heather</creator><creator>Blazeby, Jane M.</creator><creator>Clarke, Mike</creator><creator>Gargon, Elizabeth</creator><creator>Gorst, Sarah</creator><creator>Saldanha, Ian J.</creator><creator>Tunis, Sean</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7818-9646</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9802-6636</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202210</creationdate><title>Review finds core outcome set uptake in new studies and systematic reviews needs improvement</title><author>Williamson, Paula R. ; Barrington, Heather ; Blazeby, Jane M. ; Clarke, Mike ; Gargon, Elizabeth ; Gorst, Sarah ; Saldanha, Ian J. ; Tunis, Sean</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c444t-af82b268e53d7ef99801994449b8d0d3e7687ace9bae4f6551043678593e42f93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Core outcome set</topic><topic>Coronaviruses</topic><topic>COS</topic><topic>COVID-19</topic><topic>Delphi Technique</topic><topic>Ecosystem</topic><topic>Endpoint Determination</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Literature reviews</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Outcome Assessment, Health Care</topic><topic>Outcome reporting bias</topic><topic>Pandemics</topic><topic>Research Design</topic><topic>Research waste</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Technology assessment</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Uptake</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Williamson, Paula R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barrington, Heather</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blazeby, Jane M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clarke, Mike</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gargon, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gorst, Sarah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saldanha, Ian J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tunis, Sean</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of clinical epidemiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Williamson, Paula R.</au><au>Barrington, Heather</au><au>Blazeby, Jane M.</au><au>Clarke, Mike</au><au>Gargon, Elizabeth</au><au>Gorst, Sarah</au><au>Saldanha, Ian J.</au><au>Tunis, Sean</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Review finds core outcome set uptake in new studies and systematic reviews needs improvement</atitle><jtitle>Journal of clinical epidemiology</jtitle><addtitle>J Clin Epidemiol</addtitle><date>2022-10</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>150</volume><spage>154</spage><epage>164</epage><pages>154-164</pages><issn>0895-4356</issn><issn>1878-5921</issn><eissn>1878-5921</eissn><abstract>To review evidence about the uptake of core outcome sets (COS). A COS is an agreed standardized set of outcomes that should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all clinical trials in a specific area of health or healthcare.
This article provides an analysis of what is known about the uptake of COS in research. Similarities between COS and outcomes recommended by stakeholders in the evidence ecosystem is reviewed and actions taken by them to facilitate COS uptake described.
COS uptake is low in most research areas. Common facilitators relate to trialist awareness and understanding. Common barriers were not including in the development process all specialties that might use the COS and the lack of recommendations for how to measure the outcomes. Increasingly, COS developers are considering strategies for promoting uptake earlier in the process, including actions beyond traditional dissemination approaches. An overlap between COS and outcomes in regulatory documents and health technology assessments is good. An increasing number and variety of organizations are recommending COS be considered.
We suggest actions for various stakeholders for improving COS uptake. Research is needed to assess the impact of these actions to identify effective evidence-based strategies.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>35779824</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.06.016</doi><tpages>11</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7818-9646</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9802-6636</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0895-4356 |
| ispartof | Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2022-10, Vol.150, p.154-164 |
| issn | 0895-4356 1878-5921 1878-5921 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2684103992 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete; ProQuest Central UK/Ireland |
| subjects | Clinical trials Core outcome set Coronaviruses COS COVID-19 Delphi Technique Ecosystem Endpoint Determination Epidemiology Humans Literature reviews Medical research Outcome Assessment, Health Care Outcome reporting bias Pandemics Research Design Research waste Systematic review Technology assessment Treatment Outcome Uptake |
| title | Review finds core outcome set uptake in new studies and systematic reviews needs improvement |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T14%3A42%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Review%20finds%20core%20outcome%20set%20uptake%20in%20new%20studies%20and%20systematic%20reviews%20needs%20improvement&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20clinical%20epidemiology&rft.au=Williamson,%20Paula%20R.&rft.date=2022-10&rft.volume=150&rft.spage=154&rft.epage=164&rft.pages=154-164&rft.issn=0895-4356&rft.eissn=1878-5921&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.06.016&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2684103992%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2753654098&rft_id=info:pmid/35779824&rft_els_id=S0895435622001676&rfr_iscdi=true |