1
|
Rhodes S, Dodd S, Deckert S, Vasanthan L, Qiu R, Rohde JF, Florez ID, Schmitt J, Nieuwlaat R, Kirkham J, Williamson PR. Representation of published core outcome sets in practice guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 2024; 169:111311. [PMID: 38423401 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111311] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/13/2023] [Revised: 12/14/2023] [Accepted: 02/22/2024] [Indexed: 03/02/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES A core outcome set (COS) is an agreed standardized set of outcomes that should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in specific areas of health or health care. A COS is developed through a consensus process to ensure health care outcomes to be measured are relevant to decision-makers, including patients and health-care professionals. Use of COS in guideline development is likely to increase the relevance of the guideline to those decision-makers. Previous work has looked at the uptake of COS in trials, systematic reviews, health technology assessments and regulatory guidance but to date there has been no evaluation of the use of COS in practice guideline development. The objective of this study was to investigate the representation of core outcomes in a set of international practice guidelines. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We searched for clinical guidelines relevant to ten high-quality COS (with focus on the United Kingdom, Germany, China, India, Canada, Denmark, United States and World Health Organisation). We matched scope between COS and guideline in terms of condition, population and outcome. We calculated the proportion of guidelines mentioning or referencing COS and the proportion of COS domains specifically, or generally, matching to outcomes specified in each guideline populations, interventions, comparators and outcome (PICO) statement. RESULTS We found 38 guidelines that contained 170 PICO statements matching the scope of the ten COS and of sufficient quality to allow data extraction. None of the guidelines reviewed explicitly mentioned or referenced the relevant COS. The median (range) of the proportion of core outcomes covered either specifically or generally by the guideline PICO was 30% (0%-100%). CONCLUSION There is no evidence that COS are being used routinely to inform the guideline development process, and concordance between outcomes in published guidelines and those in COS is limited. Further work is warranted to explore barriers and facilitators in the use of COS when developing clinical guidelines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah Rhodes
- Centre for Biostatistics, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
| | - Susanna Dodd
- MRC-NIHR Trials Methodology Research Partnership, Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L63 3GL, UK
| | - Stefanie Deckert
- Center for Evidence-Based Healthcare, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Lenny Vasanthan
- Physiotherapy Unit, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India; Department of Physiotherapy, Melbourne School of Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Ruijin Qiu
- Key Laboratory of Chinese Internal Medicine of Ministry of Education and Beijing, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine Affiliated Dongzhimen Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Jeanett Friis Rohde
- The Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, 2000, Frederiksberg, Denmark; The Danish Health Authority, Department of Evidence-Based Medicine, Islands Brygge 67, 2300, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Ivan D Florez
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia; School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Clínica Las Américas-AUNA, Medellín, Antioquia, Colombia
| | - Jochen Schmitt
- Center for Evidence-Based Healthcare, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Robby Nieuwlaat
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence & Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jamie Kirkham
- Centre for Biostatistics, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Paula R Williamson
- MRC-NIHR Trials Methodology Research Partnership, Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L63 3GL, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kari K, Thayani Z, Ward S, Magee T, Jones G, Fitzgerald K, Magana K, Modi J, Hughes G, Ito Ford A, Vassar M. Assessing the uptake of the type 1 diabetes core outcome set in randomized controlled trials: A Cross-Sectional study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2024; 207:111085. [PMID: 38195041 DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2023.111085] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/26/2023] [Revised: 11/04/2023] [Accepted: 12/27/2023] [Indexed: 01/11/2024]
Abstract
AIMS This study analyzed uptake of the core outcome set (COS) for type 1 diabetes (T1D) and trends in its use before and after its development in December 2017. METHODS On June 26, 2023, ClinicalTrials.gov was systematically searched for T1D randomized controlled trials. The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database provided a COS of eight key outcomes for analysis. Included trials were analyzed for COS uptake before and after its release in December 2017 in a masked, duplicate fashion by independent reviewers. We also calculated the proportion of trials that measured the complete COS and assessed the most frequently reported COS outcomes. RESULTS Of 3,792 originally screened articles, 144 RCTs were included in the final sample. Following COS publication, its use steadily decreased. Within the COS, HbA1c and severe hypoglycemia were most frequently implemented as endpoints; other recommended outcomes were rarely used in the published trials. CONCLUSION Despite the 2017 T1D COS publication, use has decreased over time. This inconsistency negatively influences evidence-based practices and care. Educating researchers on COS and promoting uptake is crucial. Wider COS adoption in T1D trials could enhance clinical research overall. Further study of barriers and facilitators influencing uptake is essential to support consistent use and reporting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karim Kari
- Office of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, United States.
| | - Zohaib Thayani
- Office of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, United States
| | - Shaelyn Ward
- Office of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, United States.
| | - Trevor Magee
- Office of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, United States.
| | - Garrett Jones
- Office of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, United States.
| | - Kyle Fitzgerald
- Office of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, United States.
| | - Kimberly Magana
- Office of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, United States.
| | - Jay Modi
- Office of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, United States.
| | - Griffin Hughes
- Office of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, United States
| | - Alicia Ito Ford
- Office of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, United States; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, United States.
| | - Matt Vassar
- Office of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, United States; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, United States.
| |
Collapse
|