Assessing the relevance and uptake of core outcome sets (an agreed minimum collection of outcomes to measure in research studies) in Cochrane systematic reviews: a review

Assessing the Uptake of the Lung Cancer Core Outcome Set: A Cross-Sectional Analysis

Introduction

A core outcome set (COS) helps standardize outcome measurements across clinical trials. Although lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths, research exploring COS implementation across lung cancer trials remains limited. We aim to analyze the uptake of the lung cancer COS and identify potential gaps in COS adherence.

Methods

On June 26, 2023, we conducted a cross-sectional analysis of clinical trials that evaluated lung cancer interventions. Our sample consisted of studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform between September 2011 and June 2023. In a masked and duplicate fashion, investigators extracted data regarding trial characteristics and COS adoption. An interrupted time series analysis was conducted to evaluate the adherence of lung cancer COS before and after its publication.

Results

Of the 626 observed trials, we found no overall significant difference in lung cancer COS uptake pre- and post-publication (0.01%, 95% confidence interval: -0.16% to 0.19%, p=0.85). The most frequently measured outcomes were "overall survival" (91.69%%) and "treatment-related mortalities" (54.69%). Health-related quality of life questionnaires were typically used to evaluate outcomes in the "Degree of health" domain (49.20%). Outcomes related to "time from diagnosis to treatment" (0%), "place of death" (0.16%), and "duration of time spent in the hospital at the end of life" (1.60%) were rarely measured.

Conclusions

Despite the advantages of COS implementation, adherence across lung cancer clinical trials remains alarmingly low-which could compromise data reliability and patient care. Our findings showcase these inconsistencies and emphasize the need for proactive approaches to improve uptake.

Inclusion of harm outcomes in core outcome sets requires careful consideration

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to determine the proportion of all published core outcome set (COS) studies that include an adverse event or harm outcome, to determine the proportion of individual vs pooled harms, and to investigate characteristics that influence their inclusion.

METHODS

We examined the extent to which a sample of 100 published COS studies (from January 2021 to January 2023) include both pooled and individual harms in the final COS. One investigator extracted the information from the COS studies, which was cross-checked against previous COS investigational research, and where possible verified with COS authors or a pharmacologist. Using Qualtrics™, we conducted a personalized online survey of developers of the 100 COS to ask them about the importance, their experiences, and methodological approaches for dealing with harms within their COS development studies.

RESULTS

One hundred COS were identified from 91 separate COS studies, the majority of which considered most of the minimum standards for development. Two-thirds (65%) of the COS included at least 1 harm outcome. In total, 1104 core outcomes were identified across the 100 COS, of which 184 (17%) were harm outcomes (154 individual vs 56 pooled). Individual harms were more likely to be included in a final COS if they were developed for single treatment interventions (50%) compared to those being developed for multitreatment modalities (39%). Some COS developers adopted outcome frameworks as part of their COS development process to facilitate the inclusion of harm outcomes in their final COS. A third (33%) of respondents felt that harm outcomes should be included in all COS but over half (56%) thought this would be dependent on some aspect of the scope of the COS and improved methodology and awareness of how to deal with harm outcomes in the COS development process.

CONCLUSION

Harm outcomes are already included in many COS either as individual or pooled harms. It is evident that there are some challenges with regards to both the methodology and necessity to include harms within a COS (pooled or individual. COS developers should carefully consider the need to include important harms outcomes in relation to the scope of the COS that they are developing.

Study found increasing use of core outcome sets in Cochrane systematic reviews and identified facilitators and barriers

OBJECTIVES

In 2019, only 7% of Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) cited a core outcome set (COS) in relation to choosing outcomes, even though a relevant COS existed but was not mentioned (or cited) for a further 29% of SRs. Our objectives for the current work were to (1) examine the extent to which authors are currently considering COS to inform outcome choice in Cochrane protocols and completed SRs, and (2) understand author facilitators and barriers to using COS.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We examined all completed Cochrane SRs published in the last 3 months of 2022 and all Cochrane protocols published in 2022 for the extent to which they: (a) cited a COS, (b) searched for COS, (c) used outcomes from existing COS, and (d) reported outcome inconsistency among included studies and/or noted the need for COS. One investigator extracted information; a second extractor verified all information, discussing discrepancies to achieve consensus. We then conducted an online survey of authors of the included SRs to assess awareness of COS and identify facilitators and barriers to using COS to inform outcome choice.

RESULTS

Objective 1: We included 294 SRs of interventions (84 completed SRs and 210 published SR protocols), of which 13% cited specific COS and 5% did not cite but mentioned searching for COS. A median of 83% of core outcomes from cited COS (interquartile range [IQR] 57%-100%) were included in the corresponding SR. We identified a relevant COS for 39% of SRs that did not cite a COS. A median of 50% of core outcomes from noncited COS (IQR 35%-72%) were included in the corresponding SR. Objective 2: Authors of 236 (80%) of the 294 eligible SRs completed our survey. Seventy-seven percent of authors noted being aware of COS before the survey. Fifty-five percent of authors who did not cite COS but were aware of them reported searching for a COS. The most reported facilitators of using COS were author awareness of the existence of COS (59%), author positive perceptions of COS (52%), and recommendation in the Cochrane Handbook regarding COS use (48%). The most reported barriers related to matching of the scope of the COS and the SR: the COS target population was too narrow/broad relative to the SR population (29%) or the COS target intervention was too narrow/broad relative to the SR intervention (21%). Most authors (87%) mentioned that they would consider incorporating missing core outcomes in the SR/update.

CONCLUSION

Since 2019, there is increasing consideration and awareness of COS when choosing outcomes for Cochrane SRs of interventions, but uptake remains low and can be improved further. Use of COS in SRs is important to improve outcome standardization, reduce research waste, and improve evidence syntheses of the relevant effects of interventions across health research.

Representation of published core outcome sets in practice guidelines

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.

Analysis of core outcome set reporting in coronary intervention trials

BACKGROUND

This paper will focus on outcome reporting within percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) trials. A core outcome set (COS) is a standardised set of outcomes that are recommended to be reported in every clinical trial. Using a COS can help to ensure that all relevant outcomes are consistently reported across clinical trials. In 2018, the European Society of Cardiology outlined the only COS published for PCI trials.

METHODS

We searched the literature for all randomised controlled trials published between 2014 and 2022. PCI trials included were late-phase trials and must investigate coronary intervention. The primary outcome was the proportion of trials that reported all of the COS-defined outcomes within their publication as either a primary, secondary or safety endpoint. The secondary outcomes included; the number of primary outcomes reported per study, the proportion of studies which use patient and public involvement (PPI) during trial design, outcome variability and outcome consistency.

RESULTS

9580 trials were screened and 115 studies met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Our study demonstrated that 55% (34/62) of PCI trials used a COS when it was available, compared with 40% (21/53) before the availability of a PCI COS set, p=0.121. Fewer primary outcomes were reported after the implementation of the COS, 2 compared with 2.3, p=0.014. There was no difference in the use of PPI between either group. There was a higher level of variability in outcomes reported before the availability of the COS, while the consistency of outcome reporting remained similar.

CONCLUSION

The use of a COS in PCI trials is low. This study provides evidence that there still is a lack of awareness of the COS among those who design clinical trials. We also presented the inconsistency and heterogenicity in reporting clinical trial outcomes. Finally, there was a clear lack of PPI utilisation in PCI trials.

A core outcome set for patient-reported dysphagia for use in head and neck cancer clinical trials: An international multistakeholder Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Measuring dysphagia-related patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in Head and Neck Cancer (HNC) patients is challenging due to dysphagia's multidimensional impact, causing inconsistency in outcome reporting. To address this issue, this study derived a consensus-based core outcome set (COS) for patient-reported dysphagia in HNC clinical trials where swallowing is a primary or secondary endpoint.

METHODS

A sample of HNC clinicians, researchers, patients, and caregivers participated in a 2-Round Delphi technique. A Delphi survey, containing a comprehensive list of dysphagia-related PROs, was developed. In Round 1, participants rated item importance on a 5-point scale. Items rated ≥4 by >70% advanced to Round 2, where a consensus meeting addressed items with varied opinions, and the Delphi survey with remaining items was completed. Items rated ≥4 by >70% formed the final COS.

RESULTS

Forty-five participants from nine countries were recruited. After Round 1, 40 items were excluded and 64 advanced to Round 2. After Round 2, a 7-outcome COS was established, comprising the domains of dysphagia symptoms, health status and quality of life.

CONCLUSION

This study achieved consensus among HNC stakeholders on essential dysphagia PROs for HNC clinical trials. It is advisable to include these 7-core concepts in clinical trials involving people with HNC to facilitate treatment comparisons and data synthesis.

How to use the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema Core Outcome Set for atopic dermatitis trials: a users' guide

BACKGROUND

The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative has agreed upon the Core Outcome Set (COS) for use in atopic dermatitis (AD) clinical trials, but additional guidance is needed to maximize its uptake.

OBJECTIVES

To provide answers to some of the commonly asked questions about using the HOME COS; to provide data to help with the interpretation of trial results; and to support sample size calculations for future trials.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We provide practical guidance on the use of the HOME COS for investigators planning clinical trials in patients with AD. It answers some of the common questions about using the HOME COS, how to access the outcome measurement instruments, what training/resources are needed to use them appropriately and clarifies when the COS is applicable. We also provide exemplar data to inform sample size calculations for eczema trials and encourage standardized data collection and reporting of the COS.

CONCLUSIONS

By encouraging adoption of the COS and facilitating consistent reporting of outcome data, it is hoped that the results of eczema trials will be more comprehensive and readily combined in meta-analyses and that patient care will subsequently be improved.

European Glaucoma Society - A guide on surgical innovation for glaucoma

PROLOGUE: Glaucoma surgery has been, for many decades now, dominated by the universal gold standard which is trabeculectomy augmented with antimetabolites. Tubes also came into the scene to complement what we use to call conventional or traditional glaucoma surgery. More recently we experienced a changing glaucoma surgery environment with the "advent" of what we have become used to calling Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery (MIGS). What is the unmet need, what is the gap that these newcomers aim to fill? Hippocrates taught us "bring benefit, not harm" and new glaucoma techniques and devices aim to provide safer surgery compared to conventional surgery. For the patient, but also for the clinician, safety is important. Is more safety achieved with new glaucoma surgery and, if so, is it associated with better, equivalent, or worse efficacy? Is new glaucoma surgery intended to replace conventional surgery or to complement it as an 'add-on' to what clinicians already have in their hands to manage glaucoma? Which surgery should be chosen for which patient? What are the options? Are they equivalent? These are too many questions for the clinician! What are the answers to the questions? What is the evidence to support answers? Do we need more evidence and how can we produce high-quality evidence? This EGS Guide explores the changing and challenging glaucoma surgery environment aiming to provide answers to these questions. The EGS uses four words to highlight a continuum: Innovation, Education, Communication, and Implementation. Translating innovation to successful implementation is crucially important and requires high-quality evidence to ensure steps forward to a positive impact on health care when it comes to implementation. The vision of EGS is to provide the best possible well-being and minimal glaucomainduced visual disability in individuals with glaucoma within an affordable healthcare system. In this regard, assessing the changes in glaucoma surgery is a pivotal contribution to better care. As mentioned, this Guide aims to provide answers to the crucial questions above. However, every clinician is aware that answers may differ for every person: an individualised approach is needed. Therefore, there will be no uniform answer for all situations and all patients. Clinicians would need, through the clinical method and possibly some algorithm, to reach answers and decisions at the individual level. In this regard, evidence is needed to support clinicians to make decisions. Of key importance in this Guide is to provide an overview of existing evidence on glaucoma surgery and specifically on recent innovations and novel devices, but also to set standards in surgical design and reporting for future studies on glaucoma surgical innovation. Designing studies in surgery is particularly challenging because of many subtle variations inherent to surgery and hence multiple factors involved in the outcome, but even more because one needs to define carefully outcomes relevant to the research question but also to the future translation into clinical practice. In addition this Guide aims to provide clinical recommendations on novel procedures already in use when insufficient evidence exists. EGS has a long tradition to provide guidance to the ophthalmic community in Europe and worldwide through the EGS Guidelines (now in their 5th Edition). The EGS leadership recognized that the changing environment in glaucoma surgery currently represents a major challenge for the clinician, needing specific guidance. Therefore, the decision was made to issue this Guide on Glaucoma Surgery in order to help clinicians to make appropriate decisions for their patients and also to provide the framework and guidance for researchers to improve the quality of evidence in future studies. Ultimately this Guide will support better Glaucoma Care in accordance with EGS's Vision and Mission. Fotis Topouzis EGS President

Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for neonatal sepsis (NESCOS)

Neonatal sepsis is a serious public health problem; however, there is substantial heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and reported in research evaluating the effectiveness of the treatments. Therefore, we aim to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for studies evaluating the effectiveness of treatments for neonatal sepsis. Since a systematic review of key outcomes from randomised trials of therapeutic interventions in neonatal sepsis was published recently, we will complement this with a qualitative systematic review of the key outcomes of neonatal sepsis identified by parents, other family members, parent representatives, healthcare providers, policymakers, and researchers. We will interpret the outcomes of both studies using a previously established framework. Stakeholders across three different groups i.e., (1) researchers, (2) healthcare providers, and (3) patients' parents/family members and parent representatives will rate the importance of the outcomes in an online Real-Time Delphi Survey. Afterwards, consensus meetings will be held to agree on the final COS through online discussions with key stakeholders. This COS is expected to minimize outcome heterogeneity in measurements and publications, improve comparability and synthesis, and decrease research waste.

Clinical trials of pneumonia management assess heterogeneous outcomes and measurement instruments

OBJECTIVES

To inform clinical practice guidelines, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the management of pneumonia need to address the outcomes that are most important to patients and health professionals using consistent instruments, to enable results to be compared, contrasted, and combined as appropriate. This systematic review describes the outcomes reported in clinical trials of pneumonia management and the instruments used to measure these outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Based on a prospective protocol, we searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL and clinical trial registries for ongoing or completed clinical trials evaluating pneumonia management in adults in any clinical setting. We grouped reported outcomes thematically and classified them following the COMET Initiative's taxonomy. We describe instruments used for assessing each outcome.

RESULTS

We found 280 eligible RCTs of which 115 (41.1%) enrolled critically ill patients and 165 (58.9%) predominantly noncritically ill patients. We identified 43 distinct outcomes and 108 measurement instruments, excluding nonvalidated scores and questionnaires. Almost all trials reported clinical/physiological outcomes (97.5%). Safety (63.2%), mortality (56.4%), resource use (48.6%) and life impact (11.8%) outcomes were less frequently addressed. The most frequently reported outcomes were treatment success (60.7%), mortality (56.4%) and adverse events (41.1%). There was significant variation in the selection of measurement instruments, with approximately two-thirds used in less than 10 of the 280 RCTs. None of the patient-reported outcomes were used in 10 or more RCTs.

CONCLUSION

This review reveals significant variation in outcomes and measurement instruments reported in clinical trials of pneumonia management. Outcomes that are important to patients and health professionals are often omitted. Our findings support the need for a rigorous core outcome set, such as that being developed by the European Respiratory Society.

The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) implementation roadmap

BACKGROUND

Core outcome sets (COS) are consensus-driven sets of minimum outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials. COS aim to reduce heterogeneity in outcome measurement and reporting, and selective outcome reporting. Implementing COS into clinical trials is challenging. Guidance to improve COS uptake in dermatology is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To develop a structured practical guide to COS implementation.

METHODS

Members of the Harmonising Outcome Measurement for Eczema (HOME) executive committee developed an expert opinion-based roadmap founded on a combination of a review of the COS implementation literature, the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative resources, input from HOME members and experience in COS development and clinical trials.

RESULTS

The data review and input from HOME members was synthesized into themes, which guided roadmap development: (a) barriers and facilitators to COS uptake based on stakeholder awareness/engagement and COS features; and (b) key implementation science principles (assessment-driven, data-centred, priority-based and context-sensitive). The HOME implementation roadmap follows three stages. Firstly, the COS uptake scope and goals need to be defined. Secondly, during COS development, preparation for future implementation is supported by establishing the COS as a credible evidence-informed consensus by applying robust COS development methodology, engaging multiple stakeholders, fostering sustained and global engagement, emphasizing COS ease of use and universal applicability, and providing recommendations on COS use. Thirdly, incorporating completed COS into primary (trials) and secondary (reviews) research is an iterative process starting with mapping COS uptake and stakeholders' attitudes, followed by designing and carrying out targeted implementation projects. Main themes for implementation projects identified at HOME are stakeholder awareness/engagement; universal applicability for different populations; and improving ease-of-use by reducing administrative and study burden. Formal implementation frameworks can be used to identify implementation barriers/facilitators and to design implementation strategies. The effect of these strategies on uptake should be evaluated and implementation plans adjusted accordingly.

CONCLUSIONS

COS can improve the quality and applicability of research and, so, clinical practice but can only succeed if used and reported consistently. The HOME implementation roadmap is an extension of the original HOME roadmap for COS development and provides a pragmatic framework to develop COS implementation strategies.

Implementation of the HOME core outcome set for clinical trials of atopic eczema-barriers and opportunities: the HOME IX meeting report

The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative established a core outcome set (COS) for atopic eczema (AE) clinical trials in 2019. This set encompasses four core outcome domains and corresponding measurement instruments: clinical signs (EASI), patient-reported symptoms (POEM and NRS 11 point for worst itch over the last 24 h), quality of life (DLQI/CDLQI/IDQoLI), and long-term control (Recap or ADCT). Following its roadmap, the HOME initiative is now focused on supporting implementation of the COS. To identify barriers and facilitators to implementation of the COS, and to guide the effort to promote COS uptake, a virtual consensus meeting was held over 2 days (September 25-26, 2021) attended by 55 participants (26 healthcare professionals, 16 methodologists, 5 patients, 4 industry representatives, and 4 students). Implementation themes were identified by a pre-meeting survey distributed to HOME members, presentations, and whole-group discussion. Participants were divided into five multi-professional small groups which ranked their top 3 most important themes, followed by whole-group discussion and anonymous consensus voting (consensus criteria: < 30% disagreement). Three most important implementation themes were identified and agreed upon: (1) awareness and stakeholder engagement, (2) universal applicability of the COS, and (3) ensuring minimum administrative burden. Working groups to address these issues are now a priority for the HOME initiative. The results from this meeting will inform the development of a HOME Implementation Roadmap in an effort to support other COS groups planning for effective implementation of their core sets.

Current trends, barriers, and facilitators of use of core outcome sets in Cochrane systematic reviews: Protocol

Background: Core outcome sets (COS) represent agreed-upon minimum outcomes that should be reported in all studies in a given topic area. Cochrane reviews are considered among the most rigorously conducted systematic reviews (SRs). In 2019, seven of the first 100 published Cochrane SRs (7%) cited a COS in relation to choosing outcomes. A relevant COS existed but was not mentioned (or cited) for 27 of the remaining 93 SRs (29%). Among Cochrane Review Group editors surveyed in 2019, 86% felt that COS should definitely/possibly be used in Cochrane SRs. As of September 2019, the Cochrane Handbook recommends that SR teams consult resources that host relevant COS when choosing outcomes for the SR. Objectives: (1) Examine the extent to which authors are currently considering COS to inform outcome choice in Cochrane protocols and completed SRs. (2) Understand author barriers and facilitators of using COS in Cochrane protocols and completed SRs. Methods: We will examine the extent to which all Cochrane SRs published in the last 3 months of 2022 and all Cochrane protocols published in 2022: (a) cited a COS, (b) searched for COS, and (c) reported outcome inconsistency among included studies and/or noted the need for COS. One investigator will extract information from SRs and protocols; a second extractor will verify all information, discussing discrepancies to achieve consensus. Using Jisc Online Surveys ®, we will conduct an online anonymous survey of authors of all the included completed SRs and protocols to assess author awareness of COS and identify barriers and facilitators of using COS to inform outcome choice. Discussion: This study will provide key information regarding uptake of COS by Cochrane SR authors and the barriers and facilitators that they experience. Our findings will inform approaches to increasing awareness and uptake of COS in future SRs, both with and beyond Cochrane.

Uptake of the core outcome set on polycystic ovary syndrome before and after its publication

STUDY QUESTION

Does the core outcome set (COS) on polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) impact the selection of research outcomes?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Following the publication of the COS on PCOS, an increasing number of trials are reporting both the generic domain and body mass index; however, the uptake of this COS has not been as extensive as expected.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The COS on PCOS included 33 core outcomes in the following seven domains: the generic (3), metabolic (8), reproductive (7), pregnancy (10), psychological (3), oncological (1), and long-term (1). This was done to improve consistency in outcome selection and definition. However, thus far, no studies have investigated the effectiveness of this COS in the above-mentioned tasks.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A methodological study based on the trial registries, including 395 eligible clinical trials registered between 1 January 2018 and 21 September 2022.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

A total of 1258 registered clinical studies on PCOS were retrieved from the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Of those, 395 were selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and divided into two groups based on the publication date of the COS on PCOS (4 February 2020): pre-publication and post-publication. The practical uptake of this COS was explored after data collation, assessment, comparison of the uptake of core outcomes or domains before and after the publication of this COS, and correlation analysis between the domains.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

There were 26 out of 33 core outcomes and five out of seven domains reported in the 395 trials. The highest uptake was observed for the reproductive domain and the reproductive hormonal profile (63.0% and 38.7%, respectively). After the publication of the COS on PCOS, the uptake of the generic domain and body mass index increased from 24.1% to 35.8% (P = 0.011) and 17.8% to 26.5% (P = 0.039), respectively. The total number of reported core outcomes in the generic domain met statistical significance (P = 0.012). Moreover, multivariable analyses still supported the above finding in the generic domain. Correlation analysis showed that most of the domains were positively correlated with each other. However, the pregnancy domain was negatively correlated with the metabolic domain. Reasons responsible for the unsatisfactory uptake may be the absence of specific definitions of core outcomes, as well as the lack of awareness among researchers regarding this COS.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Due to the lack of standardized definition of outcomes, it was difficult to avoid some subjectivity in the process of consistency assessment.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Two years after its publication, there was no substantial improvement in the uptake of the COS on PCOS. This suggests that this COS may require further revision, refinement, and promotion to improve the comparability of PCOS studies.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This work was funded by Beijing Municipal Health Science and Technology Achievements and Appropriate Technology Promotion Project (BHTPP2022069), and the special fund of Beijing Key Clinical Specialty Construction Project. The authors do not have conflicts of interest to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Key outcomes in childbirth: Development of a perinatal core outcome set for management of labor and delivery at or near term

INTRODUCTION

Consistency and relevance of perinatal outcome measures are necessary basics for obstetric research, audit, and clinical counseling. Still, there is an unwarranted variation in reported perinatal outcomes, which impairs research synthesis, validity, and implementation, as well as clinical benchmarking and longitudinal comparisons. The aim of this study was to develop a short-term perinatal (fetal and neonatal) Core Outcome Set to be used in research and quality assurance of management of labor and delivery at or near term.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The methods were guided by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative Handbook. The project was prospectively registered on July 2, 2020 in the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) data base (reference number 1593). A list of potential outcomes was created based on a systematic review of studies evaluating interventions for peripartum management at or near term (≥34 weeks of gestation), including decisions regarding timing and type of onset of labor, intrapartum care, and mode of delivery. The list was entered into a two-round Delphi survey with predefined consensus criteria. Participants (n = 67) included clinicians, researchers, lay persons with experience of childbirth (patient representatives), and other stakeholders. A consensus meeting was held to reach a final agreement.

RESULTS

Response rates were 82.1% (55/67) and 92.7% (51/55) for the first and second Delphi rounds, respectively. In total, 17 outcomes were included in the final core outcome set, reflecting mortality, health or morbidity, including asphyxia, central nervous system status, infection, neonatal resuscitation and admission, breastfeeding and mother-infant interaction, operative delivery due to fetal distress, as well as birthweight and gestational age. Two of these outcomes were suggested by patient representatives.

CONCLUSIONS

The Swedish Perinatal Core Outcome Set (SPeCOS) study involved a broad circle of relevant stakeholders and reached consensus on a minimal set of perinatal outcomes that should be collected and reported in a standardized way in all future studies on management of labor and delivery at or near term, regardless of the specific population or condition studied. This could improve obstetric research, evidence synthesis, uptake, implementation, and adherence, as well as clinical practice, audit, and comparisons in childbirth care.

Comparison of published core outcome sets with outcomes recommended in regulatory guidance from the US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency: cross sectional analysis

Objective

To compare the outcomes in published core outcome sets with the outcomes recommended in corresponding guidance documents from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), matched by health condition.

Design

Cross sectional analysis.

Setting

US and Europe.

Population

Sample of core outcome sets related to drugs, devices, and gene therapy that involved patients in the consensus process, published between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2019; and corresponding EMA and FDA guidance documents.

Main outcome measures

The extent of matches between outcomes included within core outcome sets and those recommended in corresponding EMA and FDA guidance documents were assessed. Matches were considered to be general (ie, non-specific) or specific (ie, exact). General matches were assessed to determine whether the core outcome set or guidance document outcome was narrower.

Results

Relevant guidance documents were found for for 38 (39%) of 98 eligible published core outcome sets. Among outcomes in core outcome sets, medians of 70% (interquartile range 48-86%) and 52% (33-77%) were matches with outcomes recommended in EMA and FDA documents, respectively. Medians of 46% (27-68%) and 26% (18-46%) were specific matches with outcomes in EMA and FDA documents, respectively. When outcomes were generally matched, the outcomes from core outcome sets were more frequently narrower than the regulatory outcomes (83% and 75% for EMA and FDA, respectively).

Conclusion

Greater adoption of, and reference to, core outcome sets in regulatory guidance documents can encourage clinical trialists, especially those in industry, to measure and report consistent and agreed outcomes and improve the quality of guidance. Given the overlap between outcomes in core outcome sets and regulatory guidance, and given that most core outcome sets now involve patients in the consensus process, these sets could serve as a useful resource for regulators when recommending outcomes for studies evaluating regulated products. Developers are encouraged to appraise recommended outcomes in salient regulatory documents when planning a core outcome set.

Developing a core outcome set for hospital deprescribing trials for older people under the care of a geriatrician

BACKGROUND

Half of older people are prescribed unnecessary/inappropriate medications that are not routinely deprescribed in hospital hence there is a need for deprescribing trials. We aimed to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for deprescribing trials for older people under the care of a geriatrician during hospital admission.

METHODS

We developed a list of potentially relevant outcomes from the literature. Using a two-round Delphi survey of stakeholder groups representing older people and carers, hospital clinicians, hospital managers, and ageing/deprescribing researchers, each outcome was scored according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation, followed by two consensus workshops to finalise the COS.

RESULTS

Two hundred people completed Round 1 and 114 completed Round 2. Representing all stakeholder groups, 10 people participated in workshop 1 and 10 in workshop 2. Six outcomes were identified as most important, feasible and acceptable to collect in a trial: number of prescribed medicines stopped; number of prescribed medicines with dosage reduced; quality of life; mortality; adverse drug events and number of hospital stays. Three other outcomes were identified as important, but currently too burdensome to collect: number of potentially inappropriate medicines prescribed; burden from medication routine; and medication-related admissions to hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

A COS represents the minimum outcomes that should be collected and reported. Whilst uncommon practice for COS development, the value of considering outcome collection feasibility is demonstrated by the removal of three potential outcomes that, if included, may have compromised COS uptake due to challenges with collecting the data.

Developing a core outcome set for physical activity interventions in primary schools: a modified-Delphi study

OBJECTIVES

To develop a core outcome set (COS) for physical activity interventions in primary schools.

DESIGN

Modified-Delphi study.

SETTING

The UK and international.

PARTICIPANTS

104 participants from four stakeholder groups (educators, public health professionals, health researchers, parents); 16 children (aged 8-9 years) from 1 London primary school.

INTERVENTIONS

Physical activity interventions.

METHODS

Four-stage process: (1) outcomes extracted from relevant studies identified from an umbrella review and a focus group; (2) list of outcomes produced and domains established; (3) stakeholders completed a two-round Delphi survey by rating (Round 1) and re-rating (Round 2) each outcome on a nine-point Likert Scale from 'not important' to 'critical': a>70% participant threshold identified the outcomes rated 'critical' to measure, and outcomes important to children were identified through a workshop; and (4) a stakeholder meeting to achieve consensus of the outcomes to include in the COS.

RESULTS

In total, 74 studies were extracted from 53 reviews. A list of 50 outcomes was produced and three domains were established: 'physical activity and health' (16 outcomes), 'social and emotional health' (22 outcomes) and 'educational performance' (12 outcomes). 104 participants completed survey Round 1; 65 participants completed both rounds. In total, 13 outcomes met the threshold; children identified 8 outcomes. Fourteen outcomes achieved consensus to produce the COS: five outcomes for physical activity and health (diet (varied and balanced), energy, fitness, intensity of physical activity, sleep (number of hours)); seven outcomes for social and emotional health (anxiety, depression, enjoyment, happiness, self-esteem, stress, well-being); and two outcomes for educational performance (concentration, focus).

CONCLUSIONS

We have developed the first COS for physical activity interventions in primary schools in consultation with those interested in the development and application of an agreed standardised set of outcomes. Future studies including these outcomes will reduce heterogeneity across studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative registration number 1322; Results.

Factors associated with reporting of the Prevention of Falls Network Europe (ProFaNE) core outcome set domains in randomized trials on falls in older people: a citation analysis and correlational study

Background

Core outcome sets are advocated as a means to standardize outcome reporting across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and reduce selective outcome reporting. In 2005, the Prevention of Falls Network Europe (ProFaNE) published a core outcome set identifying five domains that should be measured and reported, at a minimum, in RCTs or meta-analysis on falls in older people. As reporting of all five domains of the ProFaNE core outcome set has been minimal, we set out to investigate factors associated with reporting of the ProFaNE core outcome set domains in a purposeful sample of RCTs on falls in older people.

Methods

We conducted a systematic citation analysis to identify all reports of RCTs focused on falls in older people that cited the ProFaNE core outcome set between October 2005 and July 2021. We abstracted author-level, study-level, and manuscript-level data and whether each domain of the ProFaNE core outcome set was reported. We used penalized LASSO regression to identify factors associated with the mean percentage of ProFaNE core outcome set domains reported.

Results

We identified 85 eligible reports of RCTs. Articles were published between 2007 and 2021, described 75 unique RCTs, and were authored by 76 unique corresponding authors. The percentage of ProFaNE core outcome set domains reported ranged from 0 to 100%, with a median of 40% and mean (standard deviation, SD) of 52.2% (25.1). RCTs funded by a non-industry source reported a higher mean percentage of domains than RCTs without a non-industry funding source (estimated mean difference = 17.5%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8–33.2). RCTs examining exercise (15.4%; 95% CI 1.9–28.9) or multi-component/factorial (17.4%; 95% CI 4.7–30.1) interventions each reported a higher mean percentage of domains than RCTs examining other intervention types.

Conclusions

We found that RCTs funded by at least one non-industry source, examining exercise or multi-component/factorial interventions, reported the highest percentages of ProFaNE core outcome set domains. Findings may help inform strategies to increase the impact of the ProFaNE core outcome set. Ultimately, this may lead to enhanced knowledge of the effectiveness and safety of interventions to prevent and/or manage falls in older people.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06642-w.

Core outcomes were rarely reported overall in systematic reviews on acupuncture for osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVE

To identify a comprehensive list of outcomes and explore the reporting rate of core outcome sets (COS) and related factors in systematic reviews (SRs) of acupuncture for osteoarthritis (OA).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Databases were searched for the relative SRs. Descriptive statistics were calculated as frequencies and percentages. Binary logistic regression was used to explore the factors affecting the reporting rate of COS.

RESULTS

We included 59 SRs. Outcome measures reported in the SRs were classified into 11 domains and 67 unique outcomes. No SR completely reported COS. In COS released in 2016, 75% of outcomes (6/8) were only reported by ⩽5% SRs. In COS released in 2019, the reporting rate was very low (from 0% to 17%) for 73.3% of outcomes (11/15). SRs published in the most recent 5 years had a significantly greater possibility of reporting COS (odds ratio (OR) = 4.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.33 to 16.88, p = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

Core outcomes were rarely reported in systematic reviews of acupuncture for OA, with considerable heterogeneity in the use of outcomes. The publication of COS in the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) database may help promote the reporting of COS. We encourage systematic reviewers to use relevant COS.

International perspectives on outcome measurement in pulmonary rehabilitation of people with COPD: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

There is high heterogeneity of outcomes and measures reported in the literature for pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), which might limit benchmarking and an effective evidence synthesis. A core outcome set (COS) can minimise this problem. It is however unclear which outcomes and measures are most important and suitable for different stakeholders.

METHODS

A multicentre qualitative study with one-to-one semi-structured interviews with people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), healthcare professionals (HCPs), researchers and policy makers was conducted. Manifest content analysis was conducted to explore the frequency of outcomes viewed as crucial or not. Thematic analysis was performed to better understand stakeholders' views.

RESULTS

37 participants (17 people with COPD and 20 HCPs/researchers/policy makers) from 14 countries and 4 continents were included. Participants expressed that i) core outcomes need to be meaningful to people with COPD and show PR benefits; ii) there should be comprehensive assessment and similar outcomes across settings; iii) a balance between optimal and practical measures is needed; iv) the COS is needed to benchmark PR and advance knowledge; and v) reluctance to change outcomes/measures used by HCPs and using the COS as a maximum set of outcomes might be the pitfalls. 28 outcomes were identified as crucial, and 12 as not crucial.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provided important insights into outcome measurement in PR from the perspectives of different key international stakeholders and a list of outcomes that will inform a future consensus study.

Review finds core outcome set uptake in new studies and systematic reviews needs improvement

OBJECTIVE

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 health care.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

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.

RESULTS

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 who 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. Overlap between COS and outcomes in regulatory documents and health technology assessments is good. An increasing number and variety of organisations are recommending COS be considered.

CONCLUSION

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.

Patient-centered outcomes for gastrointestinal cancer care: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Following a cancer diagnosis, patients and their caregivers face crucial decisions regarding goals of care and treatment, which have consequences that can persist throughout their cancer journey. To foster informed and value-driven treatment choices, evidence-based information on outcomes relevant to patients is needed. Traditionally, clinical studies have largely focused on a few concrete and easily measurable outcomes such as survival, disease progression and immediate treatment toxicities. These outcomes do not capture other important factors that patients consider when making treatment decisions. Patient-centred outcomes (PCOs) reflect the patients' individual values, preferences, needs and circumstances that are essential to directing meaningful and informed healthcare discussions. Often, however, these outcomes are not included in research protocols in a standardised and practical fashion. This scoping review will summarise the existing literature on PCOs in gastrointestinal (GI) cancer care as well as the tools used to assess these outcomes. A comprehensive list of these PCOs will be generated for future efforts to develop a core outcome set.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This scoping review will follow Arksey and O'Malley's expanded framework for scoping reviews. We will systematically search Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and APA PsycINFO databases for studies examining PCOs in the context of GI cancer. We will include studies published in or after the year 2000 up to the date of the final searches, with no language restrictions. Studies involving adult patients with GI cancers and discussion of any PCOs will be included. Opinion pieces, protocols, case reports and abstracts will be excluded. Two authors will independently perform two rounds of screening to select studies for inclusion. The data from full texts will be extracted, charted and summarised both quantitatively and qualitatively.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethics approval is required for this scoping review. Results will be disseminated through scientific publication and presentation at relevant conferences.

Substantial heterogeneity found in reporting mortality in Cochrane Systematic Reviews and Core Outcome Sets in COMET Database

OBJECTIVE

To explore mortality outcome usage in Cochrane systematic reviews and Core Outcome Sets for research.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Cochrane PICO searches identified Cochrane reviews (published January 2015-March 2021) including mortality outcomes. These outcomes were categorised according to terminology used: all-cause mortality, cause-specific mortality, infant mortality, maternal mortality, survival. Mortality outcomes in Core Outcome Sets (published until 2019 on the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database) were also extracted and categorised.

RESULTS

In total, 2454 mortality outcomes were reported in 49% (1978/3999) of Cochrane reviews published January 2015-March 2021: all-cause (37%), infant (23%), maternal (11%), survival (10%), cause-specific (9%). Due to reviews not specifying mortality outcome type or including studies reporting no data, 11% (273/2208) remained uncategorised. Infant mortality and maternal mortality were frequently used together in reviews reporting two mortality outcomes. In total, 226 mortality outcomes were reported in 37% (165/449) of Core Outcome Sets: all-cause (48%), survival (27%), cause-specific (12%), infant (9%), maternal (4%). Mortality measurement timing varied.

CONCLUSION

Mortality outcome usage varies in Cochrane reviews and Core Outcome Sets. This is problematic for evidence-based decision-making. Greater standardization is necessary for effective utilization of health research.

Usefulness of Cochrane Reviews in Clinical Guideline Development-A Survey of 585 Recommendations

The Danish Health Authority develops clinical practice guidelines to support clinical decision-making based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system and prioritizes using Cochrane reviews. The objective of this study was to explore the usefulness of Cochrane reviews as a source of evidence in the development of clinical recommendations. Evidence-based recommendations in guidelines published by the Danish Health Authority between 2014 and 2021 were reviewed. For each recommendation, it was noted if and how Cochrane reviews were utilized. In total, 374 evidence-based recommendations and 211 expert consensus recommendations were published between 2014 and 2021. Of the 374 evidence-based recommendations, 106 included evidence from Cochrane reviews. In 28 recommendations, all critical and important outcomes included evidence from Cochrane reviews. In 36 recommendations, a minimum of all critical outcomes included evidence from Cochrane reviews, but not all important outcomes. In 33 recommendations, some but not all critical outcomes included evidence from Cochrane reviews. Finally, in nine recommendations, some of the important outcomes included evidence from Cochrane reviews. In almost one-third of the evidence-based recommendations, Cochrane reviews were used to inform clinical recommendations. This evaluation should inform future evaluations of Cochrane review uptake in clinical practice guidelines concerning outcomes important for clinical decision-making.

In-depth qualitative interviews identified barriers and facilitators that influenced chief investigators' use of core outcome sets in randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate barriers and facilitators to core outcome set (COS) uptake in randomised controlled trials to inform the first steps in developing interventions to improve the uptake of COS.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Semi-structured qualitative interviews with a purposive sample of UK chief investigators were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. Where appropriate, barriers and facilitators were mapped to components of behaviour informed by the COM-B model of behaviour.

RESULTS

Thirteen chief investigators were interviewed. Facilitators to uptake included: the behaviour of investigators, for example, their awareness and understanding of COS; and the wider research system, for example, recommendations to use COS from funders and journals. Barriers to uptake included: the perceived characteristics of COS, for example, increasing patient burden and recommendations becoming outdated; and the COS development process, for example, not including all specialties who will use the COS.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the barriers and facilitators identified, recommendations to improve COS uptake include ensuring engagement with the research community who will use the COS, involving patients in the development of COS and ensuring COS remain up to date.

Use of core outcome sets was low in clinical trials published in major medical journals

OBJECTIVES

To examine current practices in late-phase trials published in major medical journals and examine trialists' views about core outcome set (COS) use.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A sequential multi-methods study was conducted. We examined late-phase trials published between October 2019 and March 2020 in JAMA, NEJM, The Lancet, BMJ, and Annals of Internal Medicine. The COMET database was searched for COS potentially relevant to trials not reporting using a COS; overlap of trial and COS outcomes was examined. An online survey examined awareness of, and decisions to search for and use a COS.

RESULTS

Ninety-five trials were examined; 93 (98%) did not report using a COS. Relevant COS were identified for 31 trials (33%). Core outcomes were measured in 9 (23%) studies; all trials measured at least one core outcome. Thirty-one trialists (33%) completed our survey. The most common barrier to COS use was trialist's own outcome preferences and choice (68%). The most common perceived facilitator was awareness and knowledge about COS (90%).

CONCLUSION

COS use in this cohort of trials was low, even when relevant COS were available. Increased use of COS in clinical trials can improve evaluation of intervention effects and evidence synthesis and reduce research waste.

More than half of systematic reviews have relevant core outcome sets

OBJECTIVES

Using recent systematic reviews (SRs), our objectives were to: (1) develop a framework to assess whether a given COS is relevant to the scope of a SR; (2) examine the proportion of SRs for which relevant COS exist; and (3) for SRs for which COS exist, examine the extent to which outcomes in the COS and outcomes in the SR match.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We included a sample of SRs published by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center Program between January 1, 2018 and October 12, 2020. We searched for potentially relevant COS from the Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database. We assessed the matching between outcomes recommended by COS and those included in corresponding SRs. When outcomes were matched, we considered matches to be specific (i.e., exact) or general (i.e., non-specific).

RESULTS

Sixty-seven SRs met criteria. We found relevant COS for 36 of 67 SRs (54%). Our framework for comparing the scope of a SR and a COS describes 16 scenarios arising when the breadth of the populations and the interventions are considered. The framework guides systematic reviewers to determine whether a COS is very likely to be relevant, may be relevant, or unlikely to be relevant. Sixty-two percent of outcomes in COS (interquartile range, 40% - 80%) were either specific or general matches to outcomes in SRs.

CONCLUSION

We found a COS with relevant scope for more than half of the SRs in our sample, with almost two-thirds of the recommended core outcomes matched to outcomes chosen for the SRs. Consideration of COS appears relevant for SR planning and our framework for assessing relevance of a given COS may help with this process.

Selecting Review Outcomes for Systematic Reviews of Public Health Interventions

For systematic reviews to have an impact on public health, they must report outcomes that are important for decision-making. Systematic reviews of public health interventions, however, have a range of potential end users, and identifying and prioritizing the most important and relevant outcomes represents a considerable challenge.In this commentary, we describe potentially useful approaches that systematic review teams can use to identify review outcomes to best inform public health decision-making. Specifically, we discuss the importance of stakeholder engagement, the use of logic models, consideration of core outcome sets, reviews of the literature on end users' needs and preferences, and the use of decision-making frameworks in the selection and prioritization of outcomes included in reviews.The selection of review outcomes is a critical step in the production of public health reviews that are relevant to those who use them. Utilizing the suggested strategies may help the review teams better achieve this.

Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 6th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research

Background

An annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets (COS) for research ensures that the COMET database is up-to-date. The aims of this study were to: (i) identify COS that were published or indexed in 2019 and to describe the methodological approaches used in these studies; (ii) investigate whether children have been included as participants in published COS development studies, and which methods have been used to facilitate their participation; iii) update a previous exercise to identify COS relevant to the most burdensome global diseases and injuries.

Methods

MEDLINE and SCOPUS were searched to identify studies published or indexed between (and inclusive of) January 2019 and December 2019. Automated screening methods were used to rank the citations in order of relevance; the top 25% in ranked priority order were screened for eligibility. COS were assessed against each of the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD). A search of the COMET database was undertaken to identify COS relevant to the 25 leading causes of disease burden.

Results

Thirty-three studies, describing the development of 37 COS, were included in this update. These studies have been added to the COMET database, which now contains 370 published (1981–2019) COS studies for clinical research. Six (18%) of the 33 studies in this update were deemed to have met all of the minimum standards for COS development (range = 4 to 12 criteria, median = 9 criteria). Of the 370 COS studies published to date, 82 COS have been developed for paediatric health conditions and children would have been eligible to participate in 68/82 of these studies. Eleven of these 68 (16%) COS studies have included children as participants within the development process, most commonly through participation in Delphi surveys. Relevant COS were identified for 22/25 leading causes of global disease burden.

Conclusion

There has been a demonstrated increase in COS developed for both research and routine practice, and consistently high inclusion of patient participants. COS developed for paediatric conditions need to further incorporate the perspectives of children, alongside parents and other adults, and adopt research methods fit for this purpose. COS developers should consider the gaps identified in this update as priorities for COS development.