4.6 Article

More than half of systematic reviews have relevant core outcome sets

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 136, Issue -, Pages 168-179

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.04.019

Keywords

Core outcome sets; Outcomes; Systematic reviews; Matching; Scope; Relevance

Funding

  1. Center for Evidence Synthesis in Health at the Brown University School of Public Health
  2. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) [NF-SI_0513-10025]
  3. Medical Research Council (MRC) Trials Methodology Research Partnership [MR/S014357/1]
  4. MRC [MR/S014357/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to assess the relevance of Core Outcome Sets (COS) in systematic reviews (SRs), with most SRs having relevant COS and a majority of outcomes matching between COS and SRs. Consideration of COS appears useful for SR planning.
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 Evidencebased 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. (c) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ )

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available