Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and Identification of Gaps

Background The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative promotes the development and application of core outcome sets (COS), including relevant studies in an online database. In order to keep the database current, an annual search of the literature is undertaken. This study aimed to update a previous systematic review, in order to identify any further studies where a COS has been developed. Furthermore, no prioritization for COS development has previously been undertaken, therefore this study also aimed to identify COS relevant to the world’s most prevalent health conditions. Methods The methods used in this updated review followed the same approach used in the original review and the previous update. A survey was also sent to the corresponding authors of COS identified for inclusion in this review, to ascertain what lessons they had learnt from developing their COS. Additionally, the COMET database was searched to identify COS that might be relevant to the conditions with the highest global prevalence. Results Twenty-five reports relating to 22 new studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. Further improvements were identified in relation to the description of the scope of the COS, use of the Delphi technique, and the inclusion of patient participants within the development process. Additionally, 33 published and ongoing COS were identified for 13 of the world’s most prevalent conditions. Conclusion The development of a reporting guideline and minimum standards should contribute towards future improvements in development and reporting of COS. This study has also described a first approach to identifying gaps in existing COS, and to priority setting in this area. Important gaps have been identified, on the basis of global burden of disease, and the development and application of COS in these areas should be considered a priority.

[1]  Jane M Blazeby,et al.  ORAL PRESENTATIONS , 1993, European Surgical Research.

[2]  Jane M Blazeby,et al.  Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider , 2012, Trials.

[3]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and User Survey , 2016, PloS one.

[4]  Paula R. Williamson,et al.  Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: A Systematic Review , 2014, PloS one.

[5]  Dan J Stein,et al.  Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 301 acute and chronic diseases and injuries in 188 countries, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 , 2015, The Lancet.

[6]  David Moher,et al.  Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research , 2014, The Lancet.

[7]  S. Greenfield,et al.  Comparative Effectiveness Research: A Report From the Institute of Medicine , 2009, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[8]  V. Braun,et al.  Using thematic analysis in psychology , 2006 .

[9]  Alan D. Lopez,et al.  The Global Burden of Disease Study , 2003 .

[10]  D. Altman,et al.  Improving the relevance and consistency of outcomes in comparative effectiveness research. , 2016, Journal of comparative effectiveness research.

[11]  Elizabeth Gargon,et al.  Collating the knowledge base for core outcome set development: developing and appraising the search strategy for a systematic review , 2015, BMC Medical Research Methodology.