Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: An updated systematic review and involvement of low and middle income countries

Background Core outcome sets (COS) comprise a minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all trials for a specific health condition. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative maintains an up to date, publicly accessible online database of published and ongoing COS. An annual systematic review update is an important part of this process. Methods This review employed the same, multifaceted approach that was used in the original review and the previous two updates. This approach has identified studies that sought to determine which outcomes/domains to measure in clinical trials of a specific condition. This update includes an analysis of the inclusion of participants from low and middle income countries (LMICs) as identified by the OECD, in these COS. Results Eighteen publications, relating to 15 new studies describing the development of 15 COS, were eligible for inclusion in the review. Results show an increase in the use of mixed methods, including Delphi surveys. Clinical experts remain the most common stakeholder group involved. Overall, only 16% of the 259 COS studies published up to the end of 2016 have included participants from LMICs. Conclusion This review highlights opportunities for greater public participation in COS development and the involvement of stakeholders from a wider range of geographical settings, in particular LMICs.

[1]  Athol U. Wells,et al.  Connective Tissue Disease-associated Interstitial Lung Diseases (CTD-ILD) — Report from OMERACT CTD-ILD Working Group , 2015, The Journal of Rheumatology.

[2]  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.

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

[4]  Theresa Schilhab,et al.  Issues to Consider , 2017 .

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

[6]  B. Shea,et al.  International patient and physician consensus on a psoriatic arthritis core outcome set for clinical trials , 2016, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[7]  Published Online Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste , 2014 .

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

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

[10]  P. Durieux,et al.  Development of a Core Set of Outcomes for Randomized Controlled Trials with Multiple Outcomes – Example of Pulp Treatments of Primary Teeth for Extensive Decay in Children , 2013, PloS one.

[11]  M. Koopman,et al.  Developing a core set of patient-reported outcomes in pancreatic cancer: A Delphi survey. , 2015, European Journal of Cancer.

[12]  A. Kelso,et al.  Development of a core outcome set for epilepsy in pregnancy (E‐CORE): a national multi‐stakeholder modified Delphi consensus study , 2017, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[13]  Sean Mackey,et al.  Report of the NIH Task Force on Research Standards for Chronic Low Back Pain. , 2014, The spine journal.

[14]  P. Tugwell,et al.  Outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis randomised trials over the last 50 years , 2013, Trials.

[15]  G. Andersson,et al.  Report of the NIH Task Force on research standards for chronic low back pain. , 2014, The journal of pain : official journal of the American Pain Society.

[16]  M. Sydes,et al.  Global health trials methodological research agenda: results from a priority setting exercise , 2018, Trials.

[17]  M. Coolsen,et al.  Development of a Composite Endpoint for Randomized Controlled Trials in Pancreaticoduodenectomy , 2013, World Journal of Surgery.

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

[19]  Paula R. Williamson,et al.  Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and Identification of Gaps , 2016, PloS one.

[20]  P. Tugwell,et al.  Clinicians’ perspective on key domains in ANCA-associated vasculitis: a Delphi exercise , 2017, Scandinavian journal of rheumatology.

[21]  A. Shaw,et al.  Clinical Trial Endpoints in Acute Kidney Injury , 2014, Nephron Clinical Practice.

[22]  Angus G K McNair,et al.  The COMET Handbook: version 1.0 , 2017, Trials.

[23]  E. Rogozińska,et al.  Development of maternal and neonatal composite outcomes for trials evaluating management of late-onset pre-eclampsia , 2014, Hypertension in Pregnancy.

[24]  P. Glasziou,et al.  Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. , 2009, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[25]  A. D'Amico,et al.  Eligibility and outcomes reporting guidelines for clinical trials for patients in the state of a rising prostate-specific antigen: recommendations from the Prostate-Specific Antigen Working Group. , 2004, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[26]  L. Poston,et al.  Strategy for Standardization of Preeclampsia Research Study Design , 2014, Hypertension.