Driving up the Quality and Relevance of Research Through the Use of Agreed Core Outcomes

Abstract

Driving up the quality and relevance of research through the use of agreed core outcomes There is a growing recognition that insufficient attention has been paid to the selection of the outcomes to measure in clinical trials and clinical audit. Outcomes need to be relevant to patients, clinicians, purchasers and policy-makers if the findings of research are to influence practice and future research. In addition, standardization of outcomes is needed to combine data from different studies to allow evidence synthesis and to compare data sets. Inconsistent choice of outcome measures means that many meta-analyses are unable to include data from all the relevant studies. For example, the five most accessed Cochrane reviews in 2009, together with the top cited review in that year, all described inconsistencies in the outcomes reported in eligible trials. 1 A call for the standardization of outcomes is a regular conclusion of systematic reviews. Furthermore, outcome reporting bias, defined as the bias arising from selecting outcomes for publication based on the results, affects many randomized trials 2 and 'is an under-recognized problem that affects the conclusions in a substantial proportion of Cochrane reviews'. 3 That bias is likely to affect systematic reviews more widely as well as affecting individual studies when considered on their own. Similar problems occur with clinical audit, highlighting the importance of establishing national audits that use and report the same outcomes for all participants. All these issues could be addressed with the development and application of agreed standardized sets of outcomes that have been termed 'core outcome sets'. These should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all relevant clinical trials and national clinical audits for a specific condition. 4 Adopting a core outcome set does not imply that a particular study, review or audit should be restricted to only those outcomes. Rather, the expectation is that, as a minimum, core outcomes will always be collected and reported to allow the results of trials to be compared, contrasted and combined as appropriate. The adoption of core outcomes would have implications across all areas of research in health and health care, reduce heterogeneity between trials, and lead to research that is more likely to have measured relevant outcomes. Importantly, they would enhance the value of evidence synthesis by reducing the risk of outcome reporting bias and ensuring that all trials contribute usable information. In addition, they will increase the efficiency and value of research. An important rationale for core outcome sets is that outcomes currently reported for trials do not tinue, surely cannot be justified.

Discordances originated by multiple meta-analyses on interventions for myocardial infarction: a systematic review

“…Our study reinforces the importance of projects such as PROSPERO for the registration of meta-analysis protocols [25] and COMET, which aims to standardize the use of predefined outcomes in each research field that fulfill the requirements of relevance and usability [26]. Furthermore, patient-reported outcomes are seldom used in cardiology and should be considered because problems may exist not only with composite outcomes, but also with the balance between benefits and harms [27].…”

What are the Benefits and Harms of Ureteroscopy Compared with Shock-wave Lithotripsy in the Treatment of Upper Ureteral Stones? A Systematic Review

“…In order to decrease heterogeneity in future studies, consensus is needed regarding the definition and timing of stone free, including the imaging modality used for assessing SFR. Moreover, a core outcome set is needed to ensure that the outcomes, which are of utmost importance for decision making for all stakeholders including patients, are reported, defined, and measured consistently [70][71][72]. This will ensure that future trials are efficient and future evidence syntheses are straightforward to perform, communicate, and are ultimately useful for decision making by patients, clinicians, and health care policy makers and funders.…”

Evidence-based clinical practice: Overview of threats to the validity of evidence and how to minimise them

“…If the findings of pragmatic RCTs are to benefit health-care decision-making, then careful selection of appropriate outcomes is crucial to the design of RCTs. These issues could be addressed with the development and application of agreed sets of outcomes, known as core outcome sets 58 . The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative (www.comet-initiative.…”