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

Author(s):  
Eve Tomlinson ◽  
Jordi Pardo Pardo ◽  
Susanna Dodd ◽  
Torunn Sivesind ◽  
Mindy D. Szeto ◽  
...  
2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike Clarke ◽  
Paula R. Williamson

2016 ◽  
Vol 70 ◽  
pp. 164-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian J. Saldanha ◽  
Tianjing Li ◽  
Cui Yang ◽  
Cesar Ugarte-Gil ◽  
George W. Rutherford ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. e036562
Author(s):  
Paula R Williamson ◽  
Ricardo de Ávila Oliveira ◽  
Mike Clarke ◽  
Sarah L Gorst ◽  
Karen Hughes ◽  
...  

ObjectivesA core outcome set (COS) is an agreed standardised minimum collection of outcomes that should be measured and reported in research in a specific area of health. Cochrane systematic reviews (‘reviews’) are rigorous reviews on health-related topics conducted under the auspices of Cochrane. This study examines the use of existing COS to inform the choice of outcomes in Cochrane systematic reviews (‘reviews’) and investigates the views of the coordinating editors of Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) on this topic.MethodsA cohort of 100 recently published or updated Cochrane reviews were assessed for reference to a COS being used to inform the choice of outcomes for the review. Existing COS, published 2 or more years before the review publication, were then identified to assess how often a reviewer could have used a relevant COS if it was available. We asked 52 CRG coordinating editors about their involvement in COS development, how outcomes are selected for reviews in their CRG and their views of the advantages and challenges surrounding the standardisation of outcomes within their CRG.ResultsIn the cohort of reviews from 2019, 40% (40/100) of reviewers noted problems due to outcome inconsistency across the included studies. In 7% (7/100) of reviews, a COS was referenced in relation to the choice of outcomes for the review. Relevant existing COS could be considered for a review update in 35% of the others (33/93). Most editors who responded (31/36, 86%) thought that COS should definitely or possibly be used to inform the choice of outcomes in a review.ConclusionsSystematic reviewers are continuing to note outcome heterogeneity but are starting to use COS to inform their reviews. There is potential for greater uptake of COS in Cochrane reviews.


Author(s):  
Ian J. Saldanha ◽  
Susanna Dodd ◽  
Sarah L. Gorst ◽  
Paula R. Williamson

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-237
Author(s):  
Jane Fletcher ◽  
Sheldon C. Cooper ◽  
Amelia Swift

The measurement of outcomes is key in evaluating healthcare or research interventions in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). In patient-centred care, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are central to this evaluation. In this review, we provide an overview of validated, adult disease-specific PROMs developed for use in IBD. Our aim is to assist clinicians and researchers in selection of PROMs to measure outcomes in their patient cohort. The Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments database of systematic reviews was the primary resource used to identify PROMs used in IBD. Search terms were ‘Crohn’s disease’, ‘ulcerative colitis’, and ‘IBD’. Seven systematic reviews were identified from this search. In addition, the publication by the IBD Core Outcome Set Working Group was used to identify further PROMs. Three systematic reviews were excluded as they did not meet the inclusion criteria. From the five included systematic reviews, we identified 21 PROMs and their shortened versions. In conclusion, it does not appear that any one PROM is entirely suitable for both research and clinical practice. Overall, the IBDQ-32 is most widely used in research but has the limitation of cost, whereas the IBD-Control has been recommended in the clinical core outcome set.


2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (10) ◽  
pp. 1551-1559 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean R. Tunis ◽  
Lara J. Maxwell ◽  
Ian D. Graham ◽  
Beverley J. Shea ◽  
Dorcas E. Beaton ◽  
...  

Objective.While there has been substantial progress in the development of core outcomes sets, the degree to which these are used by researchers is variable. We convened a special workshop on knowledge translation at the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 2016 with 2 main goals. The first focused on the development of a formal knowledge translation framework and the second on promoting uptake of recommended core outcome domain and instrument sets.Methods.We invited all 189 OMERACT 2016 attendees to the workshop; 86 attended, representing patient research partners (n = 15), healthcare providers/clinician researchers (n = 52), industry (n = 4), regulatory agencies (n = 4), and OMERACT fellows (n = 11). Participants were given an introduction to knowledge translation and were asked to propose and discuss recommendations for the OMERACT community to (1) strengthen stakeholder involvement in the core outcome instrument set development process, and (2) promote uptake of core outcome sets with a specific focus on the potential role of post-regulatory decision makers.Results.We developed the novel “OMERACT integrated knowledge translation” framework, which formalizes OMERACT’s knowledge translation strategies. We produced strategies to improve stakeholder engagement throughout the process of core outcome set development and created a list of creative and innovative ways to promote the uptake of OMERACT’s core outcome sets.Conclusion.The guidance provided in this paper is preliminary and is based on the views of the participants. Future work will engage OMERACT groups, “post-regulatory decision makers,” and a broad range of different stakeholders to identify and evaluate the most useful methods and processes, and to revise guidance accordingly.


Author(s):  
Lara J Maxwell ◽  
Dorcas E Beaton ◽  
Maarten Boers ◽  
Maria Antonietta D'Agostino ◽  
Philip G Conaghan ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document