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

<div><p>Background</p><p>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.</p><p>Methods</p><p>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.</p><p>Results</p><p>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.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>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.</p></div

Methods used in the selection of instruments for outcomes included in core outcome sets have improved since the publication of the COSMIN/COMET guideline

Objectives: Once a core outcome set (COS) has been defined, it is important to achieve consensus on how these outcomes should be measured. The aims of this systematic review were to gain insight into the methods used to select outcome measurement instruments and to determine whether methods have improved following the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN)/Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) guideline publication. Study Design and Setting: Eligible articles, which were identified from the annual COMET systematic review, concerned any COS development studies that provided a recommendation on how to measure the outcomes included in the COS. Data were extracted on the methods used to select outcome measurement instruments in accordance with the COSMIN/COMET guideline. Results: Of the 118 studies included in the review, 48% used more than one source of information when finding outcome measurement instruments, and 74% performed some form of quality assessment of the measurement instruments. Twenty-three studies recommended one single instrument for each core outcome included in the COS. Clinical experts and public representatives were involved in selecting instruments in 62% and 28% of studies, respectively. Conclusion: Methods used to select outcome measurement instruments have improved since the publication of the COSMIN/COMET guideline. Going forward, COS developers should ensure that recommended outcome measurement instruments have sufficient content validity. In addition, COS developers should recommend one instrument for each core outcome to contribute to the overarching goal of uniformity in outcome reporting

Parodie et carnavalisation : l’exemple de Hubert Aquin

One of the defining features of patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) is the emphasis on reporting outcomes that are meaningful to patients. Accelerating progress toward this objective could be achieved through increased development and uptake of core outcome sets (COS), which are intended to represent a standardized minimum set of outcomes that should bemeasured and reported in all clinical trials in a specific condition. The level of activity around COS has increased significantly over recent years, however there are many important clinical conditions for which high quality COS havenot been developed. We believe that meaningful progress toward the goals behind the significant investments in PCOR will depend on sustained attention to the challenges of COS development and uptake

Ensuring young voices are heard in core outcome set development: international workshops with 70 children and young people.

Plain english summaryResearchers test treatments to ensure these work and are safe. They do this by studying the effects that treatments have on patients by measuring outcomes, such as pain and quality of life. Often research teams measure different outcomes even though each team is studying the same condition. This makes it hard to compare the findings from different studies and it can reduce the accuracy of the treatment advice available to patients. Increasingly, researchers are tackling this problem by developing 'core outcome sets'. These are lists of outcomes that all researchers working on a given condition should measure in their studies. It is important that patients have a voice in the development of core outcome sets and children and young people are no exception. But their voices have rarely been heard when core outcome sets are developed. Researchers are trying to address this problem and make sure that core outcome sets are developed in ways that are suitable for children and young people. As a first step, we held two international workshops with children and young people to listen to their views. They emphasised the importance of motivating young people to participate in developing core outcome sets, making them feel valued, and making the development process more interactive, enjoyable and convenient. We hope this commentary will encourage researchers to include children and young people when developing core outcome sets and to adapt their methods so these are suitable for young participants. Future research is important to examine whether these adaptations are effective.AbstractBackground Different research teams looking at treatments for the same condition often select and measure inconsistent treatment outcomes. This makes it difficult to synthesise the results of different studies, leads to selective outcome reporting and impairs the quality of evidence about treatments. 'Core outcome sets' (COS) can help to address these problems. A COS is an agreed, minimum list of outcomes that researchers are encouraged to consistently measure and report in their studies. Including children and young people (CYP) as participants in the development of COS for paediatric conditions ensures that clinically meaningful outcomes are measured and reported. However, few published COS have included CYP as participants. COS developers have described difficulties in recruiting and retaining CYP and there is a lack of guidance on optimising COS methods for them. We aimed to explore CYP's views on the methods used to develop COS and identify ways to optimise these methods.Main body This commentary summarises discussions during two workshops with approximately 70 CYP (aged 10-18 years old) at the International Children's Advisory Network Research and Advocacy Summit, 2018. Delegates described what might motivate them to participate in a COS study, including feeling valued, understanding the need for COS and the importance of input from CYP in their development, and financial and other incentives (e.g. certificates of participation). For Delphi surveys, delegates suggested that lists of outcomes should be as brief as possible, and that scoring and feedback methods should be simplified. For consensus meetings, delegates advised preparing CYP in advance, supporting them during meetings (e.g. via mentors) and favoured arrangements whereby CYP could meet separately from parents and other stakeholders. Overall, they wanted COS methods that were convenient, enjoyable and engaging.Conclusion This commentary points to the limitations of the methods currently used to develop COS with CYP. It also points to ways to motivate CYP to participate in COS studies and to enhancements of methods to make participation more engaging for CYP. Pending much needed research on COS methods for CYP, the perspectives offered in the workshops should help teams developing COS in paediatrics and child health

Comparison of published core outcome sets with outcomes recommended in regulatory guidance from the US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency: cross sectional analysis

ObjectiveTo compare the outcomes in published core outcome sets with the outcomes recommended in corresponding guidance documents from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), matched by health condition.DesignCross sectional analysis.SettingUS and Europe.PopulationSample of core outcome sets related to drugs, devices, and gene therapy that involved patients in the consensus process, published between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2019; and corresponding EMA and FDA guidance documents.Main outcome measuresThe extent of matches between outcomes included within core outcome sets and those recommended in corresponding EMA and FDA guidance documents were assessed. Matches were considered to be general (ie, non-specific) or specific (ie, exact). General matches were assessed to determine whether the core outcome set or guidance document outcome was narrower.ResultsRelevant guidance documents were found for for 38 (39%) of 98 eligible published core outcome sets. Among outcomes in core outcome sets, medians of 70% (interquartile range 48-86%) and 52% (33-77%) were matches with outcomes recommended in EMA and FDA documents, respectively. Medians of 46% (27-68%) and 26% (18-46%) were specific matches with outcomes in EMA and FDA documents, respectively. When outcomes were generally matched, the outcomes from core outcome sets were more frequently narrower than the regulatory outcomes (83% and 75% for EMA and FDA, respectively).ConclusionGreater adoption of, and reference to, core outcome sets in regulatory guidance documents can encourage clinical trialists, especially those in industry, to measure and report consistent and agreed outcomes and improve the quality of guidance. Given the overlap between outcomes in core outcome sets and regulatory guidance, and given that most core outcome sets now involve patients in the consensus process, these sets could serve as a useful resource for regulators when recommending outcomes for studies evaluating regulated products. Developers are encouraged to appraise recommended outcomes in salient regulatory documents when planning a core outcome set

A review of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register reveals inconsistency in the choice and measurement of SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes in prevention trials

Background: Multiple studies are evaluating how to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. Interventions are wide ranging and include vaccines, prophylactic drugs, public health safety measures, and behavioural interventions. Heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and reported is leading to research waste and inefficiency, slowing worldwide identification and implementation of effective methods to prevent infection. A core outcome set (COS) for studies of interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection has recently been developed, identifying infection as a critical outcome to measure. This paper examines how SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes are measured in registered COVID-19 prevention trials and considers how this can be improved. Methods: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to identify and review SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes in prevention trials, including the rationale for choice of outcome measurement. We included phase 3 and 4 trials of COVID-19 prevention interventions. Early phase trials and studies relating to the transmission, treatment or management of COVID-19 were excluded. Results: We identified 430 entries in the register, of which 199 unique prevention trials were included across eight settings and 12 intervention types. Fifteen (8%) trials did not include any SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes. The remaining 184 (92%) studies included a total of 268 SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes, of which 32 (17%) did not specify how infection would be measured. Testing (i.e. formal diagnostic test) as a standalone method for determining infection was used in 57 (31%) trials, whereas defining infection by symptoms alone was used in 16 (9%) trials. All other trials (n=79, 43%) included multiple infection outcomes, defined in different ways. Discussion: There is considerable variation in how SARS-CoV-2 infection is measured within and across different interventions and settings. Furthermore, few studies report the rationale for outcome selection and measurement. Better transparency and standardisation of SARS-CoV-2 infection measurement is needed for the findings from prevention trials to inform decision-making.</ns3:p

Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting The COS-STAR Statement

Background Core outcome sets (COS) can enhance the relevance of research by ensuring that outcomes of importance to health service users and other people making choices about health care in a particular topic area are measured routinely. Over 200 COS to date have been developed, but the clarity of these reports is suboptimal. COS studies will not achieve their goal if reports of COS are not complete and transparent. Methods and Findings In recognition of these issues, an international group that included experienced COS developers, methodologists, journal editors, potential users of COS (clinical trialists, systematic reviewers, and clinical guideline developers), and patient representatives developed the Core Outcome Set–STAndards for Reporting (COS-STAR) Statement as a reporting guideline for COS studies. The developmental process consisted of an initial reporting item generation stage and a two-round Delphi survey involving nearly 200 participants representing key stakeholder groups, followed by a consensus meeting. The COS-STAR Statement consists of a checklist of 18 items considered essential for transparent and complete reporting in all COS studies. The checklist items focus on the introduction, methods, results, and discussion section of a manuscript describing the development of a particular COS. A limitation of the COS-STAR Statement is that it was developed without representative views of low- and middle-income countries. COS have equal relevance to studies conducted in these areas, and, subsequently, this guideline may need to evolve over time to encompass any additional challenges from developing COS in these areas. Conclusions With many ongoing COS studies underway, the COS-STAR Statement should be a helpful resource to improve the reporting of COS studies for the benefit of all COS users