Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2016 Jan 19;11(1):e0146444.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146444. eCollection 2016.

Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and User Survey

Sarah L Gorst  1 , Elizabeth Gargon  1 , Mike Clarke  2 , Jane M Blazeby  3 , Douglas G Altman  4 , Paula R Williamson  1
Affiliations
Review

Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and User Survey

Sarah L Gorst et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: A COS represents an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all trials of a specific condition. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) initiative aims to collate and stimulate the development and application of COS, by including data on relevant studies within a publically available internet-based resource. In recent years, there has been an interest in increasing the development of COS. Therefore, this study aimed to provide an update of a previous review, and examine the quality of development of COS. A further aim was to understand the reasons why individuals are searching the COMET database.

Methods: A multi-faceted search strategy was followed, in order to identify studies that sought to determine which outcomes/domains to measure in clinical trials of a specific condition. Additionally, a pop up survey was added to the COMET website, to ascertain why people were searching the COMET database.

Results: Thirty-two reports relating to 29 studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. There has been an improvement in the description of the scope of a COS and an increase in the proportion of studies using literature/systematic reviews and the Delphi technique. Clinical experts continue to be the most common group involved in developing COS, however patient and public involvement has increased. The pop-up survey revealed the most common reasons for visiting the COMET website to be thinking about developing a COS and planning a clinical trial.

Conclusions: This update demonstrates that recent studies appear to have adopted a more structured approach towards COS development and public representation has increased. However, there remains a need for developers to adequately describe details about the scope of COS, and for greater public engagement. The COMET database appears to be a useful resource for both COS developers and users of COS.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: MC, JMB, DGA, and PRW are members of the COMET Management Group and co-applicants on grants to support COMET and related work. EG is a member of the COMET Management Group and is the COMET Project Co-ordinator. This does not alter the authors' adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Identification of studies.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Year of first publication of each COS study (n = 227).
Fig 3
Fig 3. Number of COS developed in each disease category (n = 227).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374:86–89. 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, Dirnagl U, Chalmers I, Ioannidis JPA, et al. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet. 2014;383:101–104. 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62329-6 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Devane D, Gargon E, et al. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials. 2012;13:132 10.1186/1745-6215-13-132 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sinha I, Jones L, Smyth RL, Williamson PR. A systematic review of studies that aim to determine which outcomes to measure in clinical trials in children. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e96 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050096 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gargon E, Gurung B, Medley N, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, et al. Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(6):e99111 10.1371/journal.pone.0099111 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources