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
. 2017 Nov 16;14(11):e1002447.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002447. eCollection 2017 Nov.

Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development: The COS-STAD recommendations

Jamie J Kirkham  1 , Katherine Davis  1 , Douglas G Altman  2 , Jane M Blazeby  3 , Mike Clarke  4 , Sean Tunis  5 , Paula R Williamson  1
Affiliations

Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development: The COS-STAD recommendations

Jamie J Kirkham et al. PLoS Med. .

Abstract

Background: The use of core outcome sets (COS) ensures that researchers measure and report those outcomes that are most likely to be relevant to users of their research. Several hundred COS projects have been systematically identified to date, but there has been no formal quality assessment of these studies. The Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) project aimed to identify minimum standards for the design of a COS study agreed upon by an international group, while other specific guidance exists for the final reporting of COS development studies (Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting [COS-STAR]).

Methods and findings: An international group of experienced COS developers, methodologists, journal editors, potential users of COS (clinical trialists, systematic reviewers, and clinical guideline developers), and patient representatives produced the COS-STAD recommendations to help improve the quality of COS development and support the assessment of whether a COS had been developed using a reasonable approach. An open survey of experts generated an initial list of items, which was refined by a 2-round Delphi survey involving nearly 250 participants representing key stakeholder groups. Participants assigned importance ratings for each item using a 1-9 scale. Consensus that an item should be included in the set of minimum standards was defined as at least 70% of the voting participants from each stakeholder group providing a score between 7 and 9. The Delphi survey was followed by a consensus discussion with the study management group representing multiple stakeholder groups. COS-STAD contains 11 minimum standards that are the minimum design recommendations for all COS development projects. The recommendations focus on 3 key domains: the scope, the stakeholders, and the consensus process.

Conclusions: The COS-STAD project has established 11 minimum standards to be followed by COS developers when planning their projects and by users when deciding whether a COS has been developed using reasonable methods.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

I have read the journal's policy and have the following conflicts: DGA, JMB, MC, ST, and PRW are members of the COMET Management Group. KD and JJK declare no competing interests.

References

    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 doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-132 - 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 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099111 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gorst SL, Gargon E, Clarke M, Blazeby JM, Altman DG, Williamson PR. Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: an updated review and user survey. PLoS ONE 2016; 11(1): e0146444 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146444 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gorst SL, Gargon E, Clarke M, Smith V, Williamson PR. Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: an updated review and identification of gaps. PLoS ONE 2016; 11(12):e0168403 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168403 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. COMET Initiative Database Search 2017. [ONLINE]. Available at: http://www.cometinitiative.org/studies/search. [Accessed 15 May 2017].