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
. 2021 Oct 19;11(10):e049981.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049981.

Inclusion of participants from low-income and middle-income countries in core outcome sets development: a systematic review

Jamlick Karumbi  1   2 , Sarah L Gorst  3 , David Gathara  2   4 , Elizabeth Gargon  3 , Bridget Young  3 , Paula R Williamson  3
Affiliations

Inclusion of participants from low-income and middle-income countries in core outcome sets development: a systematic review

Jamlick Karumbi et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objective: Our study aims to describe differences or similarities in the scope, participant characteristics and methods used in core outcome sets (COS) development when only participants from high-income countries (HICs) were involved compared with when participants from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) were also involved.

Design: Systematic review.

Data sources: Annual Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials systematic reviews of COS which are updated based on SCOPUS and MEDLINE, searches. The latest systematic review included studies published up to the end of 2019.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: We included studies reporting development of a COS for use in research regardless of age, health condition or setting. Studies reporting the development of a COS for patient-reported outcomes or adverse events or complications were also included.

Data extraction and synthesis: Data were extracted in relation to scope of the COS study, participant categories and the methods used in outcome selection.

Results: Studies describing 370 COS were identified in the database. Of these, 75 (20%) included participants from LMICs. Only four COS were initiated from an LMIC setting. More than half of COS with LMIC participants were developed in the last 5 years. Cancer and rheumatology were the dominant disease domains. Overall, over 259 (70%) of COS explicitly reported including clinical experts; this was higher where LMIC participants were also included 340 (92%). Most LMIC participants were from China, Brazil and South Africa. Mixed methods for consensus building were used across the two settings.

Conclusion: Progress has been made in including LMIC participants in the development of COS, however, there is a need to explore how to enable initiation of COS development from a range of LMIC settings, how to ensure prioritisation of COS that better reflects the burden of disease in these contexts and how to improve public participation from LMICs.

Keywords: epidemiology; protocols & guidelines; public health.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow chart of identification of eligible studies from the COMET database. Data were extracted from the COS systematic reviews. COS, core outcome sets; COMET, Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trial; HIC, high-income country; LMICs, low-income and middle-income countries.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Year of COS publication. COS, core outcome sets; HIC, high-income country; LMIC, low-income and middle-income country.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Comparison of disease categories covered in the COS with exclusively HIC participants and those also with LMIC participants. COS, core outcome sets; HIC, high-income country; LMIC, low-income and middle-income country.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Combinations of methods for outcome selection. HIC, high-income country; LMIC, low-income and middle-income countries.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Heneghan C, Goldacre B, Mahtani KR. Why clinical trial outcomes fail to translate into benefits for patients. Trials 2017;18:122. 10.1186/s13063-017-1870-2 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Duffy JMN, Ziebland S, von Dadelszen P, et al. . Tackling poorly selected, collected, and reported outcomes in obstetrics and gynecology research. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019;220:71.e1–71.e4. 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.09.023 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sinha IP, Williamson PR, Smyth RL. Outcomes in clinical trials of inhaled corticosteroids for children with asthma are narrowly focussed on short term disease activity. PLoS One 2009;4:e6276. 10.1371/journal.pone.0006276 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tong A, Crowe S, Gill JS, et al. . Clinicians' and researchers' perspectives on establishing and implementing core outcomes in haemodialysis: semistructured interview study. BMJ Open 2018;8:e021198. 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-021198 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Clarke M. Standardising outcomes for clinical trials and systematic reviews. Trials 2007;8:1–3. 10.1186/1745-6215-8-39 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources