Davis Katherine, Gorst Sarah L, Harman Nicola, Smith Valerie, Gargon Elizabeth, Altman Douglas G, Blazeby Jane M, Clarke Mike, Tunis Sean, Williamson Paula R
MRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
School of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
PLoS One. 2018 Feb 13;13(2):e0190695. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190695. eCollection 2018.
Core outcome sets (COS) comprise a minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all trials for a specific health condition. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative maintains an up to date, publicly accessible online database of published and ongoing COS. An annual systematic review update is an important part of this process.
This review employed the same, multifaceted approach that was used in the original review and the previous two updates. This approach has identified studies that sought to determine which outcomes/domains to measure in clinical trials of a specific condition. This update includes an analysis of the inclusion of participants from low and middle income countries (LMICs) as identified by the OECD, in these COS.
Eighteen publications, relating to 15 new studies describing the development of 15 COS, were eligible for inclusion in the review. Results show an increase in the use of mixed methods, including Delphi surveys. Clinical experts remain the most common stakeholder group involved. Overall, only 16% of the 259 COS studies published up to the end of 2016 have included participants from LMICs.
This review highlights opportunities for greater public participation in COS development and the involvement of stakeholders from a wider range of geographical settings, in particular LMICs.
核心结局集(COS)包含在针对特定健康状况的所有试验中均应测量和报告的最小结局集。COMET(有效性试验中的核心结局测量)倡议维护着一个已发表和正在进行的COS的最新、可公开访问的在线数据库。年度系统评价更新是这一过程的重要组成部分。
本评价采用了与原始评价及前两次更新相同的多方面方法。该方法已识别出旨在确定在特定疾病的临床试验中应测量哪些结局/领域的研究。本次更新包括对经合组织确定的低收入和中等收入国家(LMIC)的参与者在这些COS中的纳入情况进行分析。
18篇与15项描述15个COS制定情况的新研究相关的出版物符合纳入本评价的条件。结果显示,包括德尔菲调查在内的混合方法的使用有所增加。临床专家仍然是最常涉及的利益相关者群体。总体而言,截至2016年底发表的259项COS研究中,只有16%纳入了来自LMIC的参与者。
本评价突出了公众更多参与COS制定以及来自更广泛地理区域(特别是LMIC)的利益相关者参与的机会。