Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: a systematic review.
Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: a systematic review.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0099111
复制
发表时间：
2014
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Williamson PR
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gargon E;Gurung B;Medley N;Altman DG;Blazeby JM;Clarke M;Williamson PR
核心结果集（COS）是一组标准化的结果，至少应在特定健康领域的所有有效性试验中进行测量和报告。这将使研究结果能够酌情进行比较、对比和合并，并确保所有试验都提供有用的信息。COMET（有效性试验的核心结果指标）倡议旨在支持COS的开发、报告和采用。其核心是一个可访问的在线资源，其中包含所有可用的COS。我们在这里报告的审查的目的是识别研究，试图确定在特定条件下的所有临床试验中测量哪些结果或领域，并描述这些研究中使用的方法技术。我们为电子数据库（MEDLINE、SCOPUS和科克伦方法学注册库）开发了多方面的检索策略。我们纳入了旨在确定在特定条件下所有临床试验中测量哪些结局/领域的研究。共有198项研究的250份报告被判定符合纳入审查的条件。研究涉及健康的各个领域，最常见的是癌症、风湿病学、神经病学、心脏和循环以及牙科和口腔健康。开发COS的方法有多种，包括半结构化讨论、非结构化小组讨论、德尔菲法、共识开发会议、调查和名义小组法。最常见的参与群体是临床专家和非临床研究专家。31项（16%）研究报告称，公众参与了这一过程。参与者的地理位置主要是北美（n = 164; 83%）和欧洲（n = 150; 76%）。 这一系统性审查确定了许多已经制定了COS的卫生领域，但也突出了重要的差距。这是朝着建立一个全面的、最新的COS数据库迈出的又一步。此外，它还表明需要方法指导，包括如何让主要利益攸关方群体，特别是公众参与。
A core outcome set (COS) is a standardised set of outcomes which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all effectiveness trials for a specific health area. This will allow results of studies to be compared, contrasted and combined as appropriate, as well as ensuring that all trials contribute usable information. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness Trials) Initiative aims to support the development, reporting and adoption of COS. Central to this is a publically accessible online resource, populated with all available COS. The aim of the review we report here was to identify studies that sought to determine which outcomes or domains to measure in all clinical trials in a specific condition and to describe the methodological techniques used in these studies. We developed a multi-faceted search strategy for electronic databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Methodology Register). We included studies that sought to determine which outcomes/domains to measure in all clinical trials in a specific condition. A total of 250 reports relating to 198 studies were judged eligible for inclusion in the review. Studies covered various areas of health, most commonly cancer, rheumatology, neurology, heart and circulation, and dentistry and oral health. A variety of methods have been used to develop COS, including semi-structured discussion, unstructured group discussion, the Delphi Technique, Consensus Development Conference, surveys and Nominal Group Technique. The most common groups involved were clinical experts and non-clinical research experts. Thirty-one (16%) studies reported that the public had been involved in the process. The geographic locations of participants were predominantly North America (n = 164; 83%) and Europe (n = 150; 76%). This systematic review identified many health areas where a COS has been developed, but also highlights important gaps. It is a further step towards a comprehensive, up-to-date database of COS. In addition, it shows the need for methodological guidance, including how to engage key stakeholder groups, particularly members of the public.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
15.8
作者：
Moher D;Liberati A;Tetzlaff J;Altman DG;PRISMA Group
通讯作者：
PRISMA Group
影响因子：
4.5
作者：
Kostanjsek, Nenad
通讯作者：
Kostanjsek, Nenad
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Dwan, Kerry;Altman, Douglas G.;Williamson, Paula R.
通讯作者：
Williamson, Paula R.
DOI：
10.1136/bmj.e7586
发表时间：
2013-01-08
期刊：
BMJ (Clinical research ed.)
影响因子：
--
作者：
Chan AW;Tetzlaff JM;Gøtzsche PC;Altman DG;Mann H;Berlin JA;Dickersin K;Hróbjartsson A;Schulz KF;Parulekar WR;Krleza-Jeric K;Laupacis A;Moher D
通讯作者：
Moher D
影响因子：
6.6
作者：
Miyar, Jose;Adams, Clive E.
通讯作者：
Adams, Clive E.