ReviewSystematic reviews2015
Towards core outcome set (COS) development: a follow-up descriptive survey of outcomes in Cochrane reviews.
Review in Systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- A survey of knowledge, perceptions and use of core outcome sets among clinical trialists.Trials · 2021Trial
- Avoidable waste of research related to outcome planning and reporting in clinical trials.BMC medicine · 2018Trial
- Article
- The standards of obstetrics and gynecology core outcome sets: A scoping review.Integrative medicine research · 2022Article
- Outcomes frequently specified in Cochrane reviews of community-based psychosocial interventions for adults with severe mental illness: A systematic search and narrative synthesis.Neuropsychopharmacology reports · 2021Review
- The COMET Handbook: version 1.0.Trials · 2017Review
- Development of a core outcome set for clinical trials in childhood constipation: a study using a Delphi technique.BMJ paediatrics open · 2017Article
- Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Transplantation: A Global Initiative to Develop a Core Outcome Set for Trials in Kidney Transplantation.Transplantation direct · 2016Article
- Improving the relevance and consistency of outcomes in comparative effectiveness research.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2016Review
- Core outcome sets and systematic reviews.Systematic reviews · 2016Review
- Discrepancies in Outcome Reporting Exist Between Protocols and Published Oral Health Cochrane Systematic Reviews.PloS one · 2015Article
- Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Peritoneal Dialysis (SONG-PD): Study Protocol for Establishing a Core Outcome Set in PD.Peritoneal dialysis international : journal of the International Society for Peritoneal DialysisArticle
- Core outcome sets for research and clinical practice.Brazilian journal of physical therapyReview
- A common outcome set for trials in dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB COS).Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA core outcome set (COS) can address problems of outcome heterogeneity and outcome reporting bias in trials and systematic reviews, including Cochrane reviews, helping to reduce waste. One of the aims of the international Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative is to link the development and use of COS with the outcomes specified and reported in Cochrane reviews, including the outcomes listed in the summary of findings (SoF) tables. As part of this work, an earlier exploratory survey of the outcomes of newly published 2007 and 2011 Cochrane reviews was performed. This survey examined the use of COS, the variety of specified outcomes, and outcome reporting in Cochrane reviews by Cochrane Review Group (CRG). To examine changes over time and to explore outcomes that were repeatedly specified over time in Cochrane reviews by CRG, we conducted a follow-up survey of outcomes in 2013 Cochrane reviews.
methodsA descriptive survey of outcomes in Cochrane reviews that were first published in 2013. Outcomes specified in the methods sections and reported in the results section of the Cochrane reviews were examined by CRG. We also explored the uptake of SoF tables, the number of outcomes included in these, and the quality of the evidence for the outcomes.
resultsAcross the 50 CRGs, 375 Cochrane reviews that included at least one study specified a total of 3142 outcomes. Of these outcomes, 32 % (1008) were not reported in the results section of these reviews. For 23 % (233) of these non-reported outcomes, we did not find any reason in the text of the review for this non-report. Fifty-seven percent (216/375) of reviews included a SoF table.
conclusionsThe proportion of specified outcomes that were reported in Cochrane reviews had increased in 2013 (68 %) compared to 2007 (61 %) and 2011 (65 %). Importantly, 2013 Cochrane reviews that did not report specified outcomes were twice as likely to provide an explanation for why the outcome was not reported. There has been an increased uptake of SoF tables in Cochrane reviews. Outcomes that were repeatedly specified in Cochrane reviews by CRG in 2007, 2011, and 2013 may assist COS development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.