Valerie Smith1, Mike Clarke2, Paula Williamson3, Elizabeth Gargon4. 1. School of Nursing & Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, 24 D'Olier Street, Dublin 2, Ireland. Electronic address: smithv1@tcd.ie. 2. All-Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Queens University Belfast, Grosvenor Road, Belfast BT12 6BA, Northern Ireland. 3. MRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3GS, UK. 4. Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3GA, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To survey the outcomes used in Cochrane Reviews, as part of our work within the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A descriptive survey of Cochrane Reviews, divided by Cochrane Review Group (CRG), published in full for the first time in 2007 and 2011. Outcomes specified in the methods section of each review and outcomes reported in the results section of each review were of interest, in this exploration of the common use of outcomes and core outcome sets (COS). RESULTS: Seven hundred eighty-eight reviews, specifying 6,127 outcomes, were included. When we excluded specified outcomes from the 86 reviews that did not include any studies, we found that 1,996 (37%) specified outcomes were not reported. Of the 361 new reviews with studies from 2011, 113 (31%) had a "summary of findings" table (SoF). Fifteen broad outcome categories were identified and used to manage the outcome data. We found consistency in the use of these categories across CRGs but inconsistency in outcomes within these categories. CONCLUSION: COS have been used rarely in Cochrane Reviews, but the introduction of SoF makes the development and application of COS timelier than ever.
OBJECTIVES: To survey the outcomes used in Cochrane Reviews, as part of our work within the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A descriptive survey of Cochrane Reviews, divided by Cochrane Review Group (CRG), published in full for the first time in 2007 and 2011. Outcomes specified in the methods section of each review and outcomes reported in the results section of each review were of interest, in this exploration of the common use of outcomes and core outcome sets (COS). RESULTS: Seven hundred eighty-eight reviews, specifying 6,127 outcomes, were included. When we excluded specified outcomes from the 86 reviews that did not include any studies, we found that 1,996 (37%) specified outcomes were not reported. Of the 361 new reviews with studies from 2011, 113 (31%) had a "summary of findings" table (SoF). Fifteen broad outcome categories were identified and used to manage the outcome data. We found consistency in the use of these categories across CRGs but inconsistency in outcomes within these categories. CONCLUSION: COS have been used rarely in Cochrane Reviews, but the introduction of SoF makes the development and application of COS timelier than ever.
Authors: Paula R Williamson; Douglas G Altman; Heather Bagley; Karen L Barnes; Jane M Blazeby; Sara T Brookes; Mike Clarke; Elizabeth Gargon; Sarah Gorst; Nicola Harman; Jamie J Kirkham; Angus McNair; Cecilia A C Prinsen; Jochen Schmitt; Caroline B Terwee; Bridget Young Journal: Trials Date: 2017-06-20 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Jonathan Barnes; Jennifer Hunter; Steve Harris; Manu Shankar-Hari; Elisabeth Diouf; Ib Jammer; Cor Kalkman; Andrew A Klein; Tomas Corcoran; Stefan Dieleman; Michael P W Grocott; Michael G Mythen Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 9.166
Authors: Ian J Saldanha; Tianjing Li; Cui Yang; Jill Owczarzak; Paula R Williamson; Kay Dickersin Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2017-02-27 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Ian J Saldanha; Tianjing Li; Cui Yang; Cesar Ugarte-Gil; George W Rutherford; Kay Dickersin Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2015-09-25 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Sean R Tunis; Mike Clarke; Sarah L Gorst; Elizabeth Gargon; Jane M Blazeby; Douglas G Altman; Paula R Williamson Journal: J Comp Eff Res Date: 2016-03-01 Impact factor: 1.744