Ian J Saldanha1, Tianjing Li2, Cui Yang3, Cesar Ugarte-Gil4, George W Rutherford5, Kay Dickersin6. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 North Wolfe Street, Room W6507-B, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. Electronic address: isaldan1@jhmi.edu. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 North Wolfe Street, Room E6011, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. 3. Department of Health, Behavior, and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 2213 McElderry Street, 2nd Floor, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. 4. Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA; Instituto de Medicina Tropical Alexander von Humboldt, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Av. Honorio Delgado 430, SMP, Lima 31, Peru. 5. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, 550 16th Street, Box 1224, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA. 6. Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 North Wolfe Street, Room E6152, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Methods to develop core outcome sets, the minimum outcomes that should be measured in research in a topic area, vary. We applied social network analysis methods to understand outcome co-occurrence patterns in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/AIDS systematic reviews and identify outcomes central to the network of outcomes in HIV/AIDS. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We examined all Cochrane reviews of HIV/AIDS as of June 2013. We defined a tie as two outcomes (nodes) co-occurring in ≥2 reviews. To identify central outcomes, we used normalized node betweenness centrality (nNBC) (the extent to which connections between other outcomes in a network rely on that outcome as an intermediary). We conducted a subgroup analysis by HIV/AIDS intervention type (i.e., clinical management, biomedical prevention, behavioral prevention, and health services). RESULTS: The 140 included reviews examined 1,140 outcomes, 294 of which were unique. The most central outcome overall was all-cause mortality (nNBC = 23.9). The most central and most frequent outcomes differed overall and within subgroups. For example, "adverse events (specified)" was among the most central but not among the most frequent outcomes, overall. CONCLUSION: Social network analysis methods are a novel application to identify central outcomes, which provides additional information potentially useful for developing core outcome sets.
OBJECTIVES: Methods to develop core outcome sets, the minimum outcomes that should be measured in research in a topic area, vary. We applied social network analysis methods to understand outcome co-occurrence patterns in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/AIDS systematic reviews and identify outcomes central to the network of outcomes in HIV/AIDS. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We examined all Cochrane reviews of HIV/AIDS as of June 2013. We defined a tie as two outcomes (nodes) co-occurring in ≥2 reviews. To identify central outcomes, we used normalized node betweenness centrality (nNBC) (the extent to which connections between other outcomes in a network rely on that outcome as an intermediary). We conducted a subgroup analysis by HIV/AIDS intervention type (i.e., clinical management, biomedical prevention, behavioral prevention, and health services). RESULTS: The 140 included reviews examined 1,140 outcomes, 294 of which were unique. The most central outcome overall was all-cause mortality (nNBC = 23.9). The most central and most frequent outcomes differed overall and within subgroups. For example, "adverse events (specified)" was among the most central but not among the most frequent outcomes, overall. CONCLUSION: Social network analysis methods are a novel application to identify central outcomes, which provides additional information potentially useful for developing core outcome sets.
Authors: Joan S Tucker; Kayla de la Haye; David P Kennedy; Harold D Green; Michael S Pollard Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2013-09-17 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: A Alioum; F Dabis; L Dequae-Merchadou; G Haverkamp; M Hudgens; J Hughes; J Karon; V Leroy; M L Newell; B Richardson; G J Weverling Journal: Stat Med Date: 2001-12-15 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: John P A Ioannidis; Jeffrey D Horbar; Colleen M Ovelman; Yolanda Brosseau; Kristian Thorlund; Madge E Buus-Frank; Edward J Mills; Roger F Soll Journal: BMJ Date: 2015-01-26
Authors: Elizabeth Gargon; Binu Gurung; Nancy Medley; Doug G Altman; Jane M Blazeby; Mike Clarke; Paula R Williamson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-06-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ian J Saldanha; Kristina Lindsley; Diana V Do; Roy S Chuck; Catherine Meyerle; Leslie S Jones; Anne L Coleman; Henry D Jampel; Kay Dickersin; Gianni Virgili Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 7.389
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: 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