Literature DB >> 30878565

Navigating the landscape of core outcome set development in dermatology.

Cecilia A C Prinsen1, Phyllis I Spuls2, Jan Kottner3, Kim S Thomas4, Christian Apfelbacher5, Joanne R Chalmers4, Stefanie Deckert6, Masutaka Furue7, Louise Gerbens2, Jamie Kirkham8, Eric L Simpson9, Murad Alam10, Katrin Balzer11, Dimitri Beeckman12, Viktoria Eleftheriadou4, Khaled Ezzedine13, Sophie E R Horbach14, John R Ingram15, Alison M Layton16, Karsten Weller17, Thomas Wild18, Albert Wolkerstorfer2, Hywel C Williams4, Jochen Schmitt6.   

Abstract

The development of core outcome sets (COSs; ie, a minimum set of core outcomes that should be measured and reported in all trials or in clinical practice for a specific condition) in dermatology is increasing in pace. A total of 44 dermatology-related COS projects have been registered in the online Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials database (http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/search) and include studies on 26 different skin diseases. With the increasing number of COSs in dermatology, care is needed to ensure the delivery of high-quality COSs that meet quality standards when using state-of-the-art methods. In 2015, the Cochrane Skin-Core Outcome Set Initiative (CS-COUSIN) was established. CS-COUSIN is an international, multidisciplinary working group aiming to improve the development and implementation of COSs in dermatology. CS-COUSIN has developed guidance on how to develop high-quality COSs for skin diseases and supports dermatology-specific COS initiatives. Currently, 17 COS development groups are affiliated with CS-COUSIN and following standardized COS development processes. To ensure successful uptake of COSs in dermatology, researchers, clinicians, systematic reviewers, guideline developers, and other stakeholders should use existing COSs in their work.
Copyright © 2019 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CS-COUSIN; Cochrane Skin; clinical trials; core outcome set; dermatology; development; implementation

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30878565     DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2019.03.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Acad Dermatol        ISSN: 0190-9622            Impact factor:   11.527


  12 in total

Review 1.  Preparation and Utility of Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) for Facial Aging: A Comprehensive Review.

Authors:  Shirin Bajaj; David Orbuch; Jordan V Wang; Roy G Geronemus
Journal:  Adv Ther       Date:  2022-07-23       Impact factor: 4.070

2.  The need for core outcome sets in urological cancer research.

Authors:  Steven MacLennan; Paula R Williamson
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2021-06

3.  Generic outcome set for the international registry on Laser trEAtments in Dermatology (LEAD): a protocol for a Delphi study to achieve consensus on what to measure.

Authors:  Frederike Fransen; Phyllis Spuls; Murad Alam; Ashraf Badawi; Pablo Boixeda; Merete Haedersdal; Iltefat Hamzavi; Lene Hedelund; Kristen M Kelly; Tara Kono; Hans Joachim Laubach; Woraphong Manuskiatti; Leonardo Marini; Keyvan Nouri; Uwe Paasch; Thierry Passeron; Cecilia A C Sanna Prinsen; Ines Verner; Albert Wolkerstorfer
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-06-28       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  Clinical outcome measures and scoring systems used in prospective studies of port wine stains: A systematic review.

Authors:  M Ingmar van Raath; Sandeep Chohan; Albert Wolkerstorfer; Chantal M A M van der Horst; Jacqueline Limpens; Xuan Huang; Baoyue Ding; Gert Storm; René R W J van der Hulst; Michal Heger
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-07-02       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Improvements and advances in core outcome set methodology: proceedings of the CS-COUSIN & COMFA Joint Meeting.

Authors:  McKenzie A Dirr; Murad Alam; Christian Apfelbacher; Karl-Philipp Drewitz; Bianca Y Kang; Daniel Munblit; Nikita Nekliudov; Nina Seylanova
Journal:  Arch Dermatol Res       Date:  2022-03-04       Impact factor: 3.017

6.  Vitiligo International Task force for an Agreed List of core data (VITAL): study protocol of a vitiligo core outcome set (COS) and contextual factors for clinical trials, registries, and clinical practice.

Authors:  Nanja van Geel; Iltefat H Hamzavi; Amit G Pandya; Albert Wolkerstorfer; Julien Seneschal; Amit Garg; Phyllis Spuls; Caroline B Terwee; Sue Mallett; Reinhart Speeckaert; Jean Marie Meurant; Viktoria Eleftheriadou; Khaled Ezzedine
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2022-07-23       Impact factor: 2.728

Review 7.  Measuring Patient Quality of Life Following Treatment for Alopecia.

Authors:  Kunlawat Thadanipon; Poonkiat Suchonwanit
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2021-07-16       Impact factor: 2.711

8.  Comparison of screening accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 using two case-identification methods during pregnancy and postpartum.

Authors:  Valerie Slavin; Debra K Creedy; Jenny Gamble
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2020-04-14       Impact factor: 3.007

Review 9.  Assessing the relevance and uptake of core outcome sets (an agreed minimum collection of outcomes to measure in research studies) in Cochrane systematic reviews: a review.

Authors:  Paula R Williamson; Ricardo de Ávila Oliveira; Mike Clarke; Sarah L Gorst; Karen Hughes; Jamie J Kirkham; Tianjing Li; Ian J Saldanha; Jochen Schmitt
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-09-06       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  Therapeutic Strategies for Untreated Capillary Malformations of the Head and Neck Region: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.

Authors:  Gonca Cinkara; Ginger Beau Langbroek; Chantal M A M van der Horst; Albert Wolkerstorfer; Sophie E R Horbach; Dirk T Ubbink
Journal:  Am J Clin Dermatol       Date:  2021-06-23       Impact factor: 7.403

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.