Literature DB >> 31009657

Improvement was needed in the standards of development for cancer core outcome sets.

Elizabeth Gargon1, Paula R Williamson2, Jane M Blazeby3, Jamie J Kirkham2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) contains 11 standards (12 criteria) that are deemed to be the minimum design recommendations for all core outcome set (COS) development projects. Cancer is currently the disease area with the highest number of published COSs and is a major cause of worldwide morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to provide a baseline of cancer COS standards. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: Systematic reviews of COSs have identified 307 published COS studies. Cancer COSs were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently assessed each of the COSs against the 12 criteria.
RESULTS: Forty-nine cancer COSs were included; none met all 12 criteria representing the 11 minimum standards assessed in this study (range = 4-11 criteria, median = 6 criteria). All studies met the four scope standards, eight (16%) met all three standards for stakeholders involved, and two (4%) met all four standards for consensus process standards.
CONCLUSION: With the exception of "scope" specification, there is much need for improvement. Poor reporting often made it challenging to assess whether minimum standards were met. The consensus process criteria were most difficult to assess, particularly those that required an assessment of being a priori. This is the first application of COS-STAD criteria to studies that have developed COSs and provides a baseline of cancer COS standards of development.
Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  COS; Cancer; Core outcome set; Minimum standards; Research methodology; Study design

Year:  2019        PMID: 31009657     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  4 in total

1.  How to evaluate the clinical outcome of joint-preserving treatment for osteonecrosis of the femoral head: development of a core outcome set.

Authors:  Zhipeng Xue; Jigao Sun; Taixian Li; Zeqing Huang; Weiheng Chen
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2019-10-09       Impact factor: 2.359

2.  Automated Identification of Common Disease-Specific Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research Using ClinicalTrials.gov: Algorithm Development and Validation Study.

Authors:  Joseph Finkelstein; Anas Elghafari
Journal:  JMIR Med Inform       Date:  2021-02-08

3.  The standards of obstetrics and gynecology core outcome sets: A scoping review.

Authors:  Jiyuan Shi; Ya Gao; Shuang Wu; MingMing Niu; Yamin Chen; Meili Yan; Ziwei Song; Hui Feng; Junhua Zhang; Jinhui Tian
Journal:  Integr Med Res       Date:  2021-09-28

4.  Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 5th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research.

Authors:  Elizabeth Gargon; Sarah L Gorst; Paula R Williamson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-12-12       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.