Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and User Survey

• Published in: PloS one 2016-01, Vol.11 (1), p.e0146444-e0146444
• Main Authors: Gorst, Sarah L, Gargon, Elizabeth, Clarke, Mike, Blazeby, Jane M, Altman, Douglas G, Williamson, Paula R
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Awareness; Choice Behavior; Clinical trials; Clinical Trials as Topic - statistics & numerical data; Comparative Effectiveness Research - methods; Data bases; Data processing; Databases, Factual - statistics & numerical data; Delphi method; Humans; Identification methods; Knowledge; Literature reviews; Medical research; Methods; Outcome and process assessment (Medical care); Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Public involvement; Public participation; Publishing - standards; Publishing - statistics & numerical data; Research methodology; Researchers; Searching; Studies; Surveys; Surveys and Questionnaires; Systematic review; User surveys
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146444

A COS represents an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all trials of a specific condition. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) initiative aims to collate and stimulate the development and application of COS, by including data on relevant studies within a publically available internet-based resource. In recent years, there has been an interest in increasing the development of COS. Therefore, this study aimed to provide an update of a previous review, and examine the quality of development of COS. A further aim was to understand the reasons why individuals are searching the COMET database. A multi-faceted search strategy was followed, in order to identify studies that sought to determine which outcomes/domains to measure in clinical trials of a specific condition. Additionally, a pop up survey was added to the COMET website, to ascertain why people were searching the COMET database. Thirty-two reports relating to 29 studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. There has been an improvement in the description of the scope of a COS and an increase in the proportion of studies using literature/systematic reviews and the Delphi technique. Clinical experts continue to be the most common group involved in developing COS, however patient and public involvement has increased. The pop-up survey revealed the most common reasons for visiting the COMET website to be thinking about developing a COS and planning a clinical trial. This update demonstrates that recent studies appear to have adopted a more structured approach towards COS development and public representation has increased. However, there remains a need for developers to adequately describe details about the scope of COS, and for greater public engagement. The COMET database appears to be a useful resource for both COS developers and users of COS.