Can a core outcome set improve the quality of systematic reviews? – a survey of the Co-ordinating Editors of Cochrane review groups

Trials

Paula R Williamson¹  Mike Clarke²  Elizabeth Gargon¹  Jamie J Kirkham¹ 

[1] Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Shelley’s Cottage, Brownlow Street, Liverpool, L69 3GS, UK;Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Grosvenor Road, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, BT12 6BA, UK

关键词: Survey;    Systematic reviews;    ORBIT;    Core outcome set;    Co-ordinating editors;    Cochrane review groups;    COMET;   

Others  :  1094923
DOI  :  10.1186/1745-6215-14-21

 received in 2012-09-17, accepted in 2012-11-21,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Missing outcome data or the inconsistent reporting of outcome data in clinical research can affect the quality of evidence within a systematic review. A potential solution is an agreed standardized set of outcomes known as a core outcome set (COS) to be measured in all studies for a specific condition. We investigated the amount of missing patient data for primary outcomes in Cochrane systematic reviews, and surveyed the Co-ordinating Editors of Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) on issues related to the standardization of outcomes in their CRG’s reviews. These groups are responsible for the more than 7,000 protocols and full versions of Cochrane Reviews that are currently available, and the several hundred new reviews published each year, presenting the world’s largest collection of standardized systematic reviews in health care.

Methods

Using an unselected cohort of Cochrane Reviews, we calculated and presented the percentage of missing patient data for the primary outcome measure chosen for each review published by each CRG. We also surveyed the CRG Co-ordinating Editors to see what their policies are with regards to outcome selection and outcomes to include in the Summary of Finding (SoF) tables in their Cochrane Reviews. They were also asked to list the main advantages and challenges of standardizing outcomes across all reviews within their CRG.

Results

In one fifth of the 283 reviews in the sample, more than 50% of the patient data for the primary outcome was missing. Responses to the survey were received from 90% of Co-ordinating Editors. Thirty-six percent of CRGs have a centralized policy regarding which outcomes to include in the SoF table and 73% of Co-ordinating Editors thought that a COS for effectiveness trials should be used routinely for a SoF table.

Conclusions

The reliability of systematic reviews, in particular meta-analyses they contain, can be improved if more attention is paid to missing outcome data. The availability of COSs for specific health conditions might help with this and the concept has support from the majority of Co-ordinating Editors in CRGs.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Kirkham et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Tovey D: Impact of Cochrane Reviews [editorial], The Cochrane Library. 2010. http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/details/editorial/756937/The-Impact-of-Cochrane-Reviews-by-Dr-David-Tovey.html webcite (accessed 21 August 2012)
• [2]Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, Bloom J, Chan A-W, Cronin E, Decullier E, Easterbrook PJ, Von Elm E, Gamble C, Ghersi D, Ioannidis JP, Simes J, Williamson PR: Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One 2008, 3(8):e3081.
• [3]Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, Gamble C, Dodd S, Smyth R, Williamson PR: The impact of outcome reporting bias on systematic reviews. BMJ 2010, 340:c365.
• [4]Clarke M: Standardising outcomes for clinical trials and systematic reviews. Trials 2007, 8:39. BioMed Central Full Text
• [5]Williamson PR, Altman D, Blazeby J, Clarke M, Gargon E: Driving up the quality and relevance of research through the use of agreed core outcomes. J Health Serv Res Policy 2012, 17:1-2.
• [6]Rosenbaum SE, Glenton C, Oxman AD: Summary of findings tables in Cochrane reviews improved understanding and rapid retrieval of key information. J Clin Epidemiol 2010, 63:620-626.