Cited by 78Delphi Technique in ResearchMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsClinical practice guidelines implementation

A systematic review of core outcome set development studies demonstrates difficulties in defining unique outcomes

Open access
Young, Amber E., Brookes, Sara T., Avery, Kerry N.L., Davies, Anna, Metcalfe, Chris, Blazeby, Jane M.·2019·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Core outcome set (COS) development often begins with a systematic review to identify outcomes. Reviews frequently show heterogeneity in numbers of outcomes reported across trials. Contributing to this is a lack of a uniform definition for an outcome. This study proposes a first working definition for a unique trial outcome to support reporting a quantitative assessment of outcome reporting heterogeneity (ORH). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Eligible COS literature (development papers, protocols, and reviews) were identified using the COMET database, Ovid MEDLINE, and PubMed. Outcome numbers, definitions, timing, and grouping methodology were examined. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty two studies were included. 82 (88.1%) studies (excluding protocols) reported a total number of unique outcomes (median, 82; range, 12-5776; IQR, 261). Timing of assessment was reported in 32 (31.4%) studies. Methods to group similar outcomes were reported in 8 (7.8%) articles. No study defined how outcomes were agreed as different and how final numbers of unique outcomes were determined. It is proposed that a unique outcome requires original meaning and context. Thus ORH is suggested to be the reporting of multiple unique outcomes across trials related to one health care condition. CONCLUSION: This review identified inconsistencies in how authors define, extract, group, and count trial outcomes. Further work is needed to refine our proposed definitions to optimize COS development and allow a quantifiable measure of ORH.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.06.016

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Young, A. E., Brookes, S. T., Avery, K. N. L., Davies, A., Metcalfe, C., & Blazeby, J. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit (GB)
Corresponding author
Young, Amber E.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-11
Volume
115
Pages
14-24
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2953844063
Cited by
77
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health Research (DRF-2016-09-031)
  • Medical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub
  • NIHR Biomedical Research Centre
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
core outcome set, outcome reporting heterogeneity, outcome definitions
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Research Design, Databases, Factual, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Evidence-Based Medicine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review