The use of core outcome sets (COS) ensures that researchers measure and report those outcomes that are most likely to be relevant to users of their research. Several hundred COS projects have been ...systematically identified to date, but there has been no formal quality assessment of these studies. The Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) project aimed to identify minimum standards for the design of a COS study agreed upon by an international group, while other specific guidance exists for the final reporting of COS development studies (Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting COS-STAR).
An international group of experienced COS developers, methodologists, journal editors, potential users of COS (clinical trialists, systematic reviewers, and clinical guideline developers), and patient representatives produced the COS-STAD recommendations to help improve the quality of COS development and support the assessment of whether a COS had been developed using a reasonable approach. An open survey of experts generated an initial list of items, which was refined by a 2-round Delphi survey involving nearly 250 participants representing key stakeholder groups. Participants assigned importance ratings for each item using a 1-9 scale. Consensus that an item should be included in the set of minimum standards was defined as at least 70% of the voting participants from each stakeholder group providing a score between 7 and 9. The Delphi survey was followed by a consensus discussion with the study management group representing multiple stakeholder groups. COS-STAD contains 11 minimum standards that are the minimum design recommendations for all COS development projects. The recommendations focus on 3 key domains: the scope, the stakeholders, and the consensus process.
The COS-STAD project has established 11 minimum standards to be followed by COS developers when planning their projects and by users when deciding whether a COS has been developed using reasonable methods.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
The selection of appropriate outcomes or domains is crucial when designing clinical trials in order to compare directly the effects of different interventions in ways that minimize bias. If the ...findings are to influence policy and practice then the chosen outcomes need to be relevant and important to key stakeholders including patients and the public, health care professionals and others making decisions about health care. There is a growing recognition that insufficient attention has been paid to the outcomes measured in clinical trials. These issues could be addressed through the development and use of an agreed standardized collection of outcomes, known as a core outcome set, which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all trials for a specific clinical area. Accumulating work in this area has identified the need for general guidance on the development of core outcome sets. Key issues to consider in the development of a core outcome set include its scope, the stakeholder groups to involve, choice of consensus method and the achievement of a consensus.
Full text
Available for:
IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
The UK Medical Research Council’s widely used guidance for developing and evaluating complex interventions has been replaced by a new framework, commissioned jointly by the Medical Research Council ...and the National Institute for Health Research, which takes account of recent developments in theory and methods and the need to maximise the efficiency, use, and impact of research.
Core outcome sets (COS) can enhance the relevance of research by ensuring that outcomes of importance to health service users and other people making choices about health care in a particular topic ...area are measured routinely. Over 200 COS to date have been developed, but the clarity of these reports is suboptimal. COS studies will not achieve their goal if reports of COS are not complete and transparent.
In recognition of these issues, an international group that included experienced COS developers, methodologists, journal editors, potential users of COS (clinical trialists, systematic reviewers, and clinical guideline developers), and patient representatives developed the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting (COS-STAR) Statement as a reporting guideline for COS studies. The developmental process consisted of an initial reporting item generation stage and a two-round Delphi survey involving nearly 200 participants representing key stakeholder groups, followed by a consensus meeting. The COS-STAR Statement consists of a checklist of 18 items considered essential for transparent and complete reporting in all COS studies. The checklist items focus on the introduction, methods, results, and discussion section of a manuscript describing the development of a particular COS. A limitation of the COS-STAR Statement is that it was developed without representative views of low- and middle-income countries. COS have equal relevance to studies conducted in these areas, and, subsequently, this guideline may need to evolve over time to encompass any additional challenges from developing COS in these areas.
With many ongoing COS studies underway, the COS-STAR Statement should be a helpful resource to improve the reporting of COS studies for the benefit of all COS users.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
A core outcome set (COS) is a standardised set of outcomes which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all effectiveness trials for a specific health area. This will allow results of ...studies to be compared, contrasted and combined as appropriate, as well as ensuring that all trials contribute usable information. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness Trials) Initiative aims to support the development, reporting and adoption of COS. Central to this is a publically accessible online resource, populated with all available COS. The aim of the review we report here was to identify studies that sought to determine which outcomes or domains to measure in all clinical trials in a specific condition and to describe the methodological techniques used in these studies.
We developed a multi-faceted search strategy for electronic databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Methodology Register). We included studies that sought to determine which outcomes/domains to measure in all clinical trials in a specific condition.
A total of 250 reports relating to 198 studies were judged eligible for inclusion in the review. Studies covered various areas of health, most commonly cancer, rheumatology, neurology, heart and circulation, and dentistry and oral health. A variety of methods have been used to develop COS, including semi-structured discussion, unstructured group discussion, the Delphi Technique, Consensus Development Conference, surveys and Nominal Group Technique. The most common groups involved were clinical experts and non-clinical research experts. Thirty-one (16%) studies reported that the public had been involved in the process. The geographic locations of participants were predominantly North America (n = 164; 83%) and Europe (n = 150; 76%).
This systematic review identified many health areas where a COS has been developed, but also highlights important gaps. It is a further step towards a comprehensive, up-to-date database of COS. In addition, it shows the need for methodological guidance, including how to engage key stakeholder groups, particularly members of the public.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
The Medical Research Council published the second edition of its framework in 2006 on developing and evaluating complex interventions. Since then, there have been considerable developments in the ...field of complex intervention research. The objective of this project was to update the framework in the light of these developments. The framework aims to help research teams prioritise research questions and design, and conduct research with an appropriate choice of methods, rather than to provide detailed guidance on the use of specific methods.
There were four stages to the update: (1) gap analysis to identify developments in the methods and practice since the previous framework was published; (2) an expert workshop of 36 participants to discuss the topics identified in the gap analysis; (3) an open consultation process to seek comments on a first draft of the new framework; and (4) findings from the previous stages were used to redraft the framework, and final expert review was obtained. The process was overseen by a Scientific Advisory Group representing the range of relevant National Institute for Health Research and Medical Research Council research investments.
Key changes to the previous framework include (1) an updated definition of complex interventions, highlighting the dynamic relationship between the intervention and its context; (2) an emphasis on the use of diverse research perspectives: efficacy, effectiveness, theory-based and systems perspectives; (3) a focus on the usefulness of evidence as the basis for determining research perspective and questions; (4) an increased focus on interventions developed outside research teams, for example changes in policy or health services delivery; and (5) the identification of six 'core elements' that should guide all phases of complex intervention research: consider context; develop, refine and test programme theory; engage stakeholders; identify key uncertainties; refine the intervention; and economic considerations. We divide the research process into four phases: development, feasibility, evaluation and implementation. For each phase we provide a concise summary of recent developments, key points to address and signposts to further reading. We also present case studies to illustrate the points being made throughout.
The framework aims to help research teams prioritise research questions and design and conduct research with an appropriate choice of methods, rather than to provide detailed guidance on the use of specific methods. In many of the areas of innovation that we highlight, such as the use of systems approaches, there are still only a few practical examples. We refer to more specific and detailed guidance where available and note where promising approaches require further development.
This new framework incorporates developments in complex intervention research published since the previous edition was written in 2006. As well as taking account of established practice and recent refinements, we draw attention to new approaches and place greater emphasis on economic considerations in complex intervention research. We have introduced a new emphasis on the importance of context and the value of understanding interventions as 'events in systems' that produce effects through interactions with features of the contexts in which they are implemented. The framework adopts a pluralist approach, encouraging researchers and research funders to adopt diverse research perspectives and to select research questions and methods pragmatically, with the aim of providing evidence that is useful to decision-makers.
We call for further work to develop relevant methods and provide examples in practice. The use of this framework should be monitored and the move should be made to a more fluid resource in the future, for example a web-based format that can be frequently updated to incorporate new material and links to emerging resources.
This project was jointly funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the National Institute for Health Research (Department of Health and Social Care 73514).
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.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
The COMET Handbook: version 1.0 Williamson, Paula R; Altman, Douglas G; Bagley, Heather ...
Current controlled trials in cardiovascular medicine,
06/2017, Volume:
18, Issue:
Suppl 3
Journal Article
Peer reviewed
Open access
The selection of appropriate outcomes is crucial when designing clinical trials in order to compare the effects of different interventions directly. For the findings to influence policy and practice, ...the outcomes need to be relevant and important to key stakeholders including patients and the public, health care professionals and others making decisions about health care. It is now widely acknowledged that insufficient attention has been paid to the choice of outcomes measured in clinical trials. Researchers are increasingly addressing this issue through the development and use of a core outcome set, an agreed standardised collection of outcomes which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all trials for a specific clinical area.Accumulating work in this area has identified the need for guidance on the development, implementation, evaluation and updating of core outcome sets. This Handbook, developed by the COMET Initiative, brings together current thinking and methodological research regarding those issues. We recommend a four-step process to develop a core outcome set. The aim is to update the contents of the Handbook as further research is identified.
Full text
Available for:
IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
Several hundred core outcome set (COS) projects have been systematically identified to date which, if adopted, ensure that researchers measure and report those outcomes that are most likely to be ...relevant to users of their research. The uptake of a COS by COS users will depend in part on the transparency and robustness of the methods used in the COS development study, which would be increased by the use of a standardised protocol. This article describes the development of the COS-STAP (Core Outcome Set-STAndardised Protocol Items) Statement for the content of a COS development study protocol.
The COS-STAP Statement was developed following the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency Of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network's methodological framework for guideline development. This included an initial item generation stage, a two-round Delphi survey involving more than 150 participants representing three stakeholder groups (COS developers, journal editors and patient and public involvement researchers interested in COS development), followed by a consensus meeting with eight voting participants.
The COS-STAP Statement consists of a checklist of 13 items considered essential documentation in a protocol, outlining the scope of the COS, stakeholder involvement, COS development plans and consensus processes.
Journal editors and peer reviewers can use the guidance to assess the completeness of a COS development study protocol submitted for publication. By providing guidance for key content, the COS-STAP Statement will enhance the drafting of high-quality protocols and determine how the COS development study will be carried out.
Full text
Available for:
IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
Summary Background Peri-operative chemotherapy and surgery is a standard of care for patients with resectable oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody against VEGF, ...improves the proportion of patients responding to treatment in advanced gastric cancer. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of adding bevacizumab to peri-operative chemotherapy in patients with resectable gastric, oesophagogastric junction, or lower oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Methods In this multicentre, randomised, open-label phase 2–3 trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years and older with histologically proven, resectable oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma from 87 UK hospitals and cancer centres. We randomly assigned patients 1:1 to receive peri-operative epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine chemotherapy or chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, in addition to surgery. Patients in the control group (chemotherapy alone) received three pre-operative and three post-operative cycles of epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine chemotherapy: 50 mg/m2 epirubicin and 60 mg/m2 cisplatin on day 1 and 1250 mg/m2 oral capecitabine on days 1–21. Patients in the investigational group received the same treatment as the control group plus 7·5 mg/kg intravenous bevacizumab on day 1 of every cycle of chemotherapy and for six further doses once every 21 days following chemotherapy, as maintenance treatment. Randomisation was done by means of a telephone call to the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, where staff used a computer programme that implemented a minimisation algorithm with a random element to establish the allocation for the patient at the point of randomisation. Patients were stratified by chemotherapy centre, site of tumour, and tumour stage. The primary outcome for the phase 3 stage of the trial was overall survival (defined as the time from randomisation until death from any cause), analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Here, we report the primary analysis results of the trial; all patients have completed treatment and the required number of primary outcome events has been reached. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN 46020948, and with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00450203. Findings Between Oct 31, 2007, and March 25, 2014, 1063 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy alone (n=533) or chemotherapy plus bevacizumab (n=530). At the time of analysis, 508 deaths were recorded (248 in the chemotherapy alone group and 260 in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group). 3-year overall survival was 50·3% (95% CI 45·5–54·9) in the chemotherapy alone group and 48·1% (43·2–52·7) in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group (hazard ratio HR 1·08, 95% CI 0·91–1·29; p=0·36). Apart from neutropenia no other toxic effects were reported at grade 3 or worse severity in more than 10% of patients in either group. Wound healing complications were more prevalent in the bevacizumab group, occurring in 53 (12%) patients in this group compared with 33 (7%) patients in the chemotherapy alone group. In patients who underwent oesophagogastrectomy, post-operative anastomotic leak rates were higher in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group (23 10% of 233 in the chemotherapy alone group vs 52 24% of 220 in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group); therefore, recruitment of patients with lower oesophageal or junctional tumours planned for an oesophagogastric resection was stopped towards the end of the trial. Serious adverse events for all patients included anastomotic leaks (30 events in chemotherapy alone group vs 69 in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group), and infections with normal neutrophil count (42 events vs 53). Interpretation The results of this trial do not provide any evidence for the use of bevacizumab in combination with peri-operative epiribicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine chemotherapy for patients with resectable gastric, oesophagogastric junction, or lower oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Bevacizumab might also be associated with impaired wound healing. Funding Cancer Research UK, MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, and F Hoffmann-La Roche Limited.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZRSKP
PDF
