Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Trials
Published in: Trials 1/2013

Open Access 01-12-2013 | Research

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

Authors: Jamie J Kirkham, Elizabeth Gargon, Mike Clarke, Paula R Williamson

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
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): e3081-10.1371/journal.pone.0003081.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
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: c365-10.1136/bmj.c365.CrossRefPubMed
4.
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.CrossRefPubMed
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. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.12.014.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Can a core outcome set improve the quality of systematic reviews? – a survey of the Co-ordinating Editors of Cochrane review groups
Authors
Jamie J Kirkham
Elizabeth Gargon
Mike Clarke
Paula R Williamson
Publication date
01-12-2013
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2013
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-14-21

Other articles of this Issue 1/2013

Trials 1/2013 Go to the issue

Research

The feasibility and acceptability of conducting a trial of specialist medical care and the Lightning Process in children with chronic fatigue syndrome: feasibility randomized controlled trial (SMILE study)

Methodology

Impact of lack-of-benefit stopping rules on treatment effect estimates of two-arm multi-stage (TAMS) trials with time to event outcome

Study protocol

Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial for anterior inguinal hernia repair: transrectus sheath preperitoneal mesh repair compared to transinguinal preperitoneal procedure

Study protocol

Alternative Imaging Modalities in Ischemic Heart Failure (AIMI-HF) IMAGE HF Project I-A: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

The clinical and cost-effectiveness of the BRinging Information and Guided Help Together (BRIGHT) intervention for the self-management support of people with stage 3 chronic kidney disease in primary care: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

The MOSAIC study - comparison of the Maudsley Model of Treatment for Adults with Anorexia Nervosa (MANTRA) with Specialist Supportive Clinical Management (SSCM) in outpatients with anorexia nervosa or eating disorder not otherwise specified, anorexia nervosa type: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial