Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 15, 2026

Using SCOPE to Identify Potential Regulatory Motifs in Coregulated Genes
Published on: May 31, 2011
Representation of published core outcome sets for research in regulatory guidance: protocol
Susanna Dodd1, Rebecca Fish2,3, Sarah Gorst1
1MRC/NIHR Trials Methodology Research Partnership, Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool (a member of Liverpool Health Partners), Liverpool, UK.
None:
Background: The COMET Initiative promotes the development and use of 'core outcome sets' (COS), agreed standardised sets of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all studies in a particular clinical condition. COS are determined by consensus amongst key stakeholders, including health professionals, policymakers and patients, ensuring that the priorities and expertise of these representatives inform the choice of the most important outcomes to measure for a given condition. There is increased recognition of the need to integrate COS across the healthcare system and with existing regulatory apparatus, to ensure that outcomes being recorded are those of key relevance to important stakeholders. The aim of this study is to assess the degree of concordance between outcomes recommended in COS for research and in guidance provided by two key regulators: US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Methods: COS for research published during 2015-2019 with patient involvement and covering drug or device interventions will be compared against relevant regulatory guidelines, matched by condition. Guidance documents matching in scope (relating to intervention and population) to a COS for research will be scrutinised to identify all suggested outcomes for comparison against the core outcomes in the corresponding COS. Discussion: This study will identify variation between outcomes suggested in FDA and EMA regulatory guidance relative to outcomes included in published COS for research, thus demonstrating the degree of representation of COS in regulatory guidance and vice versa. We will share the study findings (in particular, highlighting any lack of concordance between COS and regulatory guidance overall or for particular disease areas) and will invite feedback from FDA and EMA; we will seek to highlight where findings support the recommendations towards using well-developed COS or will make recommendations to COS developers on outcomes of importance to these key regulators.
More Related Videos
09:35A Protocol for Using Gene Set Enrichment Analysis to Identify the Appropriate Animal Model for Translational Research
Published on: August 16, 2017
04:50Reproducibility and Harmonization in Research Using Biological Standards: The Example of Platelet Agonist Collagen-Related Peptide
Published on: August 4, 2023
Related Concept Videos
Guidelines for Writing Outcome
Patient outcomes reflect the patient's response to the goal rather than what the nurse aims to achieve. Terminology should be observable and measurable to avoid the reader's interpretation. The desired outcome should be realistic and achievable in the designated care timeframe. Expected outcomes should align with adjunctive therapies. The outcome should enhance care...
Standards of Care II
Clinical Trials: Overview
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Clinically Relevant Drug Product Specifications: Methods of Establishment
Study Designs in Epidemiology
Observational studies are those where the researcher does not intervene but rather observes natural variations. They include cross-sectional, cohort, and...