The methodological quality of systematic reviews regarding the Core Outcome Set (COS) development
Hong Cao1,2, Yan Chen1,2, Zhihao Yang3
1School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Guizhou University, 2708 South of Huaxi Avenue Road, Guiyang, China.
Background:
The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) working group proposed core outcome sets (COS) to address the heterogeneity in outcome measures in clinical studies. According to the recommendations of COMET, performing systematic reviews (SRs) usually was the first step for COS development. However, the SRs that serve as a basis for COS are not specifically appraised by organizations such as COMET regarding their quality. Here, we investigated the status of SRs related to development of COS and evaluated their methodological quality.
Methods:
We conducted a search on PubMed to identify SRs related to COS development published from inception to May 2022. We qualitatively summarized the disease included in SR topics, and the studies included in the SRs. We evaluated the methodological quality of the SRs using AMSTAR 2.0 and compared the overall quality of SRs with and without protocols using the Mann-Whitney U test.
Results:
We included 175 SRs from 23 different countries or regions, and they mainly focused on five diseases: musculoskeletal system or connective tissue disease (n = 19, 10.86%), injury, poisoning, or certain other consequences of external causes (n = 18, 10.29%), digestive system disease (n = 16, 9.14%), nervous system disease (n = 15, 8.57%), and genitourinary system disease (n = 15, 8.57%). Although 88.00% of SRs included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), only a few SRs (23.38%) employed appropriate tools to assess the risk of bias in RCTs. The assessment results on the basis of AMSTAR 2.0 indicated that most SRs (93.71%) were rated as ''critically low'' to ''low'' in terms of overall confidence. The overall confidence of SRs with protocols was significantly higher than that without protocols (P <.001). Compared to the SRs with protocols on Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET), SRs with protocols on PROSPERO were of better overall confidence (P = .017).
Conclusion:
The overall quality of published SRs regarding COS development was poor. Our findings emphasize the need for researchers to carefully select the disease topic and strictly adhere to the requirements of optimal methodology when conducting a SR for the establishment of a COS.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
01:20Study Designs in Epidemiology
Observational studies are those where the researcher does not intervene but rather observes natural variations. They include cross-sectional, cohort, and...
01:15Study Design in Statistics
Does aspirin reduce the risk of heart attacks? Is one brand of fertilizer more effective at growing roses than another? Is fatigue as dangerous to a driver as the influence of alcohol? Questions like these are answered using randomized experiments with proper...
01:11Guidelines 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...
01:15Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
01:23Types 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,...
01:11Clinical Trials: Overview