Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 17, 2025
Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
Adverse events are considered but not always explicitly selected as core outcomes in research: an updated systematic
Sarah L Gorst1, Jonathan P Lucas1, Susanna Dodd1
1Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Objectives:
The annual systematic review update of published core outcome sets (COSs) by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative allows assessment of adherence to development standards. The objectives of this study were to assess the quality of COS development and the approach to the inclusion of adverse event outcomes.
Study Design And Setting:
Studies reporting the development of a COS, published or indexed in 2022 and 2023, were identified using systematic review methods previously applied. Adherence to internationally agreed consensus-based standards for COS development was assessed. An existing outcome taxonomy was used to classify the core outcomes from all studies. The approach to consideration and inclusion of adverse event outcomes was examined.
Results:
Fifty-eight COS development studies were included in the 2022 update and a further 40 studies in the 2023 update. Scope specification standards were fully met in all studies. Stakeholder inclusion standards were fully met in 38 (66%) and 34 (85%) of the 2022 and 2023 studies, respectively; the proportion meeting all four standards for the consensus process was lower, 13 (22%) and 13 (33%), respectively. The consideration of adverse events in the COS development process varied. Around half (54, 49%) of 2022-2023 COS included either the adverse events domain or specifically named adverse events as core outcomes.
Conclusion:
Continued improvement in adherence to recognized standards, including patient participation, is evident; however, further improvement is needed in relation to the consensus process standards. COS developers should be explicit about and explain the rationale for their approach to consideration of adverse events.
More Related Videos
10:38Observational Study Protocol for Repeated Clinical Examination and Critical Care Ultrasonography Within the Simple Intensive Care Studies
Published on: January 16, 2019
08:36Author Spotlight: Evaluating the Adjuvant Efficacy and Safety of Angong Niuhuang Pill in Viral Encephalitis Treatment
Published on: April 19, 2024
Related Concept Videos
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,...
01:20Study Designs in Epidemiology
Observational studies are those where the researcher does not intervene but rather observes natural variations. They include cross-sectional, cohort, and...
01:19Pharmacovigilance
This process, termed pharmacovigilance, aims to detect, evaluate, and minimize harmful effects related to medication use. The data collection for pharmacovigilance depends on spontaneous reporting systems, where healthcare professionals or patients voluntarily report suspected ADRs.
In some cases, there...
01:29Bias in Epidemiological Studies
01:11Clinical Trials: Overview
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...