TY - JOUR
T1 - Representation of published core outcome sets in practice guidelines
AU - Rhodes, Sarah
AU - Dodd, Susanna
AU - Deckert, Stefanie
AU - Vasanthan, Lenny
AU - Qiu, Ruijin
AU - Rohde, Jeanett Friis
AU - Florez, Ivan D
AU - Schmitt, Jochen
AU - Nieuwlaat, Robby
AU - Kirkham, Jamie
AU - Williamson, Paula
N1 - Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2024/5/1
Y1 - 2024/5/1
N2 - Objectives: A core outcome set (COS) is an agreed standardized set of outcomes that should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in specific areas of health or health care. A COS is developed through a consensus process to ensure health care outcomes to be measured are relevant to decision-makers, including patients and health-care professionals. Use of COS in guideline development is likely to increase the relevance of the guideline to those decision-makers. Previous work has looked at the uptake of COS in trials, systematic reviews, health technology assessments and regulatory guidance but to date there has been no evaluation of the use of COS in practice guideline development. The objective of this study was to investigate the representation of core outcomes in a set of international practice guidelines. Study Design and Setting: We searched for clinical guidelines relevant to ten high-quality COS (with focus on the United Kingdom, Germany, China, India, Canada, Denmark, United States and World Health Organisation). We matched scope between COS and guideline in terms of condition, population and outcome. We calculated the proportion of guidelines mentioning or referencing COS and the proportion of COS domains specifically, or generally, matching to outcomes specified in each guideline populations, interventions, comparators and outcome (PICO) statement. Results: We found 38 guidelines that contained 170 PICO statements matching the scope of the ten COS and of sufficient quality to allow data extraction. None of the guidelines reviewed explicitly mentioned or referenced the relevant COS. The median (range) of the proportion of core outcomes covered either specifically or generally by the guideline PICO was 30% (0%–100%). Conclusion: There is no evidence that COS are being used routinely to inform the guideline development process, and concordance between outcomes in published guidelines and those in COS is limited. Further work is warranted to explore barriers and facilitators in the use of COS when developing clinical guidelines.
AB - Objectives: A core outcome set (COS) is an agreed standardized set of outcomes that should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in specific areas of health or health care. A COS is developed through a consensus process to ensure health care outcomes to be measured are relevant to decision-makers, including patients and health-care professionals. Use of COS in guideline development is likely to increase the relevance of the guideline to those decision-makers. Previous work has looked at the uptake of COS in trials, systematic reviews, health technology assessments and regulatory guidance but to date there has been no evaluation of the use of COS in practice guideline development. The objective of this study was to investigate the representation of core outcomes in a set of international practice guidelines. Study Design and Setting: We searched for clinical guidelines relevant to ten high-quality COS (with focus on the United Kingdom, Germany, China, India, Canada, Denmark, United States and World Health Organisation). We matched scope between COS and guideline in terms of condition, population and outcome. We calculated the proportion of guidelines mentioning or referencing COS and the proportion of COS domains specifically, or generally, matching to outcomes specified in each guideline populations, interventions, comparators and outcome (PICO) statement. Results: We found 38 guidelines that contained 170 PICO statements matching the scope of the ten COS and of sufficient quality to allow data extraction. None of the guidelines reviewed explicitly mentioned or referenced the relevant COS. The median (range) of the proportion of core outcomes covered either specifically or generally by the guideline PICO was 30% (0%–100%). Conclusion: There is no evidence that COS are being used routinely to inform the guideline development process, and concordance between outcomes in published guidelines and those in COS is limited. Further work is warranted to explore barriers and facilitators in the use of COS when developing clinical guidelines.
KW - COMET initiative
KW - Clinical practice guidelines
KW - Core outcome sets
KW - Guideline development
KW - Outcome measures
KW - PICO
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85188247680&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/ec9c3709-a205-3973-8340-d618a34aba0d/
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111311
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111311
M3 - Article
C2 - 38423401
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 169
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
M1 - 111311
ER -