Core outcome set

Last updated

A Core Outcome Set (COS) is a standardized set of domains and instruments that define the minimum outcomes to be measured and reported in all clinical trials related to a specific clinical area. It is developed through a rigorous consensus process involving diverse collaborators, including patient research partners, healthcare professionals, and researchers. The process has two key phases:

Contents

1. Identifying what to measure (domains), which results in a Core Domain Set.

2. Determining how to measure these domains through the selection of validated instruments.

By providing a common framework for measuring and reporting outcomes, a COS ensures consistency and comparability across studies, leading to more reliable and meaningful data in research on a particular health condition.

 [1]  [2]  [3]  [4]

Terminology

The term core domain is a key aspect of health or well-being that is considered essential to define, measure and report in all clinical trials and other research studies related to a specific health condition or disease.These are considered the ‘What’ to measure in Core Outcome Sets. [5] The term core domain should not be confused with the term domain, which refers to any clinical endpoint that can be measured in research, regardless of importance.[ citation needed ]

Similarly, core domains are distinct from core instruments (also known as outcome measures). While core domains provide guidance on what to measure in clinical studies, core instruments provide guidance on how to measure those selected outcomes. [6]

Scope

Core outcome sets are commonly used by clinical investigators who conduct clinical trials for the treatment of a health condition. [2] [3] [4] The patient population associated with a particular core outcome set may vary, as some apply to all patients with that health condition and others apply to a small subset of that population. [2] Core outcome sets are typically used in research, but they may also be used for patient management during routine clinical care.[ citation needed ]

The need to develop core outcome sets was initially identified by methodologists and aggregators of systematic reviews, like Cochrane, who observed that meta-analyses of trials of similar conditions were frequently impeded by the lack of similarity among the outcomes and outcome measures they employed. [7]

Methodology

In general, the process for developing a core outcome set requires rigorous methodology in which domains are first generated from all possible sources and then subsequently prioritized during a consensus process. [2] [1] [8]

A long list of domains is first developed by means of systematic reviews, literature reviews, and reviews of patient resources. [8] Additional domains are identified by interviewing those with further personal, professional or scientific knowledge of the health condition, such as patients, representatives of patient support groups, physicians and other clinicians, industry scientists, and healthcare regulators. [8]

After a list of potential domains is identified, an international group of experts and patients then select the domains most important to them by a consensus process, commonly the Delphi technique or nominal group technique. [2] [3] [4] [1] [6] [7]

For each of the selected core domains, instruments are identified and then selected through an instrument selection process. [6] [9]

The selected list of core domains and instruments is then published and disseminated for use by clinical trialists. Uptake of the core outcome set, or its active use by trialists, is encouraged.

Examples of core outcome set initiatives

The first initiative to standardize outcomes was led in 1970 by the World Health Organization (WHO), which attempted to create a set of domains for clinical trials in cancer. [2] Since then, numerous initiatives have been created to both develop core outcome sets and provide resources for other groups.

Core Outcome Sets in rheumatology

OMERACT

Over 19 core domain sets related to rheumatology have been developed by The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) collaboration, including those for fibromyalgia, gout, and osteoporosis. [10] In addition to developing core outcome sets in rheumatology, OMERACT publishes resources and handbooks for researchers that can be applied across all specialties.

General initiatives

COMET

The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) group is an international collaboration that provides extensive methodological support to all groups developing core outcome sets. [11] COMET was first launched in 2010 and is currently led by Paula Williamson. [12]

Core outcomes in dermatology

CS-COUSIN

The Cochrane Skin - Core Outcome Set Initiative (CS-COUSIN) group was created with the aim of developing core outcome sets in dermatology and providing methodological support to core outcome set developers. [3] CS-COUSIN is affiliated with the development of 18 dermatologic core outcome sets, including those for vitiligo, eczema, and acne.

IMPROVED

The Measurement of Priority Outcome Variables in Dermatologic Surgery group (IMPROVED), led by Murad Alam, is an international collaboration of dermatologic surgeons that has developed core outcomes for various dermatologic surgery conditions. [13] Notably, the IMPROVED group has developed core outcome sets for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, and actinic keratosis. [14]

Core outcome in women's health

CROWN

Six core outcome sets have been developed by the Core Outcomes in Women's and Newborn's Health (CROWN) collaboration for various health conditions relevant to women's health. [15] Notable sets include those for diabetes in pregnancy, preterm birth, and maternity care. [16] [17] [18]

Access to core outcome sets

Core outcome sets that are published or are in development can be found in a database maintained by the COMET initiative. [19] The database is refreshed annually by a systematic review of core outcome set studies.

Related Research Articles

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is "the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. ... [It] means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research." The aim of EBM is to integrate the experience of the clinician, the values of the patient, and the best available scientific information to guide decision-making about clinical management. The term was originally used to describe an approach to teaching the practice of medicine and improving decisions by individual physicians about individual patients.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clinical trial</span> Phase of clinical research in medicine

Clinical trials are prospective biomedical or behavioral research studies on human participants designed to answer specific questions about biomedical or behavioral interventions, including new treatments and known interventions that warrant further study and comparison. Clinical trials generate data on dosage, safety and efficacy. They are conducted only after they have received health authority/ethics committee approval in the country where approval of the therapy is sought. These authorities are responsible for vetting the risk/benefit ratio of the trial—their approval does not mean the therapy is 'safe' or effective, only that the trial may be conducted.

Clinical endpoints or clinical outcomes are outcome measures referring to occurrence of disease, symptom, sign or laboratory abnormality constituting a target outcome in clinical research trials. The term may also refer to any disease or sign that strongly motivates withdrawal of an individual or entity from the trial, then often termed a humane (clinical) endpoint.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set</span>

The Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) is a widely used set of performance measures in the managed care industry, developed and maintained by the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Systematic review</span> Comprehensive review of research literature using systematic methods

A systematic review is a scholarly synthesis of the evidence on a clearly presented topic using critical methods to identify, define and assess research on the topic. A systematic review extracts and interprets data from published studies on the topic, then analyzes, describes, critically appraises and summarizes interpretations into a refined evidence-based conclusion. For example, a systematic review of randomized controlled trials is a way of summarizing and implementing evidence-based medicine.

A patient-reported outcome (PRO) is a health outcome directly reported by the patient who experienced it. It stands in contrast to an outcome reported by someone else, such as a physician-reported outcome, a nurse-reported outcome, and so on. PRO methods, such as questionnaires, are used in clinical trials or other clinical settings, to help better understand a treatment's efficacy or effectiveness. The use of digitized PROs, or electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs), is on the rise in today's health research setting.

Teledermatology is a subspecialty in the medical field of dermatology and probably one of the most common applications of telemedicine and e-health. In teledermatology, telecommunication technologies are used to exchange medical information over a distance using audio, visual, and data communication. Applications comprise health care management such as diagnoses, consultation, and treatment as well as (continuous) education.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Quality of life (healthcare)</span> Notion in healthcare

In general, quality of life is the perceived quality of an individual's daily life, that is, an assessment of their well-being or lack thereof. This includes all emotional, social and physical aspects of the individual's life. In health care, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an assessment of how the individual's well-being may be affected over time by a disease, disability or disorder.

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) provides clinicians and researchers access to reliable, valid, and flexible measures of health status that assess physical, mental, and social well–being from the patient perspective. PROMIS measures are standardized, allowing for assessment of many patient-reported outcome domains—including pain, fatigue, emotional distress, physical functioning and social role participation—based on common metrics that allow for comparisons across domains, across chronic diseases, and with the general population. Further, PROMIS tools allow for computer adaptive testing, efficiently achieving precise measurement of health status domains with few items. There are PROMIS measures for both adults and children. PROMIS was established in 2004 with funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as one of the initiatives of the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research.

Health care quality is a level of value provided by any health care resource, as determined by some measurement. As with quality in other fields, it is an assessment of whether something is good enough and whether it is suitable for its purpose. The goal of health care is to provide medical resources of high quality to all who need them; that is, to ensure good quality of life, cure illnesses when possible, to extend life expectancy, and so on. Researchers use a variety of quality measures to attempt to determine health care quality, including counts of a therapy's reduction or lessening of diseases identified by medical diagnosis, a decrease in the number of risk factors which people have following preventive care, or a survey of health indicators in a population who are accessing certain kinds of care.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">AllTrials</span>

AllTrials is a project advocating that clinical research adopt the principles of open research. The project summarizes itself as "All trials registered, all results reported": that is, all clinical trials should be listed in a clinical trials registry, and their results should always be shared as open data.

The Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) is a validated tool for the measurement of severity of atopic dermatitis. It ranges from 0 to 72. The EASI was developed in 1998 by modifying the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI), a widely accepted scoring system for psoriasis.

The Dermatology life Quality Index (DLQI) is a ten-question questionnaire used to measure the impact of skin disease on the quality of life of an affected person. It is designed for people aged 16 years and above.

Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G) is a patient-reported outcome measure used to assess health-related quality of life in patients undergoing cancer therapy. The FACT-G is the original questionnaire that led to the development of the larger Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) collection of quality of life instruments. The survey assesses the impacts of cancer therapy in four domains: physical, social/family, emotional, and functional. The FACT-G is also offered with additional questions measuring cancer-specific factors that may affect quality of life, leading to the creation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Head and Neck (FACT-H&N), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Lung (FACT-L), and 18 others.

ISPOR—The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research, also known as ISPOR is a global, nonprofit 501(c)(3) public organization for educational and scientific purposes, as defined by the United States Internal Revenue Service.

CORE-OM is a common self-report measure of global distress. It can be used as an initial screening tool and as an assessment tool of the response to psychological therapy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Peter Tugwell</span> Canadian physician working on health equity

Peter Tugwell is a Canadian physician and Professor in the Department of Medicine and School of Epidemiology and Public Health at the University of Ottawa. He is known for promoting clinical epidemiology and championing for health equity worldwide. In 2013 he was named Officer of the Order of Canada for his efforts as "tireless contributor to global health".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Outcome Measures in Rheumatology</span> Rheumatology initiative

Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) is an international initiative aimed at improving outcome measurement in rheumatology. Established in 1992, OMERACT organizes biennial consensus conferences to develop and refine core sets of measures for rheumatologic conditions, with an emphasis on data-driven recommendations....

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Donald L. Patrick</span> American social scientist

Donald L. Patrick is a social scientist, academic, and an author. He is a Professor Emeritus of Health Systems and Population Health at the University of Washington, Director of Seattle Quality of Life Group, and Creator of the Biobehavioral Cancer Prevention and Control Training Program jointly with the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center. He has served as the co-chair of the Cochrane Collaboration's Patient Reported Outcomes Methods Group. His research interests revolve around various aspects of public health which integrate the themes from fields such as psychological intervention, social stratification, public health, and quality of life. Much of his research works have focused on outcomes research on vulnerable populations, health disparities, and end-of-life-care.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Handbook O. Handbook. OMERACT Handbook. Accessed September 15, 2020. https://omeracthandbook.org/handbook
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 The COMET Handbook: version 1.0 | Trials | Full Text. Accessed September 15, 2020. https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-017-1978-4#Bib1
  3. 1 2 3 4 Cochrane Skin – Core Outcome Set Initiative. Accessed September 15, 2020. http://cs-cousin.org/
  4. 1 2 3 I’m developing a Core Outcome Set • COSMIN. Accessed September 15, 2020. https://www.cosmin.nl/finding-right-tool/developing-core-outcome-set/
  5. ↑ "Glossary Core Domain". www.omeract.org. November 26, 2023.
  6. 1 2 3 COUSIN_guidance_version_5_9_2018.pdf. Accessed September 15, 2020. http://cs-cousin.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/COUSIN_guidance_version_5_9_2018.pdf
  7. 1 2 Schmitt J, Lange T, Kottner J, et al. Cochrane Reviews and Dermatological Trials Outcome Concordance: Why Core Outcome Sets Could Make Trial Results More Usable. J Invest Dermatol. 2019;139(5):1045-1053. doi:10.1016/j.jid.2018.11.019
  8. 1 2 3 Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development: The COS-STAD recommendations. Accessed September 15, 2020. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002447
  9. ↑ Guideline for Selecting Instruments for a Core Outcome Set • COSMIN. COSMIN. Accessed September 21, 2020. https://www.cosmin.nl/tools/guideline-selecting-proms-cos/
  10. ↑ OMERACT: Working Groups. OMERACT. Accessed September 15, 2020. https://omeract.org/working-groups/
  11. ↑ COMET Initiative | About COMET. Accessed September 15, 2020. http://www.comet-initiative.org/About
  12. ↑ COMET Initiative | Who we are. Accessed September 15, 2020. http://www.comet-initiative.org/About/WhoWeAre
  13. ↑ ImprovedGroup. ImprovedGroup. Accessed September 15, 2020. http://www.improvedgroup.org
  14. ↑ Core Outcome Set for Actinic Keratosis Clinical Trials | Dermatology | JAMA Dermatology | JAMA Network. Accessed September 15, 2020. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/2758800
  15. ↑ Core Outcome Sets | The CROWN Initiative. Accessed September 15, 2020. http://www.crown-initiative.org/core-outcome-sets/
  16. ↑ Devane D, Begley CM, Clarke M, Horey D, OBoyle C. Evaluating Maternity Care: A Core Set of Outcome Measures. Birth. 2007;34(2):164-172. doi:10.1111/j.1523-536X.2006.00145.x
  17. ↑ Egan AM, Galjaard S, Maresh MJA, et al. A core outcome set for studies evaluating the effectiveness of prepregnancy care for women with pregestational diabetes. Diabetologia. 2017;60(7):1190-1196. doi:10.1007/s00125-017-4277-4
  18. ↑ van ʼt Hooft J, Duffy JMN, Daly M, et al. A Core Outcome Set for Evaluation of Interventions to Prevent Preterm Birth. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127(1):49-58. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000001195
  19. ↑ COMET Initiative | Search the COMET Database. http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.