Core outcome measurement instruments for use in clinical and research settings for adults with post-COVID-19 condition: an international Delphi consensus study.

Post-COVID-19 condition (also known as long COVID) is a new, complex, and poorly understood disorder. A core outcome set (COS) for post-COVID-19 condition in adults has been developed and agreement is now required on the most appropriate measurement instruments for these core outcomes. We conducted an international consensus study involving multidisciplinary experts and people with lived experience of long COVID. The study comprised a literature review to identify measurement instruments for the core outcomes, a three-round online modified Delphi process, and an online consensus meeting to generate a core outcome measurement set (COMS). 594 individuals from 58 countries participated. The number of potential instruments for the 12 core outcomes was reduced from 319 to 19. Consensus was reached for inclusion of the modified Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale for respiratory outcomes. Measures for two relevant outcomes from a previously published COS for acute COVID-19 were also included: time until death, for survival, and the Recovery Scale for COVID-19, for recovery. Instruments were suggested for consideration for the remaining nine core outcomes: fatigue or exhaustion, pain, post-exertion symptoms, work or occupational and study changes, and cardiovascular, nervous system, cognitive, mental health, and physical outcomes; however, consensus was not achieved for instruments for these outcomes. The recommended COMS and instruments for consideration provide a foundation for the evaluation of post-COVID-19 condition in adults, which should help to optimise clinical care and accelerate research worldwide. Further assessment of this COMS is warranted as new data emerge on existing and novel measurement instruments.

Patient participation impacts outcome domain selection in core outcome sets for research: an updated systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The importance of including patients, carers, and the public in health research is well recognized, including the need to consider outcomes in health care research that reflect the priorities of patients. Core outcome sets (COS) define the minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in research of a given condition, determined through consensus among key stakeholders. The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative undertakes an annual systematic review (SR) to identify newly published COS to update its online database of COS for research. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of patient participation on COS. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: SR methods used in previous updates were applied to identify research studies published or indexed in 2020 and 2021 (conducted as separate reviews) that report development of a COS, regardless of any specifications relating to condition, population, intervention, or setting. Studies were assessed according to published standards for COS development, and core outcomes extracted from study publications were categorized according to an outcome taxonomy and added to an existing database of core outcome classifications of all previously published COS. The effect of patient participation on core domains was examined. RESULTS: Searches identified 56 new studies published in 2020 and 54 in 2021. All studies met all four minimum standards for scope, and 42 (75%) of the 2020 studies and 45 (83%) of the 2021 studies met all three standards for stakeholders involved. However, only 19 (34%) of the 2020 studies and 18 (33%) of the 2021 studies met all four standards for the consensus process. COS that involved patients or their representatives are more likely to include life impact outcomes (239, 86%) than COS without patient participation (193, 62%). Physiological/clinical outcomes are almost always specified at a granular level, whereas life impact outcomes are often described at a higher level. CONCLUSION: This study adds to the body of evidence demonstrating the importance and impact of including patients, carers, and the public in COS development, in particular by demonstrating that the impact of interventions on patients' lives is more likely to be represented in COS that involve patients or their representatives. COS developers are encouraged to pay increased attention to methods and reporting relating to the consensus process. Further work is required to understand the appropriateness and rationale for the discrepancy in granularity levels between outcome domains.

A core outcome set for post-COVID-19 condition in adults for use in clinical practice and research: an international Delphi consensus study.

Health consequences that persist beyond the acute infection phase of COVID-19, termed post-COVID-19 condition (also commonly known as long COVID), vary widely and represent a growing global health challenge. Research on post-COVID-19 condition is expanding but, at present, no agreement exists on the health outcomes that should be measured in people living with the condition. To address this gap, we conducted an international consensus study, which included a comprehensive literature review and classification of outcomes for post-COVID-19 condition that informed a two-round online modified Delphi process followed by an online consensus meeting to finalise the core outcome set (COS). 1535 participants from 71 countries were involved, with 1148 individuals participating in both Delphi rounds. Eleven outcomes achieved consensus for inclusion in the final COS: fatigue; pain; post-exertion symptoms; work or occupational and study changes; survival; and functioning, symptoms, and conditions for each of cardiovascular, respiratory, nervous system, cognitive, mental health, and physical outcomes. Recovery was included a priori because it was a relevant outcome that was part of a previously published COS on COVID-19. The next step in this COS development exercise will be to establish the instruments that are most appropriate to measure these core outcomes. This international consensus-based COS should provide a framework for standardised assessment of adults with post-COVID-19 condition, aimed at facilitating clinical care and research worldwide.

Studying the post-COVID-19 condition: research challenges, strategies, and importance of Core Outcome Set development.

BACKGROUND: A substantial portion of people with COVID-19 subsequently experience lasting symptoms including fatigue, shortness of breath, and neurological complaints such as cognitive dysfunction many months after acute infection. Emerging evidence suggests that this condition, commonly referred to as long COVID but also known as post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) or post-COVID-19 condition, could become a significant global health burden. MAIN TEXT: While the number of studies investigating the post-COVID-19 condition is increasing, there is no agreement on how this new disease should be defined and diagnosed in clinical practice and what relevant outcomes to measure. There is an urgent need to optimise and standardise outcome measures for this important patient group both for clinical services and for research and to allow comparing and pooling of data. CONCLUSIONS: A Core Outcome Set for post-COVID-19 condition should be developed in the shortest time frame possible, for improvement in data quality, harmonisation, and comparability between different geographical locations. We call for a global initiative, involving all relevant partners, including, but not limited to, healthcare professionals, researchers, methodologists, patients, and caregivers. We urge coordinated actions aiming to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for post-COVID-19 condition in both the adult and paediatric populations.

Comparison of published core outcome sets with outcomes recommended in regulatory guidance from the US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency: cross sectional analysis.

Objective: To compare the outcomes in published core outcome sets with the outcomes recommended in corresponding guidance documents from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), matched by health condition. Design: Cross sectional analysis. Setting: US and Europe. Population: Sample of core outcome sets related to drugs, devices, and gene therapy that involved patients in the consensus process, published between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2019; and corresponding EMA and FDA guidance documents. Main outcome measures: The extent of matches between outcomes included within core outcome sets and those recommended in corresponding EMA and FDA guidance documents were assessed. Matches were considered to be general (ie, non-specific) or specific (ie, exact). General matches were assessed to determine whether the core outcome set or guidance document outcome was narrower. Results: Relevant guidance documents were found for for 38 (39%) of 98 eligible published core outcome sets. Among outcomes in core outcome sets, medians of 70% (interquartile range 48-86%) and 52% (33-77%) were matches with outcomes recommended in EMA and FDA documents, respectively. Medians of 46% (27-68%) and 26% (18-46%) were specific matches with outcomes in EMA and FDA documents, respectively. When outcomes were generally matched, the outcomes from core outcome sets were more frequently narrower than the regulatory outcomes (83% and 75% for EMA and FDA, respectively). Conclusion: Greater adoption of, and reference to, core outcome sets in regulatory guidance documents can encourage clinical trialists, especially those in industry, to measure and report consistent and agreed outcomes and improve the quality of guidance. Given the overlap between outcomes in core outcome sets and regulatory guidance, and given that most core outcome sets now involve patients in the consensus process, these sets could serve as a useful resource for regulators when recommending outcomes for studies evaluating regulated products. Developers are encouraged to appraise recommended outcomes in salient regulatory documents when planning a core outcome set.

Use of core outcome sets was low in clinical trials published in major medical journals.

OBJECTIVES: To examine current practices in late-phase trials published in major medical journals and examine trialists' views about core outcome set (COS) use. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A sequential multi-methods study was conducted. We examined late-phase trials published between October 2019 and March 2020 in JAMA, NEJM, The Lancet, BMJ, and Annals of Internal Medicine. The COMET database was searched for COS potentially relevant to trials not reporting using a COS; overlap of trial and COS outcomes was examined. An online survey examined awareness of, and decisions to search for and use a COS. RESULTS: Ninety-five trials were examined; 93 (98%) did not report using a COS. Relevant COS were identified for 31 trials (33%). Core outcomes were measured in 9 (23%) studies; all trials measured at least one core outcome. Thirty-one trialists (33%) completed our survey. The most common barrier to COS use was trialist's own outcome preferences and choice (68%). The most common perceived facilitator was awareness and knowledge about COS (90%). CONCLUSION: COS use in this cohort of trials was low, even when relevant COS were available. Increased use of COS in clinical trials can improve evaluation of intervention effects and evidence synthesis and reduce research waste.

Identifying a core outcome set for pulmonary sarcoidosis research - the Foundation for Sarcoidosis Research - Sarcoidosis Clinical OUtcomes Taskforce (SCOUT).

Background: Pulmonary sarcoidosis is a rare granulomatous disease of unknown aetiology. Heterogeneity in the outcomes measured in trials of treatment for pulmonary sarcoidosis has impacted on the ability to systematically compare findings, contributing to research inefficiency. The FSR-SCOUT study has aimed to address this heterogeneity by developing a core outcome set that represents a patient and health professional consensus on the most important outcomes to measure in future research for the treatment of pulmonary sarcoidosis. Research design and methods: systematic review of trial registries, narrative synthesis of published qualitative literature on the patient experience and results of a patient survey contributed to the development of a comprehensive list of outcomes that were rated in a two round online Delphi survey. The Delphi survey was completed by patients/carers and health professionals and the results discussed and ratified at an online consensus meeting. Results: 259 patients/carers and 51 health professionals completed both rounds of the Delphi survey. A pre-agreed definition of consensus was applied and the results discussed at an online consensus meeting attended by 17 patients and 7 health professionals). Fifteen outcomes, across five domains (physiological/clinical, treatment, resource use, quality of life, and death), reached the definition of consensus and were included in the core outcome set. Conclusions: The core outcome set represents a patient and health professional consensus on the most important outcomes for pulmonary sarcoidosis research. The use of the core outcome set in future trials, and efforts to validate its components, will enhance the relevance of trials to stakeholders and will increase the opportunity for the research to contribute to evidence synthesis.

Scout - sarcoidosis outcomes taskforce. A systematic review of outcomes to inform the development of a core outcome set for pulmonary sarcoidosis.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials evaluating different management strategies for pulmonary sarcoidosis may measure different outcomes. This heterogeneity in outcomes can lead to waste in research due to the inability to compare and combine data. Core outcome sets (COS) have the potential to address this issue and here we describe a systematic review of outcomes as the first step in the development of a COS for pulmonary sarcoidosis research. METHODS: A search of clinical trial registries for phase II, III and IV trials of pulmonary sarcoidosis was undertaken along with a rapid review of the patient perspective literature. Each study was screened for eligibility and outcomes extracted verbatim from the registry entry or publication then reviewed, grouped and categorised using the COMET taxonomy. RESULTS: 36 trial registry entries and 6 studies on patients' perspective of pulmonary sarcoidosis were included reporting 56 and 82 unique outcomes respectively across 23 domains. The most frequently reported outcome domain was "respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal outcomes". However, the patients' perspective literature identified outcomes in the "personal circumstances" and "societal/carer burden" domains that were not reported in any of the included trial registrations. CONCLUSIONS: Using both clinical trial registry data and published literature on patients' perspective has allowed rapid review of outcomes measured and reported in pulmonary sarcoidosis research. The use of multiple sources has led to the development of a comprehensive list of outcomes that represents the first step in the development of a COS for use in future pulmonary sarcoidosis research.

Inclusion of participants from low-income and middle-income countries in core outcome sets development: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Our study aims to describe differences or similarities in the scope, participant characteristics and methods used in core outcome sets (COS) development when only participants from high-income countries (HICs) were involved compared with when participants from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) were also involved. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Annual Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials systematic reviews of COS which are updated based on SCOPUS and MEDLINE, searches. The latest systematic review included studies published up to the end of 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included studies reporting development of a COS for use in research regardless of age, health condition or setting. Studies reporting the development of a COS for patient-reported outcomes or adverse events or complications were also included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted in relation to scope of the COS study, participant categories and the methods used in outcome selection. RESULTS: Studies describing 370 COS were identified in the database. Of these, 75 (20%) included participants from LMICs. Only four COS were initiated from an LMIC setting. More than half of COS with LMIC participants were developed in the last 5 years. Cancer and rheumatology were the dominant disease domains. Overall, over 259 (70%) of COS explicitly reported including clinical experts; this was higher where LMIC participants were also included 340 (92%). Most LMIC participants were from China, Brazil and South Africa. Mixed methods for consensus building were used across the two settings. CONCLUSION: Progress has been made in including LMIC participants in the development of COS, however, there is a need to explore how to enable initiation of COS development from a range of LMIC settings, how to ensure prioritisation of COS that better reflects the burden of disease in these contexts and how to improve public participation from LMICs.

More than half of systematic reviews have relevant core outcome sets.

OBJECTIVES: Using recent systematic reviews (SRs), our objectives were to: (1) develop a framework to assess whether a given COS is relevant to the scope of a SR; (2) examine the proportion of SRs for which relevant COS exist; and (3) for SRs for which COS exist, examine the extent to which outcomes in the COS and outcomes in the SR match. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We included a sample of SRs published by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center Program between January 1, 2018 and October 12, 2020. We searched for potentially relevant COS from the Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database. We assessed the matching between outcomes recommended by COS and those included in corresponding SRs. When outcomes were matched, we considered matches to be specific (i.e., exact) or general (i.e., non-specific). RESULTS: Sixty-seven SRs met criteria. We found relevant COS for 36 of 67 SRs (54%). Our framework for comparing the scope of a SR and a COS describes 16 scenarios arising when the breadth of the populations and the interventions are considered. The framework guides systematic reviewers to determine whether a COS is very likely to be relevant, may be relevant, or unlikely to be relevant. Sixty-two percent of outcomes in COS (interquartile range, 40% - 80%) were either specific or general matches to outcomes in SRs. CONCLUSION: We found a COS with relevant scope for more than half of the SRs in our sample, with almost two-thirds of the recommended core outcomes matched to outcomes chosen for the SRs. Consideration of COS appears relevant for SR planning and our framework for assessing relevance of a given COS may help with this process.

Patient-reported outcome measures in core outcome sets targeted overlapping domains but through different instruments.

OBJECTIVE: There is no comprehensive assessment of which patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are recommended in core outcome sets (COS), and how they should be measured. The aims of this study are to review COS that include patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs), identify their target health domains, main characteristics, and their overlap within and across different disease areas. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We selected COS studies collected in a publicly available database that included at least one recommended PROM. We gathered information on study setting, disease area, and targeted outcome domains. Full-text of recommended instruments were obtained, and an analysis of their characteristics and content performed. We classified targeted domains according to a predefined 38-item taxonomy. RESULTS: Overall, we identified 94 COS studies that recommended 323 unique instruments, of which: 87% were included in only one COS; 77% were disease-specific; 1.5% preference-based; and 61% corresponded to a full questionnaire. Most of the instruments covered broad health-related constructs, such as global quality of life (25%), physical functioning (22%), emotional functioning and wellbeing (7%). CONCLUSION: The wealth of recommended instruments observed even within disease areas does not fit with a vision of systematic, harmonized collection of PROM data in COS within and across disease areas.

'It is good to have a target in mind': qualitative views of patients and parents informing a treat to target clinical trial in juvenile-onset systemic lupus erythematosus.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to explore patient and parental views on treatment targets, outcome measures and study designs being considered for a future JSLE treat-to-target (T2T) study. METHODS: We conducted topic-guided, semistructured interviews with JSLE patients and parents and analysed the audio recorded interviews using thematic approaches. RESULTS: Patients and parents differed regarding symptoms they felt would be tolerable, representing 'low disease activity'. Patients often classed symptoms that they had previously experienced, were 'invisible' or had minimal disruption on their life as signs of low disease activity. Parents were more accepting of visible signs but were concerned about potential organ involvement and symptom severity. Overall, patients and parents preferred that children were entirely asymptomatic, with no ongoing treatment side effects. They regarded fatigue as particularly challenging, requiring proper monitoring using a fatigue patient-reported outcome measure. Most families felt that reducing corticosteroids would also be a good treatment target. Overall, families liked the concept of T2T, commenting that it could help to improve disease control, help structure treatment and improve communication with clinicians and treatment compliance. They were concerned that T2T might increase the frequency of hospital visits, thus impacting upon schooling, parental employment and finances. Families made suggestions on how to modify the future trial design to mitigate such effects. CONCLUSION: This study provides guidance from patients and parents on T2T targets and study designs. Complementary quantitative studies assessing the achievability and impact of different targets (e.g. lupus low disease activity state or remission) are now warranted to inform an international consensus process to develop treatment targets.

Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 6th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research.

BACKGROUND: An annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets (COS) for research ensures that the COMET database is up-to-date. The aims of this study were to: (i) identify COS that were published or indexed in 2019 and to describe the methodological approaches used in these studies; (ii) investigate whether children have been included as participants in published COS development studies, and which methods have been used to facilitate their participation; iii) update a previous exercise to identify COS relevant to the most burdensome global diseases and injuries. METHODS: MEDLINE and SCOPUS were searched to identify studies published or indexed between (and inclusive of) January 2019 and December 2019. Automated screening methods were used to rank the citations in order of relevance; the top 25% in ranked priority order were screened for eligibility. COS were assessed against each of the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD). A search of the COMET database was undertaken to identify COS relevant to the 25 leading causes of disease burden. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies, describing the development of 37 COS, were included in this update. These studies have been added to the COMET database, which now contains 370 published (1981-2019) COS studies for clinical research. Six (18%) of the 33 studies in this update were deemed to have met all of the minimum standards for COS development (range = 4 to 12 criteria, median = 9 criteria). Of the 370 COS studies published to date, 82 COS have been developed for paediatric health conditions and children would have been eligible to participate in 68/82 of these studies. Eleven of these 68 (16%) COS studies have included children as participants within the development process, most commonly through participation in Delphi surveys. Relevant COS were identified for 22/25 leading causes of global disease burden. CONCLUSION: There has been a demonstrated increase in COS developed for both research and routine practice, and consistently high inclusion of patient participants. COS developed for paediatric conditions need to further incorporate the perspectives of children, alongside parents and other adults, and adopt research methods fit for this purpose. COS developers should consider the gaps identified in this update as priorities for COS development.

Assessing the relevance and uptake of core outcome sets (an agreed minimum collection of outcomes to measure in research studies) in Cochrane systematic reviews: a review.

OBJECTIVES: A core outcome set (COS) is an agreed standardised minimum collection of outcomes that should be measured and reported in research in a specific area of health. Cochrane systematic reviews ('reviews') are rigorous reviews on health-related topics conducted under the auspices of Cochrane. This study examines the use of existing COS to inform the choice of outcomes in Cochrane systematic reviews ('reviews') and investigates the views of the coordinating editors of Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) on this topic. METHODS: A cohort of 100 recently published or updated Cochrane reviews were assessed for reference to a COS being used to inform the choice of outcomes for the review. Existing COS, published 2 or more years before the review publication, were then identified to assess how often a reviewer could have used a relevant COS if it was available. We asked 52 CRG coordinating editors about their involvement in COS development, how outcomes are selected for reviews in their CRG and their views of the advantages and challenges surrounding the standardisation of outcomes within their CRG. RESULTS: In the cohort of reviews from 2019, 40% (40/100) of reviewers noted problems due to outcome inconsistency across the included studies. In 7% (7/100) of reviews, a COS was referenced in relation to the choice of outcomes for the review. Relevant existing COS could be considered for a review update in 35% of the others (33/93). Most editors who responded (31/36, 86%) thought that COS should definitely or possibly be used to inform the choice of outcomes in a review. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviewers are continuing to note outcome heterogeneity but are starting to use COS to inform their reviews. There is potential for greater uptake of COS in Cochrane reviews.

Methods used in the selection of instruments for outcomes included in core outcome sets have improved since the publication of the COSMIN/COMET guideline.

OBJECTIVES: Once a core outcome set (COS) has been defined, it is important to achieve consensus on how these outcomes should be measured. The aims of this systematic review were to gain insight into the methods used to select outcome measurement instruments and to determine whether methods have improved following the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN)/Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) guideline publication. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Eligible articles, which were identified from the annual COMET systematic review, concerned any COS development studies that provided a recommendation on how to measure the outcomes included in the COS. Data were extracted on the methods used to select outcome measurement instruments in accordance with the COSMIN/COMET guideline. RESULTS: Of the 118 studies included in the review, 48% used more than one source of information when finding outcome measurement instruments, and 74% performed some form of quality assessment of the measurement instruments. Twenty-three studies recommended one single instrument for each core outcome included in the COS. Clinical experts and public representatives were involved in selecting instruments in 62% and 28% of studies, respectively. CONCLUSION: Methods used to select outcome measurement instruments have improved since the publication of the COSMIN/COMET guideline. Going forward, COS developers should ensure that recommended outcome measurement instruments have sufficient content validity. In addition, COS developers should recommend one instrument for each core outcome to contribute to the overarching goal of uniformity in outcome reporting.

Ensuring young voices are heard in core outcome set development: international workshops with 70 children and young people.

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY: Researchers test treatments to ensure these work and are safe. They do this by studying the effects that treatments have on patients by measuring outcomes, such as pain and quality of life. Often research teams measure different outcomes even though each team is studying the same condition. This makes it hard to compare the findings from different studies and it can reduce the accuracy of the treatment advice available to patients. Increasingly, researchers are tackling this problem by developing 'core outcome sets'. These are lists of outcomes that all researchers working on a given condition should measure in their studies. It is important that patients have a voice in the development of core outcome sets and children and young people are no exception. But their voices have rarely been heard when core outcome sets are developed. Researchers are trying to address this problem and make sure that core outcome sets are developed in ways that are suitable for children and young people. As a first step, we held two international workshops with children and young people to listen to their views. They emphasised the importance of motivating young people to participate in developing core outcome sets, making them feel valued, and making the development process more interactive, enjoyable and convenient. We hope this commentary will encourage researchers to include children and young people when developing core outcome sets and to adapt their methods so these are suitable for young participants. Future research is important to examine whether these adaptations are effective. ABSTRACT: Background Different research teams looking at treatments for the same condition often select and measure inconsistent treatment outcomes. This makes it difficult to synthesise the results of different studies, leads to selective outcome reporting and impairs the quality of evidence about treatments. 'Core outcome sets' (COS) can help to address these problems. A COS is an agreed, minimum list of outcomes that researchers are encouraged to consistently measure and report in their studies. Including children and young people (CYP) as participants in the development of COS for paediatric conditions ensures that clinically meaningful outcomes are measured and reported. However, few published COS have included CYP as participants. COS developers have described difficulties in recruiting and retaining CYP and there is a lack of guidance on optimising COS methods for them. We aimed to explore CYP's views on the methods used to develop COS and identify ways to optimise these methods.Main body This commentary summarises discussions during two workshops with approximately 70 CYP (aged 10-18 years old) at the International Children's Advisory Network Research and Advocacy Summit, 2018. Delegates described what might motivate them to participate in a COS study, including feeling valued, understanding the need for COS and the importance of input from CYP in their development, and financial and other incentives (e.g. certificates of participation). For Delphi surveys, delegates suggested that lists of outcomes should be as brief as possible, and that scoring and feedback methods should be simplified. For consensus meetings, delegates advised preparing CYP in advance, supporting them during meetings (e.g. via mentors) and favoured arrangements whereby CYP could meet separately from parents and other stakeholders. Overall, they wanted COS methods that were convenient, enjoyable and engaging.Conclusion This commentary points to the limitations of the methods currently used to develop COS with CYP. It also points to ways to motivate CYP to participate in COS studies and to enhancements of methods to make participation more engaging for CYP. Pending much needed research on COS methods for CYP, the perspectives offered in the workshops should help teams developing COS in paediatrics and child health.

Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 5th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research.

BACKGROUND: A systematic review of core outcome sets (COS) for research is updated annually to populate an online database. It is a resource intensive review to do annually but automation techniques have potential to aid the process. The production of guidance and standards in COS development means that there is now an expectation that COS are being developed and reported to a higher standard. This is the fifth update to the systematic review and will explore these issues. METHODS: Searches were carried out to identify studies published or indexed in 2018. Automated screening methods were used to rank the citations in order of relevance. The cut-off for screening was set to the top 25% in ranked priority order, following development and validation of the algorithm. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported the development of a COS, regardless of any restrictions by age, health condition or setting. COS were assessed against each of the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD). RESULTS: Thirty studies describing the development of 44 COS were included in this update. Six COS (20%) were deemed to have met all 12 criteria representing the 11 minimum standards for COS development (range = 4 to 12 criteria, median = 10 criteria). All 30 COS studies met all four minimum standards for scope. Twenty-one (70%) COS met all three minimum standards for stakeholders. Twenty-three studies (77%) included patients with the condition or their representatives. The number of countries involved in the development of COS ranged from 1 to 39 (median = 10). Six studies (20%) met all four minimum standards [five criteria] for the consensus process. CONCLUSION: Automated ranking was successfully used to assist the screening process and reduce the workload of this systematic review update. With the provision of guidelines, COS are better reported and being developed to a higher standard.

Incorporating patients' perspectives into the initial stages of core outcome set development: a rapid review of qualitative studies of type 2 diabetes.

Conducting systematic reviews of qualitative studies to incorporate patient perspectives within the early stages of core outcome set (COS) development can be resource intensive. We aimed to identify an expedited approach to be used as part of the wider COS development process. Specifically, we undertook a rapid review of qualitative studies of patients' views and experiences of type 2 diabetes. We searched MEDLINE from inception to June 2017 to identify studies reporting qualitative empirical findings of perspectives of people with type 2 diabetes. Qualitative methodological filters were used to minimize irrelevant references. Drawing on content analysis, data synthesis involved identifying text in eligible studies relevant to outcomes of type 2 diabetes and interpreting and categorizing this according to the 38 core domains of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials taxonomy. Of 146 studies screened, 26 were included. Four hundred and fifty-eight outcomes were derived from the included studies. In comparison to the outcomes extracted from clinical trials, more life impact outcomes were derived from the qualitative studies, but fewer physiological/clinical outcomes. Outcomes relating to 'mortality/survival' and 'role functioning' were more prevalent in studies conducted in low/middle-income countries. This rapid review and synthesis of qualitative studies identified outcomes that had not previously been identified by a systematic review of clinical trials. It also identified differences in the types of outcomes given prominence to in the clinical trials and qualitative literatures. Incorporating qualitative evidence on patient perspectives from the outset of the COS development process can help to ensure outcomes that matter to patients are not overlooked. Our method provides a pragmatic and resource-efficient way to do this. For those developing international COS, our method has potential for incorporating the perspectives of patients from diverse countries in the early stages of COS development.

Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 4th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research.

BACKGROUND: The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database is a publically available, searchable repository of published and ongoing core outcome set (COS) studies. An annual systematic review update is carried out to maintain the currency of database content. METHODS: The methods used in the fourth update of the systematic review followed the same approach used in the original review and previous updates. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported the development of a COS, regardless of any restrictions by age, health condition or setting. Searches were carried out in March 2018 to identify studies that had been published or indexed between January 2017 and the end of December 2017. RESULTS: Forty-eight new studies, describing the development of 56 COS, were included. There has been an increase in the number of studies clearly specifying the scope of the COS in terms of the population (n = 43, 90%) and intervention (n = 48, 100%) characteristics. Public participation has continued to rise with over half (n = 27, 56%) of studies in the current review including input from members of the public. The rate of inclusion of all stakeholder groups has increased, in particular participation from non-clinical research experts has risen from 32% (mean average in previous reviews) to 62% (n = 29). Input from participants located in Australasia (n = 17; 41%), Asia (n = 18; 44%), South America (n = 13; 32%) and Africa (n = 7; 17%) have all increased since the previous reviews. CONCLUSION: This update included a pronounced increase in the number of new COS identified compared to the previous three updates. There was an improvement in the reporting of the scope, stakeholder participants and methods used. Furthermore, there has been an increase in participation from Australasia, Asia, South America and Africa. These advancements are reflective of the efforts made in recent years to raise awareness about the need for COS development and uptake, as well as developments in COS methodology.

Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: An updated systematic review and involvement of low and middle income countries.

BACKGROUND: Core outcome sets (COS) comprise a minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all trials for a specific health condition. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative maintains an up to date, publicly accessible online database of published and ongoing COS. An annual systematic review update is an important part of this process. METHODS: This review employed the same, multifaceted approach that was used in the original review and the previous two updates. This approach has identified studies that sought to determine which outcomes/domains to measure in clinical trials of a specific condition. This update includes an analysis of the inclusion of participants from low and middle income countries (LMICs) as identified by the OECD, in these COS. RESULTS: Eighteen publications, relating to 15 new studies describing the development of 15 COS, were eligible for inclusion in the review. Results show an increase in the use of mixed methods, including Delphi surveys. Clinical experts remain the most common stakeholder group involved. Overall, only 16% of the 259 COS studies published up to the end of 2016 have included participants from LMICs. CONCLUSION: This review highlights opportunities for greater public participation in COS development and the involvement of stakeholders from a wider range of geographical settings, in particular LMICs.