Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Representation of published core outcome sets in practice guidelines.
Rhodes, Sarah; Dodd, Susanna; Deckert, Stefanie; Vasanthan, Lenny; Qiu, Ruijin; Rohde, Jeanett Friis; Florez, Ivan D; Schmitt, Jochen; Nieuwlaat, Robby; Kirkham, Jamie; Williamson, Paula R.
Affiliation
  • Rhodes S; Centre for Biostatistics, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK. Electronic address: Sarah.a.rhodes@manchester.ac.uk.
  • Dodd S; MRC-NIHR Trials Methodology Research Partnership, Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L63 3GL, UK.
  • Deckert S; Center for Evidence-Based Healthcare, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
  • Vasanthan L; Physiotherapy Unit, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India; Department of Physiotherapy, Melbourne School of Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Qiu R; Key Laboratory of Chinese Internal Medicine of Ministry of Education and Beijing, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine Affiliated Dongzhimen Hospital, Beijing, China.
  • Rohde JF; The Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, 2000, Frederiksberg, Denmark; The Danish Health Authority, Department of Evidence-Based Medicine, Islands Brygge 67, 2300, Copenhagen, Denmark.
  • Florez ID; Department of Pediatrics, University of Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia; School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Clínica Las Américas-AUNA, Medellín, Antioquia, Colombia.
  • Schmitt J; Center for Evidence-Based Healthcare, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
  • Nieuwlaat R; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence & Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
  • Kirkham J; Centre for Biostatistics, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
  • Williamson PR; MRC-NIHR Trials Methodology Research Partnership, Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L63 3GL, UK.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 169: 111311, 2024 May.
Article de En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38423401
ABSTRACT

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.
Sujet(s)
Mots clés

Texte intégral: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Base de données: MEDLINE Sujet principal: 29918 / Guides de bonnes pratiques cliniques comme sujet Limites: Humans Langue: En Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Sujet du journal: EPIDEMIOLOGIA Année: 2024 Type de document: Article Pays de publication: États-Unis d'Amérique

Texte intégral: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Base de données: MEDLINE Sujet principal: 29918 / Guides de bonnes pratiques cliniques comme sujet Limites: Humans Langue: En Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Sujet du journal: EPIDEMIOLOGIA Année: 2024 Type de document: Article Pays de publication: États-Unis d'Amérique