不良事件被考虑,但并不总是明确选择作为研究的核心结果:更新的系统评价。

IF 5.2 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Sarah L. Gorst, Jonathan P. Lucas, Susanna Dodd, Samuel W. Lucas, Faye D. Baldwin, Paula R. Williamson
{"title":"不良事件被考虑,但并不总是明确选择作为研究的核心结果:更新的系统评价。","authors":"Sarah L. Gorst,&nbsp;Jonathan P. Lucas,&nbsp;Susanna Dodd,&nbsp;Samuel W. Lucas,&nbsp;Faye D. Baldwin,&nbsp;Paula R. Williamson","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111889","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Study Design and Setting</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>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.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","volume":"185 ","pages":"Article 111889"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Adverse events are considered but not always explicitly selected as core outcomes in research: an updated systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Sarah L. Gorst,&nbsp;Jonathan P. Lucas,&nbsp;Susanna Dodd,&nbsp;Samuel W. Lucas,&nbsp;Faye D. Baldwin,&nbsp;Paula R. Williamson\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111889\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Study Design and Setting</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>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.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51079,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology\",\"volume\":\"185 \",\"pages\":\"Article 111889\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435625002227\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435625002227","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:COMET计划发布的核心结果集(COS)的年度系统审查更新允许对开发标准的依从性进行评估。本研究的目的是评估COS发展的质量和纳入不良事件结局的方法。研究设计和设置:采用先前应用的系统评价方法,对2022年和2023年发表或编入索引的报告COS发展的研究进行鉴定。评估了是否遵守国际商定的以协商一致意见为基础的COS发展标准。现有的结果分类法用于对所有研究的核心结果进行分类。研究了考虑和纳入不良事件结局的方法。结果:58项COS发展研究纳入2022年更新,另有40项研究纳入2023年更新。所有研究均完全符合范围规范标准。在2022年和2023年的研究中,分别有38项(66%)和34项(85%)研究完全符合利益相关者纳入标准;满足共识过程所有四个标准的比例较低,分别为13%(22%)和13%(33%)。COS发展过程中对不良事件的考虑各不相同。大约一半(54.49%)的2022-23 COS包括不良事件域和/或专门命名的不良事件作为核心结局。结论:对公认标准的依从性持续改善,包括患者参与,是明显的;但是,在协商一致过程标准方面需要进一步改进。COS开发人员应该明确说明并解释他们考虑不良事件的方法的基本原理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Adverse events are considered but not always explicitly selected as core outcomes in research: an updated systematic review

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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
6.90%
发文量
320
审稿时长
44 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology strives to enhance the quality of clinical and patient-oriented healthcare research by advancing and applying innovative methods in conducting, presenting, synthesizing, disseminating, and translating research results into optimal clinical practice. Special emphasis is placed on training new generations of scientists and clinical practice leaders.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信