Abstract
Systematic reviews seek to bring together research evidence to answer the question for the review. The reviewers usually wish to compare, contrast and, if appropriate, combine the findings of the existing research studies. However, these intentions are often thwarted by inconsistencies in the outcomes that were measured and reported in the individual studies. This, in turn, makes it difficult for readers of the review to use it to make informed decisions and choices about health and social care. One solution is for trials in a particular topic area to measure and report a standardised set of outcomes, which would then be used in the review. Core outcome sets are a means of doing this, providing an agreed standardised collection of outcomes for measuring and reporting for a specific area of health. In this commentary, we argue for greater involvement of systematic reviewers in the development and implementation of core outcome sets. This might help with, for example, the selection of outcomes to include in the Summary of findings tables that provide users of the review with the key quantitative findings. Consideration of core outcome sets when reviewers register their topics with Cochrane Review Groups or in PROSPERO would also help reviewers to plan their reviews. A greater uptake of core outcome sets across research, including systematic reviews, would help towards the ultimate aim of improving health and well-being through improving health and social care.
Highlights
Core outcome sets Core outcome sets are an agreed standardised collection of outcomes that should be measured and reported for a specific area of health
One means to achieve this is through the development of core outcome sets, and we present the case for greater involvement of the systematic review community in their development and implementation in this commentary
There are examples of core outcome sets going back more than 30 years [5], and some well-established ones such as Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) for rheumatoid arthritis [6], they are still relatively rare
Summary
Systematic reviews seek to bring together the evidence from research that already exists, to answer the question for the review. Even if there is no desire to combine the results of the studies, reviewers might wish to compare and contrast the included studies, to explore the effects of clinical and methodological heterogeneity These intentions are often thwarted by inconsistencies in the outcomes that were measured and reported in the individual studies. One solution, which would help with streamlining the systematic reviewing process [2], is for all trials in a particular topic area to measure and report a standardised set of outcomes and for these outcomes to be used in the review This would not limit the ability of researchers to examine other outcomes that might be of particular interest for their research but would mean that every trial could contribute useful data to the analyses of the key outcomes. It builds on an earlier commentary, encouraging greater use of core outcome sets in trial registries [3]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
