Standardized approach to extract candidate outcomes from literature for a standard outcome set: a case- and simulation study

Abstract

AimsStandard outcome sets enable the value-based evaluation of health care delivery. Whereas the attainment of expert opinion has been structured using methods such as the modified-Delphi process, standardized guidelines for extraction of candidate outcomes from literature are lacking. As such, we aimed to describe an approach to obtain a comprehensive list of candidate outcomes for potential inclusion in standard outcome sets.MethodsThis study describes an iterative saturation approach, using randomly selected batches from a systematic literature search to develop a long list of candidate outcomes to evaluate healthcare. This approach can be preceded with an optional benchmark review of relevant registries and Clinical Practice Guidelines and data visualization techniques (e.g. as a WordCloud) to potentially decrease the number of iterations. The development of the International Consortium of Health Outcome Measures Heart valve disease set is used to illustrate the approach. Batch cutoff choices of the iterative saturation approach were validated using data of 1000 simulated cases.ResultsSimulation showed that on average 98% (range 92–100%) saturation is reached using a 100-article batch initially, with 25 articles in the subsequent batches. On average 4.7 repeating rounds (range 1–9) of 25 new articles were necessary to achieve saturation if no outcomes are first identified from a benchmark review or a data visualization.ConclusionIn this paper a standardized approach is proposed to identify relevant candidate outcomes for a standard outcome set. This approach creates a balance between comprehensiveness and feasibility in conducting literature reviews for the identification of candidate outcomes.