Abstract
Why standardise outcomes? The design of new trials would be simplified, the risk of measuring inappropriate outcomes would be reduced, and selective reporting of outcomes less likely. It would be easier to compare, contrast and combine studies in systematic reviews. Core outcome sets would help review authors to present their findings clearly and succinctly, for example within Summary of Findings tables.
Highlights
Systematic reviews are hampered by inconsistencies in outcomes assessed and reported in otherwise eligible studies
Much could be gained if an agreed minimum set of appropriate and important outcomes was measured and reported in all clinical trials in a particular area
Implications If successful, COMET will help trialists to choose outcomes, and will increase the likelihood that these outcomes will be measured, thereby decreasing the likelihood of important studies being excluded from systematic reviews
Summary
Systematic reviews are hampered by inconsistencies in outcomes assessed and reported in otherwise eligible studies. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative From Clinical Trials Methodology Conference 2011 Bristol, UK. Background Systematic reviews are hampered by inconsistencies in outcomes assessed and reported in otherwise eligible studies.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
