Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: A systematic review

PLoS ONE

Volumn 9, Issue 6, 2014, Pages

  Gargon, Elizabeth ^a   Gurung, Binu ^a   Medley, Nancy ^a   Altman, Doug G ^b   Blazeby, Jane M ^c   Clarke, Mike ^d   Williamson, Paula R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^d QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AFRICA; AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND; CARDIOLOGY; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; CORE OUTCOME SET; DELPHI STUDY; DENTISTRY; EUROPE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; NEUROLOGY; NOMINAL GROUP TECHNIQUE; NORTH AMERICA; ONCOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; REVIEW; RHEUMATOLOGY; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; SOUTH AMERICA; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; UNSTRUCTURED INTERVIEW; BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); EXPERT WITNESS; MEDLINE; PROCEDURES; PUBLIC OPINION;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; EXPERT TESTIMONY; HUMANS; MEDLINE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PUBLIC OPINION;

EID: 84903141537     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099111     Document Type: Review

References (13)

1. Chalmers I, Glasziou P (2009) Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 374: 86-89.
2. Hirsch BR, Califf RM, Cheng SK, Tasneem A, Horton J, et al. (2013) Characteristics of oncology clinical trials: insights from a systematic analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov. JAMA Intern Med 173: 972-979.
3. Kirkham JJ, Gargon E, Clarke M, Williamson PR (2013) Can a core outcome set improve the quality of systematic reviews?-a survey of the Co-ordinating Editors of Cochrane Review Groups. Trials 14: 21.
4. Miyar J, Adams CE (2013) Content and quality of 10,000 controlled trials in schizophrenia over 60 years. Schizophr Bull 39: 226-229.
5. Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, Bloom J, Chan A-W, et al. (2008) Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS ONE [Electronic Resource] 3: e3081.
6. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Devane D, et al. (2012) Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials 13: 132.
7. Sinha I, Jones L, Smyth RL, Williamson PR (2008) A systematic review of studies that aim to determine which outcomes to measure in clinical trials in children. PLoS Med 5: e96.
8. Hopewell S, Clarke Mike J, Lefebvre C, Scherer Roberta W (2007) Handsearching versus electronic searching to identify reports of randomized trials. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
9. INVOLVE (2012) Briefing notes for researchers: involving the public in NHS, public health and social care research. In: Involve, editor. Eastleigh.
10. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6: e1000097.
11. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG, Mann H, et al. (2013) SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ 346: e7586.
12. Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG (2010) Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med 7: e1000217.
13. Kostanjsek N (2011) Use of The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) as a conceptual framework and common language for disability statistics and health information systems. BMC Public Health 11 Suppl 4: S3