Improving the relevance and consistency of outcomes in comparative effectiveness research

Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 193-205

  Tunis, Sean R ^a   Clarke, Mike ^b   Gorst, Sarah L ^c   Gargon, Elizabeth ^c   Blazeby, Jane M ^d   Altman, Douglas G ^e   Williamson, Paula R ^c  

^a Center for Medical Technology Policy   (United States)

^b QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

clinical trials; clinician reported outcomes; comparative effectiveness; patient centered outcomes; patient reported outcomes; quality of life; reimbursement science; research methods; research standards; research waste

Indexed keywords

DISEASE MODIFYING ANTIRHEUMATIC DRUG;

CHRONIC DISEASE; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CORE OUTCOME SET; COST MINIMIZATION ANALYSIS; FIBROMYALGIA; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; MEDICARE; OSTEOARTHRITIS; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSORIASIS; PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS; QUALITY OF LIFE; REIMBURSEMENT; REVIEW; RHEUMATIC DISEASE; RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS; SCHIZOPHRENIA; STANDARDIZATION; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PROCEDURES;

COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84961785309     PISSN: 20426305     EISSN: 20426313     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2217/cer-2015-0007     Document Type: Review

References (57)

1. Orszag PR, Ellis P. Addressing rising health care costs-a view from the Congressional Budget Office. N. Engl. J. Med. 357(19), 1885-1887 (2007).
2. Gabriel SE, Normand SL. Getting the methods right-the foundation of patient-centered outcomes research. N. Engl. J. Med. 367(9), 787-790 (2012).
3. Sox HC, Greenfield S. Comparative effectiveness research: a report from the Institute of Medicine. Ann. Intern. Med. 151(3), 203-205 (2009).
4. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 374(9683), 86-89 (2009).
5. Qaseem A, Snow V, Cross JT Jr et al. Current pharmacologic treatment of dementia: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Physicians. Ann. Intern. Med. 148(5), 370-378 (2008).
6. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services: Decision Memo for Lumbar Artificial Disc Replacement (LADR) (CAG-00292R). www.cms.gov
7. Backhouse ME, Wonder M, Hornby E, Kilburg A, Drummond M, Mayer FK. Early dialogue between the developers of new technologies and pricing and reimbursement agencies: a pilot study. Value Health 14(4), 608-615 (2011).
8. The PCORI methodology report. pcori. org/research-wesupport/ research-methodology-standards. www.pcori.org
9. Miyar J, Adams CE. Content and quality of 10,000 controlled trials in schizophrenia over 60 years. Schizophr. Bull. 39(1), 226-229 (2013).
10. Hirsch BR, Califf RM, Cheng SK et al. Characteristics of oncology clinical trials: insights from a systematic analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov. JAMA Intern. Med. 173(11), 972-979 (2013).
11. Smith V, Clarke M, Williamson P, Gargon E. Survey of new 2007 and 2011 Cochrane reviews found 37% of prespecified outcomes not reported. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 68(3), 237-245 (2014).
12. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 64(4), 383-394 (2011).
13. Rosenbaum SE, Glenton C, Oxman AD. Summary-offindings tables in Cochrane reviews improved understanding and rapid retrieval of key information. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 63(6), 620-626 (2010).
14. Wuytack F, Smith V, Clarke M, Williamson P, Gargon E. Towards core outcome set (COS) development: a follow-up descriptive survey of outcomes in Cochrane reviews. Syst. Rev. 4, 73 (2015).
15. Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG et al. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ 340 c365 (2010).
16. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, Group C. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. PLoS Med. 7(3), e1000251 (2010).
17. Dwan K, Gamble C, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ, Reporting Bias G. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias-an updated review. PLoS ONE 8(7), e66844 (2013).
18. Saini P, Loke YK, Gamble C, Altman DG, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ. Selective reporting bias of harm outcomes within studies: findings from a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ 349, g6501 (2014).
19. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM et al. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials 13(1), 132 (2012).
20. Gargon E, Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M. The COMET Initiative database: progress and activities from 2011 to 2013. Trials 15(1), 279 (2014).
21. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 47(1), 207-214 (1981).
22. OMERACT. www.omeract.org
23. Tugwell P, Boers M, Brooks P, Simon L, Strand V, Idzerda L. OMERACT: an international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology. Trials 8, 38 (2007).
24. Kirkham JJ, Gargon E, Clarke M, Williamson PR. 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 (2013).
25. Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials. www.immpact.org/
26. Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME). www.nottingham.ac.uk/homeforeczema
27. International Dermatology Outcome Measures. www.dermoutcomes.org
28. Williamson P, Altman D, Blazeby J, Clarke M, Gargon E. Driving up the quality and relevance of research through the use of agreed core outcomes. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 17(1), 1-2 (2012).
29. Gargon E, Gurung B, Medley N et al. Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: a systematic review. PLoS ONE 9(6), e99111 (2014).
30. Staley K. Exploring impact: public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research (2009). www.invo.org.uk
31. Gorst SL, Gargon E, Clarke M, Blazeby JM, Altman DG, Williamson PR. Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: an updated review and user survey. PLoS ONE 11(1), e0146444 (2015).
32. Gargon E, Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M. The COMET Initiative database: progress and activities update (2014). Trials doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-1038-x (2015).
33. The OMERACT Handbook. www.omeract.org
34. Zarin DA, Tse T, Williams RJ, Califf RM, Ide NC. The ClinicalTrials.gov results database-update and key issues. N. Engl. J. Med. 364(9), 852-860 (2011).
35. Prinsen CA, Vohra S, Rose MR et al. Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative: protocol for an international Delphi study to achieve consensus on how to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a 'core outcome set'. Trials 15(1), 247 (2014).
36. Comet Initiative: Plain language summary. www.comet-initiative.org
37. PROMIS. www.nihpromis.org
38. NIH: U.S. NationalLibrary of Medicine. www.nlm.nih.gov/cde/
39. ICHOM. www.ichom.org
40. ICHOM Medical Conditions. www.ichom.org/medical-conditions
41. Martin NE, Massey L, Stowell C et al. Defining a standard set of patient-centered outcomes for men with localized prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 67(3), 460-467 (2015).
42. MacLennan S, Williamson PR, Lam TB et al. Re: Neil E Martin, Laura Massey, Caleb Stowell et al. Defining a Standard Set of Patient-centered Outcomes for Men with Localized Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol 2015; 67: 460-7.
43. Basch E. Toward patient-centered drug development in oncology. N. Engl. J. Med. 369(5), 397-400 (2013).
44. Reeve BB, Mitchell SA, Dueck AC et al. Recommended patient-reported core set of symptoms to measure in adult cancer treatment trials. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 106(7), pii: dju129 (2014).
45. Cosmin. www.cosmin.nl
46. Terwee CB, Prinsen CA, Ricci Garotti MG, Suman A, De Vet HC, Mokkink LB. The quality of systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments. Qual. Life Res. doi:10.1007/s11136-015-1122-4 (2015) (Epub ahead of print).
47. Global Burden of Disease Study Collaborators. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 301 acute and chronic diseases and injuries in 188 countries, 1990-2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet 386(9995), 743-800 (2015).
48. Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I et al. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet 383(9912), 101-104 (2014).
49. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343, d5928 (2011).
50. Sinha I, Smyth RL, Williamson PR. Using the Delphi technique to determine which outcomes to measure in clinical trials: recommendations for the future based on a systematic review of existing studies. PLoS Med. 8(1), e1000393 (2011).
51. Kirkham JJ, Gorst S, Altman DG et al. COS-STAR: a reporting guideline for studies developing core outcome sets (protocol). Trials 16(1), 373 (2015).
52. Comet Initiative. www.comet-initiative.org
53. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Gotzsche PC et al. SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ 346 e7586 (2013).
54. The CROWN Initiative. www.crown-initiative.org/
55. The Green Park Collaborative. www.cmtpnet.org
56. Basch E, Abernethy AP, Mullins CD et al. Recommendations for incorporating patient-reported outcomes into clinical comparative effectiveness research in adult oncology. J. Clin. Oncol. 30(34), 4249-4255 (2012).
57. Clarke M, Williamson P. Core outcome sets and trial registries. Trials 16, 216 (2015).