Patient-important outcomes in systematic reviews: Poor quality of evidence

PLoS ONE

Volumn 13, Issue 4, 2018, Pages

  Yordanov, Youri ^a,b,c,d   Dechartres, Agnes ^a,d,e,f   Ravaud, Philippe ^a,d,e,f,g  

^a PARIS DESCARTES UNIVERSITY   (France)

^b SORBONNE UNIVERSITÉ   (France)

^c ASSISTANCE PUBLIQUE HÔPITAUX DE PARIS   (France)

^d HÔTEL DIEU   (France)

^e UNIVERSITÉ PARIS DESCARTES   (France)

^f Department of Epidemiology ^*  (France)

^g NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADVERSE EVENT; CLINICAL OUTCOME; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; EXPERIMENTAL THERAPY; FUNCTIONAL STATUS; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MORTALITY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAIN; PATIENT IMPORTANT OUTCOME; QUALITY CONTROL; QUALITY OF LIFE; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PROCEDURES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DATA COLLECTION; HUMANS; PAIN; PAIN MEASUREMENT; QUALITY OF LIFE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 85045065642     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195460     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. Guyatt G, Montori V, Devereaux PJ, Schunemann H, Bhandari M. Patients at the center: in our practice, and in our use of language. ACP J Club. 2004; 140(1):A11–2. PMID: 14711297.
2. Richards T, Montori VM, Godlee F, Lapsley P, Paul D. Let the patient revolution begin. BMJ. 2013; 346: f2614. Epub 2013/05/16. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f2614 PMID: 23674136.
3. Montori VM, Gandhi GY, Guyatt GH. Patient-important outcomes in diabetes—time for consensus. Lancet. 2007; 370(9593):1104–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61489-5 PMID: 17905147.
4. Frank L, Basch E, Selby JV, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research I. The PCORI perspective on patient-centered outcomes research. Jama. 2014; 312(15):1513–4. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014. 11100 PMID: 25167382.
5. Methodology Committee of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research I. Methodological standards and patient-centeredness in comparative effectiveness research: the PCORI perspective. Jama. 2012; 307 (15):1636–40. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.466 PMID: 22511692.
6. Selby JV, Beal AC, Frank L. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) national priorities for research and initial research agenda. Jama. 2012; 307(15):1583–4. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.500 PMID: 22511682.
7. Rahimi K, Malhotra A, Banning AP, Jenkinson C. Outcome selection and role of patient reported outcomes in contemporary cardiovascular trials: systematic review. BMJ. 2010; 341:c5707. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c5707 PMID: 21041324.
8. Gandhi GY, Murad MH, Fujiyoshi A, Mullan RJ, Flynn DN, Elamin MB, et al. Patient-important outcomes in registered diabetes trials. Jama. 2008; 299(21):2543–9. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.299.21.2543PMID: 18523223.
9. Gaudry S, Messika J, Ricard JD, Guillo S, Pasquet B, Dubief E, et al. Patient-important outcomes in randomized controlled trials in critically ill patients: a systematic review. Ann Intensive Care. 2017; 7(1):28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-017-0243-z PMID: 28271450.
10. Saldanha IJ, Li T, Yang C, Owczarzak J, Williamson PR, Dickersin K. Clinical trials and systematic reviews addressing similar interventions for the same condition do not consider similar outcomes to be important: a case study in HIV/AIDS. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017; 84:85–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.02.005 PMID: 28249722.
11. Ameur H, Ravaud P, Fayard F, Riveros C, Dechartres A. Systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions frequently consider patient-important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.01.006 PMID: 28147235.
12. Khan KS, Kunz R, Kleijnen J, Antes G. Five steps to conducting a systematic review. J R Soc Med. 2003; 96(3):118–21. PMID: 12612111.
13. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration 2011. www.cochrane-handbook.org.
14. O’Connor D, Green S, Higgins JPT. Chapter 5: Defining the review question and developing criteria for including studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated September 2011]. ed. www.cochrane-handbook.org.: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
15. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Higgins JPT, Vist GE, Glasziou P, Akl E, et al. Chapter 11: Completing ‘Summary of findings’ tables and grading the confidence in or quality of the evidence. In: Higgins JPT, Chandler J, (editors) CM, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.2.0 (updated June 2017). ed. Cochrane, 2017. http://training.cochrane.org/handbook: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2017.
16. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Schunemann HJ. What is "quality of evidence" and why is it important to clinicians? Bmj. 2008; 336(7651):995–8. Epub 2008/05/06. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39490.551019.BE PMID: 18456631.
17. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Bmj. 2004; 328(7454):1490. Epub 2004/06/19. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490 PMID: 15205295.
18. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008; 336(7650):924–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD PMID: 18436948.
19. Yordanov Y, Dechartres A, Atal I, Tran V, Boutron I, Crequit P, et al. Avoidable waste of research related to outcome planning and reporting in clinical trials. BMC Medicine—under review. 2017.
20. Dechartres A, Ravaud P, Atal I, Riveros C, Boutron I. Association between trial registration and treatment effect estimates: a meta-epidemiological study. BMC medicine. 2016; 14(1):100. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0639-x PMID: 27377062.
21. Alonso-Coello P, Carrasco-Labra A, Brignardello-Petersen R, Neumann I, Akl EA, Vernooij RW, et al. Systematic reviews experience major limitations in reporting absolute effects. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016; 72:16–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.11.002 PMID: 26560992.
22. Agarwal A, Johnston BC, Vernooij RW, Carrasco-Labra A, Brignardello-Petersen R, Neumann I, et al. Authors seldom report the most patient-important outcomes and absolute effect measures in systematic review abstracts. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.08.004 PMID: 27555080.
23. Cochrane Collaboration. "Cochrane Review Groups"[Internet] 2017 [Date Accessed: 19/09/2017] [cited 2017 19/09/2017]. www.cochrane.org/contact/review-groups].
24. Rosenbaum SE, Glenton C, Oxman AD. Summary-of-findings tables in Cochrane reviews improved understanding and rapid retrieval of key information. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63(6):620–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.12.014 PMID: 20434024.
25. Clarke M, Williamson PR. Core outcome sets and systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016; 5:11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0188-6 PMID: 26792080.
26. Alonso-Coello P, Vernooij RWM, Carrasco-Labra A, Vandvik P, Guyatt GH. RE: Which estimates comprise optimal reporting in systematic reviews? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2017; 81(Supplement C):140–1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.01.001.
27. Ioannidis JP, Horbar JD, Ovelman CM, Brosseau Y, Thorlund K, Buus-Frank ME, et al. Completeness of main outcomes across randomized trials in entire discipline: survey of chronic lung disease outcomes in preterm infants. BMJ. 2015; 350:h72. Epub 2015/01/28. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h72 PMID: 25623087.
28. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet.
29. 2009; 374(9683):86–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9 PMID: 19525005
30. Ioannidis JP, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, Khoury MJ, Macleod MR, Moher D, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet. 2014; 383(9912):166–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62227-8 PMID: 24411645.
31. Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, Dirnagl U, Chalmers I, Ioannidis JP, et al. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet. 2014; 383(9912):101–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736 (13)62329-6 PMID: 24411643.
32. Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014; 383(9913):267–76. Epub 2014/01/15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62228-X PMID: 24411647.
33. 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. 2012; 17(1):1–2. https://doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2011.011131 PMID: 22294719
34. Williamson P, Clarke M. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative: Its Role in Improving Cochrane Reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 5:ED000041. Epub 2012/ 05/18. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.ed000041 PMID: 22592744.
35. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Devane D, Gargon E, et al. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials. 2012; 13:132. Epub 2012/08/08. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-13-132 PMID: 22867278
36. 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. 2013; 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-14-21 PMID: 23339751
37. Clarke M, Williamson PR. Core outcome sets and systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016; 5(1):11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0188-6 PMID: 26792080.
38. 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. 2016; 11(1):e0146444. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146444 PMID: 26785121.
39. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Sampson M, Tricco AC, et al. Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study. PLoS Med. 2016; 13(5):e1002028. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028 PMID: 27218655.