Can a core outcome set improve the quality of systematic reviews? – a survey of the Co-ordinating Editors of Cochrane review groups
Open Access
- 1 January 2013
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Springer Nature in Trials
- Vol. 14 (1) , 21
- https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-14-21
Abstract
Missing outcome data or the inconsistent reporting of outcome data in clinical research can affect the quality of evidence within a systematic review. A potential solution is an agreed standardized set of outcomes known as a core outcome set (COS) to be measured in all studies for a specific condition. We investigated the amount of missing patient data for primary outcomes in Cochrane systematic reviews, and surveyed the Co-ordinating Editors of Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) on issues related to the standardization of outcomes in their CRG’s reviews. These groups are responsible for the more than 7,000 protocols and full versions of Cochrane Reviews that are currently available, and the several hundred new reviews published each year, presenting the world’s largest collection of standardized systematic reviews in health care.Keywords
This publication has 6 references indexed in Scilit:
- Driving up the Quality and Relevance of Research Through the Use of Agreed Core OutcomesJournal of Health Services Research & Policy, 2012
- The impact of cochrane reviewsPublished by Wiley ,2010
- Summary-of-findings tables in Cochrane reviews improved understanding and rapid retrieval of key informationJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2010
- The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviewsBMJ, 2010
- Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting BiasPLOS ONE, 2008
- Standardising outcomes for clinical trials and systematic reviewsTrials, 2007