How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a “Core Outcome Set” – a practical guideline
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 13 September 2016
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in Trials
- Vol. 17 (1), 1-10
- https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1555-2
Abstract
In cooperation with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative, the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) initiative aimed to develop a guideline on how to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes (i.e., constructs or domains) included in a “Core Outcome Set” (COS). A COS is an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials of a specific disease or trial population. Informed by a literature review to identify potentially relevant tasks on outcome measurement instrument selection, a Delphi study was performed among a panel of international experts, representing diverse stakeholders. In three consecutive rounds, panelists were asked to rate the importance of different tasks in the selection of outcome measurement instruments, to justify their choices, and to add other relevant tasks. Consensus was defined as being achieved when 70 % or more of the panelists agreed and when fewer than 15 % of the panelists disagreed. Of the 481 invited experts, 120 agreed to participate of whom 95 (79 %) completed the first Delphi questionnaire. We reached consensus on four main steps in the selection of outcome measurement instruments for COS: Step 1, conceptual considerations; Step 2, finding existing outcome measurement instruments, by means of a systematic review and/or a literature search; Step 3, quality assessment of outcome measurement instruments, by means of the evaluation of the measurement properties and feasibility aspects of outcome measurement instruments; and Step 4, generic recommendations on the selection of outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a COS (consensus ranged from 70 to 99 %). This study resulted in a consensus-based guideline on the methods for selecting outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a COS. This guideline can be used by COS developers in defining how to measure core outcomes.Funding Information
- Seventh Framework Programme (BE) (FP7/2007-2013; 305081)
This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit:
- Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: A Systematic ReviewPLOS ONE, 2014
- Developing Core Outcome Measurement Sets for Clinical Trials: OMERACT Filter 2.0Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2014
- Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to considerTrials, 2012
- The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomesJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2010
- The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi studyQuality of Life Research, 2010
- Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidenceThe Lancet, 2009
- Standardising outcomes for clinical trials and systematic reviewsTrials, 2007
- Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnairesJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2007
- The Delphi List: A Criteria List for Quality Assessment of Randomized Clinical Trials for Conducting Systematic Reviews Developed by Delphi ConsensusJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1998
- Qualitative Research: Consensus methods for medical and health services researchBMJ, 1995