Abstract:One of the first steps in designing and conducting a research study is identifying the primary and any secondary study outcomes. In an experimental, quasi-experimental, or analytic observational research study, the primary study outcomes arise from and align directly with the primary study aim or objective. Likewise, any secondary study outcomes arise from and directly align with any secondary study aim or objective. One designated primary study outcome then forms the basis for and is incorporated literally into the stated hypothesis. In a Methods section, authors clearly state and define each primary and any secondary study outcome variable. In the same Methods section, authors clearly describe how all primary and any secondary study outcome variables were measured. Enough detail is provided so that a clinician, statistician, or informatician can know exactly what is being measured and that other investigators could duplicate the measurements in their research venue. The authors provide published substantiation (preferably) or other documented evidence of the validity and reliability of any applied measurement instrument, tool, or scale. A common pitfall—and often fatal study design flaw—is the application of a newly created (“home-grown”) or ad hoc modification of an existing measurement instrument, tool, or scale—without any supporting evidence of its validity and reliability. An optimal primary outcome is the one for which there is the most existing or plausible evidence of being associated with the exposure of interest or intervention. Including too many primary outcomes can (a) lead to an unfocused research question and study and (b) present problems with interpretation if the treatment effect differed across the outcomes. Inclusion of secondary variables in the study design and the resulting manuscript needs to be justified. Secondary outcomes are particularly helpful if they lend supporting evidence for the primary endpoint. A composite endpoint is an endpoint consisting of several outcome variables that are typically correlated with each. In designing a study, researchers limit components of a composite endpoint to variables on which the intervention of interest would most plausibly have an effect, and optimally with preliminary evidence of an effect. Ideally, components of a strong composite endpoint have similar treatment effect, frequency, and severity—with the most important being similar severity.

Defining the review question and developing criteria for including studies

Formulating Questions and Locating Primary Studies for Inclusion in Systematic Reviews

Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes and Study (PICOS) design as a framework to formulate eligibility criteria in systematic reviews

Selecting and Appraising Studies for a Systematic Review

Starting a review

Beyond PICO

Development of the InSynQ checklist: A tool for planning and reporting the synthesis questions in systematic reviews of interventions

Methodology for clinical practice guidelines --identifying and forming the scope, topic and clinical question

Completing ‘Summary of findings’ tables and grading the certainty of the evidence

A Structured Approach to Involve Stakeholders in Prioritising Topics for Systematic Reviews in Public Health

Defining the Primary Outcomes and Justifying Secondary Outcomes of a Study: Usually, the Fewer, the Better

Preparing a Cochrane review

Conducting Systematic Reviews of Intervention Questions I: Writing the Review Protocol, Formulating the Question and Searching the Literature

Methodological standards for the conduct of new Cochrane Intervention Reviews

Defining and implementing patient-centered care: An umbrella review

Guidance on review type selection for health technology assessments: key factors and considerations for deciding when to conduct a de novo systematic review, an update of a systematic review, or an overview of systematic reviews

Methodological expectations of Cochrane intervention reviews

Defining the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of guidance and supporting studies

Systematic reviews of clinical practice guidelines: a methodological guide

Best Practice Guidelines and Essential Methodological Steps to Conduct Rigorous and Systematic Meta-Reviews

Maintaining reviews: updates, amendments and feedback