Abstract:OBJECTIVES: In 2019, only 7% of Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) cited a core outcome set (COS) in relation to choosing outcomes, even though a relevant COS existed but was not mentioned (or cited) for a further 29% of SRs. Our objectives for the current work were to (1) examine the extent to which authors are currently considering COS to inform outcome choice in Cochrane protocols and completed SRs, and (2) understand author facilitators and barriers to using COS.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We examined all completed Cochrane SRs published in the last 3 months of 2022 and all Cochrane protocols published in 2022 for the extent to which they: (a) cited a COS, (b) searched for COS, (c) used outcomes from existing COS, and (d) reported outcome inconsistency among included studies and/or noted the need for COS. One investigator extracted information; a second extractor verified all information, discussing discrepancies to achieve consensus. We then conducted an online survey of authors of the included SRs to assess awareness of COS and identify facilitators and barriers to using COS to inform outcome choice.RESULTS: Objective 1: We included 294 SRs of interventions (84 completed SRs and 210 published SR protocols), of which 13% cited specific COS and 5% did not cite but mentioned searching for COS. A median of 83% of core outcomes from cited COS (interquartile range [IQR] 57% to 100%) were included in the corresponding SR. We identified a relevant COS for 39% of SRs that did not cite a COS. A median of 50% of core outcomes from non-cited COS (IQR 35% to 72%) were included in the corresponding SR. Objective 2: Authors of 236 (80%) of the 294 eligible SRs completed our survey. Seventy-seven percent of authors noted being aware of COS before the survey. Fifty-five percent of authors who did not cite COS but were aware of them reported searching for a COS. The most reported facilitators of using COS were author awareness of the existence of COS (59%), author positive perceptions of COS (52%), and recommendation in the Cochrane Handbook regarding COS use (48%). The most reported barriers related to matching of the scope of the COS and the SR: the COS target population was too narrow/broad relative to the SR population (29%) or the COS target intervention was too narrow/broad relative to the SR intervention (21%). Most authors (87%) mentioned that they would consider incorporating missing core outcomes in the SR/update.CONCLUSION: Since 2019, there is increasing consideration and awareness of COS when choosing outcomes for Cochrane SRs of interventions, but uptake remains low and can be improved further. Use of COS in SRs is important to improve outcome standardization, reduce research waste, and improve evidence syntheses of the relevant effects of interventions across health research.

Increasing Uptake through Collaboration in the Development of Core Outcome Sets: Lessons Learned at OMERACT 2023

Patient and family engagement in the development of core outcome sets for two rare chronic diseases in children

Core outcome set implementation supported by the BJD

Study found increasing use of core outcome sets in Cochrane systematic reviews and identified facilitators and barriers

Core outcome sets for trials of interventions to prevent and to treat multimorbidity in adults in low and middle-income countries: the COSMOS study

Developing a core outcome set for evaluating medication adherence interventions for adults prescribed long-term medication in primary care

The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) implementation roadmap

Uptake of core outcome sets by clinical trialists in China: a protocol

Using behavioral science to increase core outcome set use in trials

Development of an updated, standardized, patient-centered outcome set for lung cancer

A Foundation for Patient-Centered Core Impact Sets: Key Learnings from Past and Existing Approaches

Harmonising outcome measurement for child focused domestic abuse interventions. Reflections on the development and implementation of a core outcome set

Assessing the uptake of the type 1 diabetes core outcome set in randomized controlled trials: A Cross-Sectional study

Core outcome set for cardio-oncology: development of a set of outcomes for the cardiovascular assessment and monitoring of cancer patients and survivors

Defining Domains: Developing Consensus-Based Definitions for Foundational Domains in OMERACT Core Outcome Sets

Embracing unity at OMERACT: Valuing equity, promoting diversity, fostering inclusivity

Testing the applicability and additional value of a consultation round after the consensus meeting in the development of two core outcome sets

Development of a core outcome set for use in adult primary glioma phase III interventional trials: A mixed methods study

PRACTICE: Development of a Core Outcome Set for Trials of Physical Rehabilitation in Critical Illness

A Core Outcome Set for Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: Development and Recommendations for Implementation in Clinical Practice Through an International Multi-stakeholder Consensus Process

Development of a core outcome set for therapeutic studies in eosinophilic esophagitis (COREOS)