1 / 27

Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials comet-initiative

Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials www.comet-initiative.org. Acknowledgements. COMET Management Group: Doug Altman, Jane Blazeby, Mike Clarke, Paula Williamson COMET project coordinator: Elizabeth Gargon Funding: MRC, FP7

adelie
Télécharger la présentation

Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials comet-initiative

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials • www.comet-initiative.org

  2. Acknowledgements • COMET Management Group: Doug Altman, Jane Blazeby, Mike Clarke, Paula Williamson • COMET project coordinator: Elizabeth Gargon • Funding: MRC, FP7 • Collaborators: Peter Tugwell, Maarten Boers, Caroline Terwee, Holger Schunemann, Michael Rose, Sunita Vohra, Roberto D’Amico, Lorenzo Moja

  3. Health care research is untidy • It needs to be tidied up if it is to achieve its aim of helping practitioners and patients to improve health care and health • This needs initiatives such as The Cochrane Collaboration for the preparation and maintenance of systematic reviews and COMET for core outcome sets

  4. Systematic review of evidence on selective outcome reporting • Studies reporting positive or significant results are more likely to be published • Outcomes that are statistically significant are more likely to be fully reported • 40–62% of publications had at least one primary outcome changed, newly introduced or omitted compared to protocol [Dwan et al, PLoS ONE 2008]

  5. Interviews with trialists (n=59) • Discussion of outcomes listed in their protocol but not their trial report • 29% trials displayed outcome reporting bias • All trialists mentioned either • outcomes not measured • outcomes measured but not analysed - Lack of clarity about importance or feasibility of measurement for outcomes chosen [Smyth et al, BMJ2010]

  6. Core outcome set • An agreed standardised set of outcomes that should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all clinical trials in specific areas of health or health care

  7. Core outcome set • Consider both benefits and harms • The minimum (other outcomes can be collected) • Focus is on trials of effectiveness • “What” to measure, then “How”

  8. Scope of the COS • “The specific area of health or healthcare that the COS is to apply to, in terms of health condition, population and types of interventions needs to be determined.” • All stages or severity of a specific health condition or focussed on a particular disease category - e.g. in colorectal cancer, a COS might be developed for all patients or it may focus on patients with metastatic disease • All treatment types or for a particular intervention - e.g. in morbid obesity, a COS may be created to use in trials of all interventions or just bariatric surgery alone

  9. Advantages of core outcome sets • Increases consistency across trials • Maximise potential for trial to contribute to systematic reviews of these key outcomes • Much more likely to measure appropriate outcomes • Major reduction in selective reporting

  10. www.omeract.org • Trials 2007 8:38

  11. Improvements over time (Kirkham et al, Trials 2013) Studies reporting full RA COS (%) Mean number of clinical outcomes 100 7.0 80 60 6.5 drug studies 40 20 6.0 non-drug studies 0 0.0 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 WHO/ILAR RA COS EMA guideline FDA guideline

  12. The COMET Initiative • To raise awareness of current problems with outcomes in clinical trials • To encourage COS development and uptake • To provide resources to allow practitioners to develop COS, e.g. COMET database • An international network of trialists, systematic reviewers, health service users, practitioners, editors, funders, policy makers, regulators

  13. COMET Initiative • ‘What’ to measure • ‘How’ to measure (validity, reliability, feasibility) - COSMIN - PROMIS - PROQOLID - TREAT-NMD ROM

  14. Website

  15. Background

  16. COMET Database • A publically accessible internet-based resource to collate the knowledge base for core outcome set development • To include planned and ongoing work, as well as published core outcome set development • 200+ published, 50+ ongoing

  17. Search results

  18. Scope • Identifying existing knowledge • Stakeholder involvement • Consensus methods • Achieving global consensus • Regular review, feedback, updating • Implementation • Clear presentation

  19. Stakeholder involvement • Health care practitioners • Patients, carers, representatives • Regulators • Industry representatives • Researchers • Stage of involvement may vary by group

  20. Patient and public involvement • Impact of involvement • Rheumatology (OMERACT): fatigue • Chronic pain (IMMPACT): expansion of previously proposed core outcome domains • Multiple sclerosis: fatigue, continence • Paediatric asthma

  21. Comparison of studies

  22. Professor Hywel Williams, Chair of the NIHR HTA Commissioning Board: ‘Patients and professionals making decisions about health care need access to reliable evidence. The new COMET database will help researchers across the NIHR family and beyond when choosing the outcomes to include in the studies that will establish this evidence base'.

  23. Impact • Since the COMET website and database were launched in August 2011: • 3800+ searches have been undertaken • 12000+ individuals visited • 110+ countries visiting the site

  24. www.comet-initiative.org • e.gargon@liv.ac.uk • Twitter: @COMETinitiative

More Related