Developing core outcomes sets: methods for identifying and including patient-reported outcomes (PROs)

Rhiannon C Macefield · Marc Jacobs · Ida J. Korfage · Joanna Nicklin · Robert N. Whistance · Sara T. Brookes +2 more

179 citations0/0 files storedTrials

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Delphi Technique in Research Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life Health Education and Validation

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Synthesis of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data is hindered by the range of available PRO measures (PROMs) composed of multiple scales and single items with differing terminology and content. The use of core outcome sets, an agreed minimum set of outcomes to be measured and reported in all trials of a specific condition, may improve this issue but methods to select core PRO domains from the many available PROMs are lacking. This study examines existing PROMs and describes methods to identify health domains to inform the development of a core outcome set, illustrated with an example. METHODS: Systematic literature searches identified validated PROMs from studies evaluating radical treatment for oesophageal cancer. PROM scale/single item names were recorded verbatim and the frequency of similar names/scales documented. PROM contents (scale components/single items) were examined for conceptual meaning by an expert clinician and methodologist and categorised into health domains. A patient advocate independently checked this categorisation. RESULTS: Searches identified 21 generic and disease-specific PROMs containing 116 scales and 32 single items with 94 different verbatim names. Identical names for scales were repeatedly used (for example, 'physical function' in six different measures) and others were similar (overlapping face validity) although component items were not always comparable. Based on methodological, clinical and patient expertise, 606 individual items were categorised into 32 health domains. CONCLUSION: This study outlines a methodology for identifying candidate PRO domains from existing PROMs to inform a core outcome set to use in clinical trials.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 179 citations exist upstream.

References

1983The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale 1992The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection.1992The MOS 36-ltem Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36)1993Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life 1988The MOS Short-form General Health Survey 2007The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)2011Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist 2012Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider

Cited by

2017Effectiveness of befriending interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis 2015Development of a core outcome set for research and audit studies in reconstructive breast surgery 2017An International Collaborative Standardizing a Comprehensive Patient-Centered Outcomes Measurement Set for Colorectal Cancer 2016Three nested randomized controlled trials of peer-only or multiple stakeholder group feedback within Delphi surveys during core outcome and information set development 2016

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.