A scoping review of core outcome sets and their ‘mapping’ onto real-world data using prostate cancer as a case study

Meregaglia, Michela, Ciani, Oriana, Banks, Helen, Salcher-Konrad, Maximilian ORCID: 0000-0002-5628-5266, Carney, Caroline, Jayawardana, Sahan ORCID: 0000-0001-7081-3910, Williamson, Paula and Fattore, Giovanni (2020) A scoping review of core outcome sets and their ‘mapping’ onto real-world data using prostate cancer as a case study. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 20 (1). ISSN 1471-2288

Text (s12874-020-00928-w) - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (924kB)

• Author

Abstract

Background: A Core Outcomes Set (COS) is an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be reported in all clinical studies related to a specific condition. Using prostate cancer as a case study, we identified, summarized, and critically appraised published COS development studies and assessed the degree of overlap between them and selected real-world data (RWD) sources. Methods: We conducted a scoping review of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative database to identify all COS studies developed for prostate cancer. Several characteristics (i.e., study type, methods for consensus, type of participants, outcomes included in COS and corresponding measurement instruments, timing, and sources) were extracted from the studies; outcomes were classified according to a predefined 38-item taxonomy. The study methodology was assessed based on the recent COS-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) recommendations. A 'mapping' exercise was conducted between the COS identified and RWD routinely collected in selected European countries. Results: Eleven COS development studies published between 1995 and 2017 were retrieved, of which 8 were classified as 'COS for clinical trials and clinical research', 2 as 'COS for practice' and 1 as 'COS patient reported outcomes'. Recommended outcomes were mainly categorized into 'mortality and survival' (17%), 'outcomes related to neoplasm' (18%), and 'renal and urinary outcomes' (13%) with no relevant differences among COS study types. The studies generally fulfilled the criteria for the COS-STAD 'scope specification' domain but not the 'stakeholders involved' and 'consensus process' domains. About 72% overlap existed between COS and linked administrative data sources, with important gaps. Linking with patient registries improved coverage (85%), but was sometimes limited to smaller follow-up patient groups. Conclusions: This scoping review identified few COS development studies in prostate cancer, some quite dated and with a growing level of methodological quality over time. This study revealed promising overlap between COS and RWD sources, though with important limitations; linking established, national patient registries to administrative data provide the best means to additionally capture patient-reported and some clinical outcomes over time. Thus, increasing the combination of different data sources and the interoperability of systems to follow larger patient groups in RWD is required.

Item Type:	Article
Official URL:	https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/
Additional Information:	© 2020 The Authors
Divisions:	Care Policy and Evaluation Centre LSE Health
Subjects:	R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine R Medicine > RB Pathology
Date Deposited:	19 Feb 2020 09:24
Last Modified:	12 Dec 2024 02:04
URI:	http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/103487

Actions (login required)

View Item