» Articles » PMID: 29288712

A Taxonomy Has Been Developed for Outcomes in Medical Research to Help Improve Knowledge Discovery

Overview
Publisher Elsevier
Specialty Public Health
Date 2017 Dec 31
PMID 29288712
Citations 224
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: There is increasing recognition that insufficient attention has been paid to the choice of outcomes measured in clinical trials. The lack of a standardized outcome classification system results in inconsistencies due to ambiguity and variation in how outcomes are described across different studies. Being able to classify by outcome would increase efficiency in searching sources such as clinical trial registries, patient registries, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database of core outcome sets (COS), thus aiding knowledge discovery.

Study Design And Setting: A literature review was carried out to determine existing outcome classification systems, none of which were sufficiently comprehensive or granular for classification of all potential outcomes from clinical trials. A new taxonomy for outcome classification was developed, and as proof of principle, outcomes extracted from all published COS in the COMET database, selected Cochrane reviews, and clinical trial registry entries were classified using this new system.

Results: Application of this new taxonomy to COS in the COMET database revealed that 274/299 (92%) COS include at least one physiological outcome, whereas only 177 (59%) include at least one measure of impact (global quality of life or some measure of functioning) and only 105 (35%) made reference to adverse events.

Conclusions: This outcome taxonomy will be used to annotate outcomes included in COS within the COMET database and is currently being piloted for use in Cochrane Reviews within the Cochrane Linked Data Project. Wider implementation of this standard taxonomy in trial and systematic review databases and registries will further promote efficient searching, reporting, and classification of trial outcomes.

Citing Articles

"Doctor-Led, Patient-Centered": A Mixed-Method Research Comparing Patients' and Doctors' Treatment Outcome Choices for Chronic Low Back Pain.

Li X, Zhang Y, Mao Z, Chen Q, Lan X, Chen H Patient Prefer Adherence. 2025; 19:433-450.

PMID: 40040868 PMC: 11878113. DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S501409.


Prioritisation of head, neck, and respiratory outcomes in mucopolysaccharidosis type II: lessons from a rare disease consensus exercise and comparison of parental and clinical priorities.

Dempsey J, Daniels J, Katiri R, Thomas S, Metryka A, de Kruijf M Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2025; 20(1):88.

PMID: 40011961 PMC: 11866613. DOI: 10.1186/s13023-025-03581-y.


The case for development of a core outcome set (COS) and supplemental reporting guidelines for influenza vaccine challenge trial research in swine.

Keay S, Alberts F, OConnor A, Friendship R, OSullivan T, Poljak Z Front Vet Sci. 2025; 12:1465926.

PMID: 40007748 PMC: 11851948. DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2025.1465926.


The GenderCOS project: study protocol for the development of two international Core Outcome Sets for genital gender affirming surgery.

Roijer P, Vallinga M, Pidgeon T, Ceulemans A, Bakker A, Carriere B Int J Transgend Health. 2025; 26(1):78-87.

PMID: 39981273 PMC: 11837927. DOI: 10.1080/26895269.2023.2288881.


Developing a Neonatal Pulmonary Hypertension Core Outcome Set (NeoPH COS)-A Study Protocol.

Morgan C, Woolfall K, Aikman N, Gale C, Subhedar N Pulm Circ. 2025; 15(1):e70052.

PMID: 39980708 PMC: 11839391. DOI: 10.1002/pul2.70052.


References
1.
Wilson I, Cleary P . Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA. 1995; 273(1):59-65. View

2.
Schmitt J, Langan S, Williams H . What are the best outcome measurements for atopic eczema? A systematic review. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2007; 120(6):1389-98. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2007.08.011. View

3.
Roberts L, Counsell C . Assessment of clinical outcomes in acute stroke trials. Stroke. 1998; 29(5):986-91. DOI: 10.1161/01.str.29.5.986. View

4.
Mercer J, Penner M, Wing K, Younger A . Inconsistency in the Reporting of Adverse Events in Total Ankle Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Foot Ankle Int. 2015; 37(2):127-36. DOI: 10.1177/1071100715609719. View

5.
Macefield R, Jacobs M, Korfage I, Nicklin J, Whistance R, Brookes S . Developing core outcomes sets: methods for identifying and including patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Trials. 2014; 15:49. PMC: 3916696. DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-49. View