» Articles » PMID: 35528958

A Pilot Study Assessing the Similarity Between Core Outcome Sets and Outcomes Included in Health Technology Assessments

Overview
Journal F1000Res
Date 2022 May 10
PMID 35528958
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Core outcome sets (COS) are an agreed standardised collection of outcomes created with representation from all key stakeholders (such as patients, clinicians, researchers), which should be reported as a minimum for all trials in that corresponding clinical area. There has been little research investigating the use of core outcomes in Health technology assessments (HTAs) and none in non-oncology HTAs. This study aimed to assess the similarity between COS and HTA outcomes. Ten COS published between 2015 and 2019 were selected, with patient participation taken as a proxy measure for a high quality COS. The INAHTA database was used as a source to identify relevant HTAs, which were accessed through the hyperlinks provided. Outcomes selected for these assessments were categorised as either a specific, partial or no match compared to the COS. An additional cohort of non-oncology HTAs published between 2019 and 2021 were identified from the NICE website and compared against a relevant COS. Six hundred and fifty-one HTAs were matched to the ten COS areas, of which 119 were reviewed. Of a possible 1318 core outcome matches, there were 562 (43%) matches, 413 (31%) specific and 149 (11%) partial. NICE HTA matches against corresponding COS ranged from 44% to 100%, with a total of 78% (73/94) matches, 57 (61%) specific and 16 (17%) partial. Further work is required to promote the awareness and implementation of COS within HTAs. The degree of matching between COS and NICE HTA outcomes is encouraging, demonstrating acceptance of COS by HTA producers.

Citing Articles

Protocol of the development of a core outcome set for stroke in multidimensional value assessment of traditional Chinese medicine.

Yuan J, Yang L, Li M, Bai J, Cheng Y, Feng Y BMJ Open. 2024; 14(1):e079492.

PMID: 38238171 PMC: 10806626. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079492.


Health technology assessment 2025 and beyond: lifecycle approaches to promote engagement and efficiency in health technology assessment.

Trowman R, Migliore A, Ollendorf D Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2023; 39(1):e15.

PMID: 36815310 PMC: 11574536. DOI: 10.1017/S0266462323000090.

References
1.
Williamson P, Altman D, Blazeby J, Clarke M, Devane D, Gargon E . Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials. 2012; 13:132. PMC: 3472231. DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-132. View

2.
ORourke B, Oortwijn W, Schuller T . The new definition of health technology assessment: A milestone in international collaboration. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020; 36(3):187-190. DOI: 10.1017/S0266462320000215. View

3.
McNamara R, Spatz E, Kelley T, Stowell C, Beltrame J, Heidenreich P . Standardized Outcome Measurement for Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: Consensus From the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM). J Am Heart Assoc. 2015; 4(5). PMC: 4599409. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.115.001767. View

4.
Hughes K, Clarke M, Williamson P . A systematic review finds Core Outcome Set uptake varies widely across different areas of health. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020; 129:114-123. PMC: 7815247. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.029. View

5.
Layton A, Eady E, Thiboutot D, Tan J . Identifying What to Measure in Acne Clinical Trials: First Steps towards Development of a Core Outcome Set. J Invest Dermatol. 2017; 137(8):1784-1786. PMC: 5746175. DOI: 10.1016/j.jid.2017.04.017. View