The core outcome set (COS) refers to the minimum set of outcomes that should be reported
by all clinical trials in a particular health field. The use of COS in clinical studies
can reduce the heterogeneity caused by using different outcomes across different clinical
studies, facilitate the systematic review of different clinical studies on the same
topic, reduce selective reporting bias, and increase the utility of clinical studies.
The importance of COS in oral health has recently been recognized. This review summarizes
the history, necessity, and key methodological points of COS development, with emphasis
on the research status and existing problems in COS development, in the field of oral
health.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral RadiologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
REFERENCES
- Global, regional, and national prevalence, incidence, and disability-adjusted life years for oral conditions for 195 countries, 1990-2015: a systematic analysis for the global burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors.J Dent Res. 2017; 96: 380-387
- Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2019.Lancet. 2020; 396: 1204-1222
- GBD Compare Data Visualization.IHME, University of Washington, Seattle, WA2022
- Oral diseases: a global public health challenge.Lancet. 2019; 394: 249-260
- Core outcome sets and systematic reviews.Syst Rev. 2016; 5: 11
- Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research.Lancet. 2014; 383: 267-276
- Research: Increasing value, reducing waste 2: increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis.Lancet. 2014; 383: 166-175
- Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence.Lancet. 2009; 374: 86-89
- Bias in meta-analysis due to outcome variable selection within studies.J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat. 2000; 49: 359-370
- Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias—an updated review.PLoS One. 2013; 8: e66844
- Standardising outcomes for clinical trials and systematic reviews.Trials. 2007; 8: 39
- The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) initiative.Maturitas. 2016; 91: 91-92
- Towards core outcome set (COS) development: a follow-up descriptive survey of outcomes in Cochrane reviews.Syst Rev. 2015; 4: 73
- Can a core outcome set improve the quality of systematic reviews?—a survey of the Co-ordinating Editors of Cochrane Review Groups.Trials. 2013; 14: 21
- Summary-of-findings tables in Cochrane reviews improved understanding and rapid retrieval of key information.J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63: 620-626
- Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; 2014MR000035
- Reporting results of cancer treatment.Cancer. 1981; 47: 207-214
- OMERACT: an international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology.Trials. 2007; 8: 38
- OMERACT conference on outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials: introduction.J Rheumatol. 1993; 20: 528-530
- Outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis randomised trials over the last 50 years.Trials. 2013; 14: 324
- Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations.Pain. 2005; 113: 9-19
- Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME). Report from the First International Consensus Meeting (HOME 1), 24 July 2010, Munich, Germany.Br J Dermatol. 2010; 163: 1166-1168
- Outcomes in controlled and comparative studies on non-healing wounds: recommendations to improve the quality of evidence in wound management.J Wound Care. 2010; 19: 237-268
- Using the Delphi technique to determine which outcomes to measure in clinical trials: recommendations for the future based on a systematic review of existing studies.PLoS Med. 2011; 8e1000393
- Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 6th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research.PLoS One. 2021; 16e244878
- Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: a systematic review.PLoS One. 2014; 9: e99111
- Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: an updated review and user survey.PLoS One. 2016; 11e146444
- Core Outcome Set–STAndards for Reporting: the COS-STAR Statement.PLoS Med. 2016; 13e1002148
- COS-STAR: a reporting guideline for studies developing core outcome sets (protocol).Trials. 2015; 16: 373
- Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: an updated review and identification of gaps.PLoS One. 2016; 11e168403
- Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development: the COS-STAD recommendations.PLoS Med. 2017; 14e1002447
- The COMET Handbook: version 1.0.Trials. 2017; 18: 280
- Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative: protocol for an international Delphi study to achieve consensus on how to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a 'core outcome set'.Trials. 2014; 15: 247
- How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a “Core Outcome Set”—a practical guideline.Trials. 2016; 17: 449
- Core Outcome Set-STAndardised Protocol Items: the COS-STAP Statement.Trials. 2019; 20: 116
- Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 5th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research.PLoS One. 2019; 14e225980
- Outcomes in Trials for Management of Caries Lesions (OuTMaC): protocol.Trials. 2015; 16: 397
- Protocol for the development of a Core Outcome Set for trials on the prevention and treatment of Orthodontically induced enamel White Spot Lesions (COS-OWSL).Trials. 2021; 22: 507
- Core outcome sets and trial registries.Trials. 2015; 16: 216
- Including patients in core outcome set development: issues to consider based on three workshops with around 100 international delegates.Res Involv Engagem. 2016; 2: 25
- Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 4th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research.PLoS One. 2018; 13e209869
- The COMET Initiative database: progress and activities update (2015).Trials. 2017; 18: 54
- Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: an updated systematic review and involvement of low and middle income countries.PLoS One. 2018; 13e190695
- Global, regional, and national levels and trends in burden of oral conditions from 1990 to 2017: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease 2017 study.J Dent Res. 2020; 99: 362-373
- Survey indicated that core outcome set development is increasingly including patients, being conducted internationally and using Delphi surveys.Trials. 2018; 19: 113
- The use of qualitative methods to inform Delphi surveys in core outcome set development.Trials. 2016; 17: 230
- Participating in core outcome set development via Delphi surveys: qualitative interviews provide pointers to inform guidance.BMJ OPEN. 2019; 9: e32338
- World Workshop in Oral Medicine VII: reporting of IMMPACT-recommended outcome domains in randomized controlled trials of burning mouth syndrome: a systematic review.Oral Dis. 2019; 25: 122-140
- Use of core outcome sets was low in clinical trials published in major medical journals.J Clin Epidemiol. 2021; 142: 19-28
- More than half of systematic reviews have relevant core outcome sets.J Clin Epidemiol. 2021; 136: 168-179
- A systematic review finds core outcome set uptake varies widely across different areas of health.J Clin Epidemiol. 2021; 129: 114-123
- Delphi panelists for a core outcome set project suggested both new and existing dissemination strategies that were feasibly implemented by a research infrastructure project.J Clin Epidemiol. 2019; 114: 104-107
- Assessing the impact of a research funder's recommendation to consider core outcome sets.PLoS One. 2019; 14e222418
- Industry funding was associated with increased use of core outcome sets.J Clin Epidemiol. 2019; 115: 90-97
- A methodological approach for assessing the uptake of core outcome sets using ClinicalTrials.gov: findings from a review of randomised controlled trials of rheumatoid arthritis.BMJ. 2017; 357: j2262
Article info
Publication history
Published online: November 10, 2022
Accepted:
November 6,
2022
Received in revised form:
October 28,
2022
Received:
August 16,
2022
Identification
Copyright
© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
