Title |
Can a core outcome set improve the quality of systematic reviews? – a survey of the Co-ordinating Editors of Cochrane review groups
|
---|---|
Published in |
Trials, January 2013
|
DOI | 10.1186/1745-6215-14-21 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Jamie J Kirkham, Elizabeth Gargon, Mike Clarke, Paula R Williamson |
Abstract |
Missing outcome data or the inconsistent reporting of outcome data in clinical research can affect the quality of evidence within a systematic review. A potential solution is an agreed standardized set of outcomes known as a core outcome set (COS) to be measured in all studies for a specific condition. We investigated the amount of missing patient data for primary outcomes in Cochrane systematic reviews, and surveyed the Co-ordinating Editors of Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) on issues related to the standardization of outcomes in their CRG's reviews. These groups are responsible for the more than 7,000 protocols and full versions of Cochrane Reviews that are currently available, and the several hundred new reviews published each year, presenting the world's largest collection of standardized systematic reviews in health care. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 10 | 32% |
United States | 3 | 10% |
Australia | 2 | 6% |
Canada | 2 | 6% |
Colombia | 1 | 3% |
Japan | 1 | 3% |
Chile | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 11 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 23 | 74% |
Scientists | 6 | 19% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Canada | 2 | 2% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
France | 1 | 1% |
Germany | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 83 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 24% |
Researcher | 12 | 14% |
Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 10% |
Student > Master | 7 | 8% |
Student > Bachelor | 6 | 7% |
Other | 16 | 18% |
Unknown | 17 | 19% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 50 | 57% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 7% |
Social Sciences | 4 | 5% |
Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 2% |
Other | 5 | 6% |
Unknown | 19 | 22% |