↓ Skip to main content

Can a core outcome set improve the quality of systematic reviews? – a survey of the Co-ordinating Editors of Cochrane review groups

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
31 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
150 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
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

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

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%