title: Can a core outcome set improve the quality of systematic reviews?--a survey of the Co-ordinating Editors of Cochrane Review Groups.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  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.
  
  
  METHODS
  Using an unselected cohort of Cochrane Reviews, we calculated and presented the percentage of missing patient data for the primary outcome measure chosen for each review published by each CRG. We also surveyed the CRG Co-ordinating Editors to see what their policies are with regards to outcome selection and outcomes to include in the Summary of Finding (SoF) tables in their Cochrane Reviews. They were also asked to list the main advantages and challenges of standardizing outcomes across all reviews within their CRG.
  
  
  RESULTS
  In one fifth of the 283 reviews in the sample, more than 50% of the patient data for the primary outcome was missing. Responses to the survey were received from 90% of Co-ordinating Editors. Thirty-six percent of CRGs have a centralized policy regarding which outcomes to include in the SoF table and 73% of Co-ordinating Editors thought that a COS for effectiveness trials should be used routinely for a SoF table.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The reliability of systematic reviews, in particular meta-analyses they contain, can be improved if more attention is paid to missing outcome data. The availability of COSs for specific health conditions might help with this and the concept has support from the majority of Co-ordinating Editors in CRGs.
authors: Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Shelley's Cottage, Brownlow Street, Liverpool L69 3GS, UK. jjk@liv.ac.uk
authors: Jamie J
authors: JJ
authors: Kirkham
authors: Elizabeth
authors: E
authors: Gargon
authors: Mike
authors: M
authors: Clarke
authors: Paula R
authors: PR
authors: Williamson
mesh_terms: D003625:Data Collection; D006801:Humans; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care; D000078202:Systematic Reviews as Topic