Systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions frequently consider patient-important outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether recently published and ongoing systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions assess patient-important outcomes.


METHODS
For this methodological review, we searched MEDLINE via PubMed for recently published systematic reviews and online registry of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) for ongoing systematic reviews. We selected systematic reviews with meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. We extracted all outcomes defined in the methods section and categorized them. Mortality, other clinical events, pain, quality of life, function, and therapeutic decisions were considered patient-important outcomes.


RESULTS
We included 420 systematic reviews: 90 Cochrane reviews, 200 other published reviews, and 130 registered ongoing reviews. Primary outcomes were defined in 85 Cochrane reviews (95%), 98 (49%) other published reviews and all ongoing reviews. At least one patient-important outcome was defined as a primary outcome in 81/85 Cochrane reviews (95%), 78/98 other published reviews (80%), and 117/130 ongoing reviews (90%). Considering all outcomes assessed, at least one patient-important outcome was evaluated in 90/90 Cochrane reviews (100%), 189/200 other published reviews (95%), and 121/130 ongoing reviews (93%).


CONCLUSIONS
Most recent systematic reviews aim to assess patient-important outcomes, which contrasts with RCTs. These results suggest some important gaps between primary and secondary research.
Faculté de médecine, Université Paris Descartes-Sorbonne Paris Cité, 15 rue de l'école de médecine, 75006 Paris, France.
Hayet
H
Ameur
Faculté de médecine, Université Paris Descartes-Sorbonne Paris Cité, 15 rue de l'école de médecine, 75006 Paris, France; INSERM U1153, Team Methods, Hôtel-Dieu, 1 place du parvis Notre Dame, 75004 Paris, France; Cochrane France, Hôtel-Dieu, 1 place du parvis Notre Dame, 75004 Paris, France; Centre d'Epidémiologie Clinique, Hôtel-Dieu (Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris), Paris, France; Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, 722 W 168th St, New York, NY 10032, USA.
Philippe
P
Ravaud
Centre d'Epidémiologie Clinique, Hôtel-Dieu (Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris), Paris, France.
Florence
F
Fayard
Faculté de médecine, Université Paris Descartes-Sorbonne Paris Cité, 15 rue de l'école de médecine, 75006 Paris, France; Centre d'Epidémiologie Clinique, Hôtel-Dieu (Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris), Paris, France.
Carolina
C
Riveros
Faculté de médecine, Université Paris Descartes-Sorbonne Paris Cité, 15 rue de l'école de médecine, 75006 Paris, France; INSERM U1153, Team Methods, Hôtel-Dieu, 1 place du parvis Notre Dame, 75004 Paris, France; Cochrane France, Hôtel-Dieu, 1 place du parvis Notre Dame, 75004 Paris, France; Centre d'Epidémiologie Clinique, Hôtel-Dieu (Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris), Paris, France. Electronic address: agnes.dechartres@aphp.fr.
Agnes
A
Dechartres
D057186:Comparative Effectiveness Research; D006801:Humans; D016239:MEDLINE; D015201:Meta-Analysis as Topic; D063868:Patient Outcome Assessment; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D012196:Review Literature as Topic
Comparative effectiveness research; Meta-analyses; Outcomes; Patient-centered research; Patient-important outcomes; Patient-reported outcomes; Systematic reviews