Skip to content

A systematic review of core outcome set development studies demonstrates difficulties in defining unique outcomes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)14-24
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Early online date2 Jul 2019
DateAccepted/In press - 26 Jun 2019
DateE-pub ahead of print - 2 Jul 2019
DatePublished (current) - 1 Nov 2019


OBJECTIVES: Core outcome set (COS) development often begins with a systematic review to identify outcomes. Reviews frequently show heterogeneity in numbers of outcomes reported across trials. Contributing to this is a lack of a uniform definition for an outcome. This study proposes a first working definition for a unique trial outcome to support reporting a quantitative assessment of outcome reporting heterogeneity (ORH).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Eligible COS literature (development papers, protocols, and reviews) were identified using the COMET database, Ovid MEDLINE, and PubMed. Outcome numbers, definitions, timing, and grouping methodology were examined.

RESULTS: One hundred and thirty two studies were included. 82 (88.1%) studies (excluding protocols) reported a total number of unique outcomes (median, 82; range, 12-5776; IQR, 261). Timing of assessment was reported in 32 (31.4%) studies. Methods to group similar outcomes were reported in 8 (7.8%) articles. No study defined how outcomes were agreed as different and how final numbers of unique outcomes were determined. It is proposed that a unique outcome requires original meaning and context. Thus ORH is suggested to be the reporting of multiple unique outcomes across trials related to one health care condition.

CONCLUSION: This review identified inconsistencies in how authors define, extract, group, and count trial outcomes. Further work is needed to refine our proposed definitions to optimize COS development and allow a quantifiable measure of ORH.

Additional information

Crown Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

    Structured keywords

  • Centre for Surgical Research

    Research areas

  • Clinical trials, COMET, Core outcome set, Outcomes, Research methodology, Systematic review

Download statistics

No data available



  • Full-text PDF (final published version)

    Rights statement: This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via Elsevier at . Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.

    Final published version, 1 MB, PDF document

    Licence: CC BY-NC-ND


View research connections

Related faculties, schools or groups