Assessing the Quality of Studies on Core Outcome Sets for Respiratory Diseases
Author Information
Author(s): Liu Mengjuan, Wang Jiajia, Wang Lu, Zhang Xinyi, Hao Ruiyu, Wang Duolao, Chen Tao, Li Jiansheng
Primary Institution: Henan University of Chinese Medicine, Zhengzhou, China
Hypothesis
The methodological quality of studies on core outcome sets for respiratory diseases is unclear and needs assessment.
Conclusion
The methodological quality of studies on core outcome sets for respiratory diseases needs to be further improved.
Supporting Evidence
- Only three studies fully reported all COS-STAD items.
- Many studies on COS-RD do not meet international reporting standards.
- Stakeholder involvement in COS development was often underreported.
Takeaway
This study looked at how well researchers are reporting important outcomes for respiratory disease studies, and found that many are not doing a good job.
Methodology
The study involved searching multiple databases for articles on core outcome sets for respiratory diseases, assessing their methodological quality using established reporting standards.
Potential Biases
Potential bias due to underreporting of stakeholder involvement and lack of patient input in some studies.
Limitations
Some studies began before the publication of international reporting standards, which may affect their compliance.
Participant Demographics
Studies included adults with various respiratory diseases, including COVID-19, COPD, and lung cancer.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website