Keywords

Bias (Epidemiology), Clinical trials, Consensus, Endpoint determination/standards, Evidence-based medicine, Guidelines, Research design/standards, Systematic reviews, Treatment outcome

 

Authors

  1. Section Editor(s): Khan, Khalid

Article Content

Clinical trials, systematic reviews, and guidelines compare beneficial and nonbeneficial outcomes following interventions. Often, however, various studies on a particular topic do not address the same outcomes, making it difficult to draw clinically useful conclusions when a group of studies is looked at as a whole (Williamson et al., 2012). This problem was recently thrown into sharp focus by a systematic review of interventions for preterm birth prevention, which found that among 103 randomized trials, no fewer than 72 different outcomes were reported (Meher & Alfirevic, 2014). There is a growing recognition among clinical researchers that this variability undermines consistent synthesis of the evidence, and that what is needed is an agreed standardized collection of outcomes-a "core outcomes set"-for all trials in a specific clinical area (Williamson et al., 2012). Recognizing that the current inconsistency is a serious hindrance to progress in our specialty, the editors of over 50 journals related to women's health have come together to support The CROWN (CoRe Outcomes in WomeN's health) Initiative (Box 1).

  
Box 1 - Click to enlarge in new windowBox 1. Aims of The CROWN Initiative

Development of consensus is required around a set of well-defined, relevant, and feasible outcomes for all trials concerning particular obstetric and gynecologic health conditions, such as preterm birth, incontinence, infertility, and menstrual problems. With so many subspecialties involved, this is no easy task. Duplication of effort can be avoided by working with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative, which is working toward core data sets for all medical specialties (Williamson, Altman, Blazeby, Clarke, & Gargon, 2011). Production of trustworthy core outcome sets will require engagement with patients, healthcare professionals, researchers, industry and regulators, and the employment of scientifically robust consensus methods (Williamson et al., 2012). The data for these core outcome sets, once agreed upon, should be collected in trials and reported in publications as standard practice in the future.

 

Journal editors now invite researchers to take the lead in beginning this work. What will we do as editors to support them and their colleagues? First, we are drawing wide attention to The CROWN Initiative by publishing this editorial in the journals listed below. We shall ensure that the global research community, which includes our many reviewers, is aware of the need for core outcome sets. Submissions that describe development of core outcome sets, if deemed acceptable after peer review, will be effectively disseminated.

 

Our collaboration is not for enforcing harmony at the expense of innovation. To quote from the COMET home page (http://www.comet-initiative.org): "The existence or use of a core outcome set does not imply that outcomes in a particular trial should be restricted to those in the relevant core outcome set. Rather, there is an expectation that the core outcomes will be collected and reported, making it easier for the results of trials to be compared, contrasted and combined as appropriate; while researchers continue to explore other outcomes as well." We also expect that as new or superior ways of capturing outcomes emerge, core outcome sets will themselves need updating.

 

Producing, disseminating, and implementing core outcome sets will ensure that critical and important outcomes with good measurement properties are incorporated and reported. We believe this is the next important step in advancing the usefulness of research, in informing readers, including guideline and policy developers, who are involved in decision-making, and in improving evidence-based practice.

 

The CROWN Initiative is grateful to James Duffy (Trainee Scientific Editor, BJOG) and Louisa Waite (Assistant Editor, BJOG) for the drafting, revision, and coordination required for the preparation of this article.

 

The author declares no conflict of interest.

 

Note: Reproduced from The Core Outcomes in Women's Health (CROWN) Initiative with permission from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

 

The CROWN Initiative includes the following journals, in alphabetical order (correct on 13th May 2014, up to date list available at http://www.crown-initiative.org):

 

1. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica

 

2. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology

 

3. American Journal of Perinatology

 

4. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

 

5. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

 

6. Best Practice & Research: Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology

 

7. Birth: Issues in Perinatal Care

 

8. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

 

9. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

 

10. BMC Women's Health

 

11. Climacteric

 

12. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology

 

13. Clinics in Perinatology

 

14. Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group

 

15. Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group

 

16. Contraception

 

17. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology

 

18. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology

 

19. Fertility and Sterility

 

20. Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy

 

21. Ginekologia Polska

 

22. Gynecological Surgery

 

23. Gynecologic Oncology

 

24. Gynecologic Oncology Reports

 

25. Human Fertility

 

26. Human Reproduction

 

27. Human Reproduction Update

 

28. Hypertension in Pregnancy

 

29. International Journal of Fertility and Sterility

 

30. International Breastfeeding Journal

 

31. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics

 

32. International Urogynecology Journal

 

33. Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care

 

34. Journal of Gynecologic Oncology

 

35. Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease

 

36. Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health

 

37. Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology

 

38. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada

 

39. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing

 

40. Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing

 

41. Journal of Perinatal Medicine

 

42. Maturitas

 

43. MCN The American Journal of Maternal Child Nursing

 

44. Menopause Review (Przegl a d Menopauzalny)

 

45. Menopause: The Journal of The North American Menopause Society

 

46. Neurourology and Urodynamics

 

47. Obstetrics & Gynecology

 

48. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology

 

49. Placenta

 

50. Prenatal Diagnosis

 

51. Reproductive Health

 

52. The Breast Journal

 

53. The European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care

 

54. The Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (TOG)

 

55. Twin Research and Human Genetics

 

56. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology

 

 

References

 

Meher S., Alfirevic Z. (2014). Choice of primary outcomes in randomised trials and systematic reviews evaluating interventions for preterm birth prevention: A systematic review. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. doi:10.1111/1471-0528. [Context Link]

 

Williamson P. R., Altman D. G., Blazeby J. M., Clarke M., Devane D., Gargon E., Tugwell P. (2012). Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: Issues to consider. Trials, 13, 132. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-13-132 [Context Link]

 

Williamson P. R., Altman D. G., Blazeby J. M., Clarke M., Gargon E. (2011). The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative. Trials, 12(Suppl. 1), A70. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-12-S1-A70 [Context Link]