Table 2

Views of Cochrane editors on standardising outcomes across all reviews for a particular condition

Advantages2012
n/40 (%*)
2019
n/32 (%*)
Advantage for a systematic review/meta-analysis39 (98)27 (84)
Improves interpretation/guidance19 (48)7 (22)
Outcome likely to be more appropriate16 (40)10 (45)
Advantage for the design of a new study13 (33)5 (16)
Improves something about the outcome itself (eg, simplifies the reporting)6 (15)0 (0)
Reduces outcome reporting bias6 (15)1 (3)
Reduces resource requirement (eg, time to review)1 (3)1 (3)
Challenges2012
n/42 (%*)
2019
n/36 (%*)
Development of a COS23 (55)8 (22)
Something about scope21 (50)28 (78)
How to persuade authors/trialists/industry to implement20 (48)14 (39)
‘How’ to measure once the ‘what’ has been decided11 (26)3 (8)
Important outcomes not currently being measured2 (5)1 (3)
Resource to develop2 (5)3 (8)
Updating process2 (5)2 (6)
Conflict of interest1 (1)0 (0)
Limits authors0 (2)3 (8)
  • *Percentages represent the number of Cochrane Review Group coordinating editors who mentioned each advantage/challenge.

  • COS, core outcome set.