Views of Cochrane editors on standardising outcomes across all reviews for a particular condition
| Advantages | 2012 n/40 (%*) | 2019 n/32 (%*) |
| Advantage for a systematic review/meta-analysis | 39 (98) | 27 (84) |
| Improves interpretation/guidance | 19 (48) | 7 (22) |
| Outcome likely to be more appropriate | 16 (40) | 10 (45) |
| Advantage for the design of a new study | 13 (33) | 5 (16) |
| Improves something about the outcome itself (eg, simplifies the reporting) | 6 (15) | 0 (0) |
| Reduces outcome reporting bias | 6 (15) | 1 (3) |
| Reduces resource requirement (eg, time to review) | 1 (3) | 1 (3) |
| Challenges | 2012 n/42 (%*) | 2019 n/36 (%*) |
| Development of a COS | 23 (55) | 8 (22) |
| Something about scope | 21 (50) | 28 (78) |
| How to persuade authors/trialists/industry to implement | 20 (48) | 14 (39) |
| ‘How’ to measure once the ‘what’ has been decided | 11 (26) | 3 (8) |
| Important outcomes not currently being measured | 2 (5) | 1 (3) |
| Resource to develop | 2 (5) | 3 (8) |
| Updating process | 2 (5) | 2 (6) |
| Conflict of interest | 1 (1) | 0 (0) |
| Limits authors | 0 (2) | 3 (8) |
*Percentages represent the number of Cochrane Review Group coordinating editors who mentioned each advantage/challenge.
COS, core outcome set.