Editorial

Clinical trials, systematic reviews and guidelines compare beneficial and non-beneficial 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 [1]. This problem was recently thrown into sharp focus by a systematic review of interventions for preterm birth prevention, which found that among 103 randomised trials, no fewer than 72 different outcomes were reported [2]. 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 standardised collection of outcomes – a “core outcomes set” – for all trials in a specific clinical area [1]. Recognising that the current inconsistency is a serious hindrance to progress in our specialty, the editors of over 50 journals related to womenʼs health have come together to support The CoRe Outcomes in WomeNʼs health (CROWN) Initiative ([Box]).

• References

• 1 Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM et al. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials 2012; 13: 132
• 2 Meher S, Alfirevic Z. Choice of primary outcomes in randomised trials and systematic reviews evaluating interventions for preterm birth prevention: a systematic review. BJOG 2014; DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.12593.
• 3 Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM et al. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative. Trials 2011; 12 (Suppl. 01) A70