3.3 Results of compliance rates of COS-STAD standards
The compliance rates of four criteria related to scope specification
were greater than 95%. These included; ”research or practice setting(s)
in which the COS is to be applied”, ”health condition covered by COS”,
“the population covered by COS”, and “the intervention covered by
COS”. Twenty-one studies (52.3%) were not clear whether stakeholders
were involved in the COS development. Twenty-three studies (52.3%)
clearly declared that health care professionals with experience of
patients with the condition participated in the development of COS.
Fourteen COSs (31.8%) clearly stated patients with the condition or
their representatives were included in the process, but two COSs were
not clear whether patients were involved in the study. Thirty-five
studies (92.1%) did not consider the views of health care professionals
and patients from literature reviews or interviews when compiling the
initial list of outcomes. Twenty studies (60.5%) had no prior described
scoring process, consensus definition, or criteria for
including/dropping/adding outcomes. Besides, only twelve OG COSs
(27.3%) had clear accessible registered details or published protocol.
Forty-one studies (90%) were excluded to avoid ambiguity of language
when COSs was used. (Fig.5) Table 4 shows there was no significant
difference in total COS-STAR compliance standards of OG COSs between
group one and group two. Compared with COSs without prior protocol or
registered detailed, those studies with a priori protocol or registered
details had greater compliance rates of the standard ”Priori describe
scoring process”(OR=8.36, 95% CI:1.18,59.24, P=0.034), ”a consensus
definition was described a priori” (OR=8.36, 95% CI:1.18,59.24,
P=0.034), and ”criteria for including/dropping/adding outcomes were
described a priori” (OR=8.36, 95% CI:1.18,59.24, P=0.034). COSs which
involved a statistician, or epidemiologist authors had higher compliance
rates on item 6 ”health care professionals with experience of patients
with the condition involved with COS developed” (OR=0.82, 95% CI:
0.47-1.45, P= 0.512). Moreover, we observed significant differences
between funding COSs and non-funding COSs related to the ”patients with
the condition or their representatives” (OR= 3.35, 95% CI: 1.08 -
10.38, P= 0.036). (Table 5). Spearman’s correlation analysis revealed a
statistically significant (p < 0.05) positive correlation
between average citations per year and the compliance rates of COS-STAD
for OG COSs. (Table 6).