Cette initiative est intéressante pour avoir une meilleure comparabilité des études, avoir de meilleures revues systématiques, et elle est initiée par des rédacteurs de revues en gynécologie et obstétrique. Il s'agit de la CROWN initiative, expliquée dans un éditorial de BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth fin juin 2014. CROWN pour Core Outcomes in Women's Health?
Voici le résumé de cet édito : "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. 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. 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. Recognising 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."
Ce mouvement est suppporté paar l'initiative COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) qui a commencé ce travail dans diverses disciplines.
Kahn K, et al. The CROWN initiative: journal editors invite researchers to develop core outcomes in women's health. BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth 2014;14:199.
