Rationale and methodological steps for a scoping review on the available core outcome sets in heart failure

Background: Heart failure (HF) is a complex clinicalsyndrome marked by high heterogeneity in presentation,progression, and response to treatment. This variability,coupled with inconsistent outcome selection acrossclinical studies, complicates data synthesis and thedevelopment of generalizable evidence. Core OutcomeSets (COS) have been proposed to enhance outcomestandardization, but their use in HF research andpractice remains fragmented and underexamined. Thispaper presents two complementary components: (1) adiscursive analysis of two exemplary COS, one developedfor clinical trials (EuroHeart COS) and one for symptommonitoring in routine care (Lawson et al. COS), and (2)a methodological protocol for a future scoping review.Methods: The scoping review protocol followsJoanna Briggs Institute ( JBI) and PRISMA-ScRguidelines and is designed to map existing COSin HF, identify development processes, outcomedomains, and gaps. The discursive analysis exploresstakeholder involvement, methodological rigor, patientcenteredness,and contextual adaptation.Results: The discursive analysis revealedepistemological contrasts between COS designed forresearch standardization versus those tailored to patientmonitoring and decision support. EuroHeart emphasizesregistry-based, clinically anchored endpoints, whileLawson et al. foregrounds patient-reported symptomsand usability in telemonitoring contexts. The forthcomingscoping review is anticipated to identify significantvariability in the scope of COS, stakeholder engagement,and relevance across populations, with likely gaps inCOS tailored to specific phenotypes, underrepresentedgroups, and real-world clinical practice.Conclusions: The development and implementationof COS in HF require a context-sensitive, inclusive,and methodologically transparent approach. Thismanuscript serves as both a critical reflection on COSlogic and a practical guide to synthesizing available sets.Bridging theoretical discourse with systematic reviewmethodology contributes to a more coordinated andpatient-centered agenda for outcome standardizationin research and care for patients with HF.