ReviewTrials2014
Developing core outcomes sets: methods for identifying and including patient-reported outcomes (PROs).
Review in Trials, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 95 papers, 25 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
95 citing papers in PubMed, 25 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 184 citations in OpenAlex.
- Workplace mental wellbeing interventions in the construction industry: a systematic review of outcome reporting as a first step for the development of a core outcomes set.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- Continuity of outcome assessment throughout the lifecycle of surgical research: mapping core outcome domains measured in early phase and late phase studies.BMC surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for the management of sleep problems in people with fibromyalgia: a multi-methods evidence synthesis.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Developing a core outcome set for acetabular fractures: a systematic review (part I).Systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- The effects and safety of testosterone replacement therapy for men with hypogonadism: the TestES evidence synthesis and economic evaluation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Effectiveness of Telemedicine for Musculoskeletal Disorders: Umbrella Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- The influence of telehealth-based cancer rehabilitation interventions on disability: a systematic review.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2023Pooled it
- Botulinum toxin type A versus anticholinergics for cervical dystonia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Botulinum toxin type A therapy for hemifacial spasm.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Botulinum toxin type A therapy for blepharospasm.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Botulinum toxin type A therapy for cervical dystonia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Developing core economic parameter sets for asthma studies: a realist review and an analytical framework.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- Systematic review of outcome measures following chemoradiotherapy for the treatment of anal cancer (CORMAC).Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2018Pooled it
- Botulinum toxin type A therapy for cervical dystonia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Patient-reported outcome measures in patients with peripheral arterial disease: a systematic review of psychometric properties.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2016Pooled it
- A Core Outcome Set for the Benefits and Adverse Events of Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery: The BARIACT Project.PLoS medicine · 2016Guideline
- Botulinum toxin type A versus botulinum toxin type B for cervical dystonia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Patient-reported outcome measures for cancer caregivers: a systematic review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2016Pooled it
- Systematic review of outcome domains and instruments used in clinical trials of tinnitus treatments in adults.Trials · 2016Pooled it
35 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSynthesis of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data is hindered by the range of available PRO measures (PROMs) composed of multiple scales and single items with differing terminology and content. The use of core outcome sets, an agreed minimum set of outcomes to be measured and reported in all trials of a specific condition, may improve this issue but methods to select core PRO domains from the many available PROMs are lacking. This study examines existing PROMs and describes methods to identify health domains to inform the development of a core outcome set, illustrated with an example.
methodsSystematic literature searches identified validated PROMs from studies evaluating radical treatment for oesophageal cancer. PROM scale/single item names were recorded verbatim and the frequency of similar names/scales documented. PROM contents (scale components/single items) were examined for conceptual meaning by an expert clinician and methodologist and categorised into health domains. A patient advocate independently checked this categorisation.
resultsSearches identified 21 generic and disease-specific PROMs containing 116 scales and 32 single items with 94 different verbatim names. Identical names for scales were repeatedly used (for example, 'physical function' in six different measures) and others were similar (overlapping face validity) although component items were not always comparable. Based on methodological, clinical and patient expertise, 606 individual items were categorised into 32 health domains.
conclusionThis study outlines a methodology for identifying candidate PRO domains from existing PROMs to inform a core outcome set to use in clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.