SynthesisPloS one2014
Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: a systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 168 papers, 35 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
168 citing papers in PubMed, 35 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 339 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of a Minimum Dataset for the Global Monitoring of the Safety and Efficacy of Growth Hormone Replacement in Adults With Growth Hormone Deficiency (AGHD).Clinical endocrinology · 2025Pooled it
- Developing a core outcome set for acetabular fractures: a systematic review (part I).Systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Core outcome sets for trials of interventions to prevent and to treat multimorbidity in adults in low and middle-income countries: the COSMOS study.BMJ global health · 2024Pooled it
- Reported outcomes in transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary adenomas: a systematic review.Pituitary · 2023Pooled it
- Variation in outcome reporting in studies of fertility-sparing surgery for cervical cancer: A systematic review.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Inclusion of participants from low-income and middle-income countries in core outcome sets development: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2021Pooled it
- Patient participation in Delphi surveys to develop core outcome sets: systematic review.BMJ open · 2021Pooled it
- Quality of reporting of outcomes in trials of therapeutic interventions for pressure injuries in adults: a systematic methodological survey.International wound journal · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- A systematic review finds Core Outcome Set uptake varies widely across different areas of health.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2021Pooled it
- Development of a core outcome set for myelodysplastic syndromes - a Delphi study from the EUMDS Registry Group.British journal of haematology · 2020Pooled it
- Complications after surgical management of proximal humeral fractures: a systematic review of event terms and definitions.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2020Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Outcome Measures Employed in Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage (aSAH) Clinical Research.Neurocritical care · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Incorporating patients' perspectives into the initial stages of core outcome set development: a rapid review of qualitative studies of type 2 diabetes.BMJ open diabetes research & care · 2019Pooled it
- Maxillary distraction osteogenesis versus orthognathic surgery for cleft lip and palate patients.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- A systematic review of maternal antidepressant use in pregnancy and short- and long-term offspring's outcomes.Archives of women's mental health · 2018Pooled it
- Pooled it
108 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
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA core outcome set (COS) is a standardised set of outcomes which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all effectiveness trials for a specific health area. This will allow results of studies to be compared, contrasted and combined as appropriate, as well as ensuring that all trials contribute usable information. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness Trials) Initiative aims to support the development, reporting and adoption of COS. Central to this is a publically accessible online resource, populated with all available COS. The aim of the review we report here was to identify studies that sought to determine which outcomes or domains to measure in all clinical trials in a specific condition and to describe the methodological techniques used in these studies.
methodsWe developed a multi-faceted search strategy for electronic databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Methodology Register). We included studies that sought to determine which outcomes/domains to measure in all clinical trials in a specific condition.
resultsA total of 250 reports relating to 198 studies were judged eligible for inclusion in the review. Studies covered various areas of health, most commonly cancer, rheumatology, neurology, heart and circulation, and dentistry and oral health. A variety of methods have been used to develop COS, including semi-structured discussion, unstructured group discussion, the Delphi Technique, Consensus Development Conference, surveys and Nominal Group Technique. The most common groups involved were clinical experts and non-clinical research experts. Thirty-one (16%) studies reported that the public had been involved in the process. The geographic locations of participants were predominantly North America (n = 164; 83%) and Europe (n = 150; 76%).
conclusionsThis systematic review identified many health areas where a COS has been developed, but also highlights important gaps. It is a further step towards a comprehensive, up-to-date database of COS. In addition, it shows the need for methodological guidance, including how to engage key stakeholder groups, particularly members of the public.
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.