Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25887033›Full record

Trial reportTrials2015

Core outcome sets for use in effectiveness trials involving people with bipolar and schizophrenia in a community-based setting (PARTNERS2): study protocol for the development of two core outcome sets.

Thomas Keeley, Humera Khan, Vanessa Pinfold, Paula Williamson, Jonathan Mathers, Linda Davies, Ruth Sayers, Elizabeth England, Siobhan Reilly, Richard Byng and 6 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Collaborative care approaches for people with severe mental illness.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Interventions for the management of obesity in people with bipolar disorder.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Thomas KeeleySchool of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. T.J.H.Keeley@bham.ac.uk.
Humera KhanSchool of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. H.S.Khan@bham.ac.uk.
Vanessa PinfoldThe McPin Foundation, London, SE1 OEH, UK. VanessaPinfold@mcpin.org.
Paula WilliamsonInstitute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3BX, UK. P.R.Williamson@live.ac.uk.
Jonathan MathersSchool of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. J.M.Mathers@bham.ac.uk.
Linda DaviesCentre for Health Economics, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. Linda.M.Davies@manchester.ac.uk.
Ruth SayersThe McPin Foundation, London, SE1 OEH, UK. RuthSayers@mcpin.org.
Elizabeth EnglandSchool of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. E.J.England@bham.ac.uk.
Siobhan ReillyDivision of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YG, UK. S.Reilly@lancaster.ac.uk.
Richard ByngCentre for Clinical Trials and Health Research, Plymouth University, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK. Richard.Byng@plymouth.ac.uk.
Linda GaskInstitute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. Linda.Gask@manchester.ac.uk.
Mike ClarkNIHR School for Social Care Research, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, WC2A 2AE, UK. M.C.Clark@lse.ac.uk.
Peter HuxleyCentre for Mental Health and Society, Bangor University, Bangor, LL57 2DG, UK. p.huxley@Bangor.ac.uk.
Peter LewisBirmingham and Solihull Mental Health Foundation Trust, Birmingham, B1 3RB, UK. Peter.Lewis@bsmhft.nhs.uk.
Maximillian BirchwoodMental Health and Wellbeing, University of Warwick, Warwick, CV4 7AL, UK. M.J.Birchwood@warwick.ac.uk.
Melanie CalvertSchool of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. M.Calvert@bham.ac.uk.

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0611-20004Department of Health WMCLAHRC-2014-1Medical Research Council MR/K025635/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the general population the prevalence of bipolar and schizophrenia is 0.24% and 1.4% respectively. People with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder have a significantly reduced life expectancy, increased rates of unemployment and a fear of stigma leading to reduced self-confidence. A core outcome set is a standardised collection of items that should be reported in all controlled trials within a research area. There are currently no core outcome sets available for use in effectiveness trials involving bipolar or schizophrenia service users managed in a community setting.

methodsA three-step approach is to be used to concurrently develop two core outcome sets, one for bipolar and one for schizophrenia. First, a comprehensive list of outcomes will be compiled through qualitative research and systematic searching of trial databases. Focus groups and one-to-one interviews will be completed with service users, carers and healthcare professionals. Second, a Delphi study will be used to reduce the lists to a core set. The three-round Delphi study will ask service users to score the outcome list for relevance. In round two stakeholders will only see the results of their group, while in round three stakeholders will see the results of all stakeholder group by stakeholder group. Third, a consensus meeting with stakeholders will be used to confirm outcomes to be included in the core set. Following the development of the core set a systematic literature review of existing measures will allow recommendations for how the core outcomes should be measured and a stated preference survey will explore the strength of people's preferences and estimate weights for the outcomes that comprise the core set. DISCUSSION: A core outcome set represents the minimum measurement requirement for a research area. We aim to develop core outcome sets for use in research involving service users with schizophrenia or bipolar managed in a community setting. This will inform the wider PARTNERS2 study aims and objectives of developing an innovative primary care-based model of collaborative care for people with a diagnosis of bipolar or schizophrenia.

Indexed as

Clinical ProtocolsOutcome Assessment, Health CareBipolar DisorderDelphi TechniqueFocus GroupsHumansQualitative ResearchSchizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID25887033
PMCPMC4334396

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.