ArticleBMC medical research methodology2015
Collating the knowledge base for core outcome set development: developing and appraising the search strategy for a systematic review.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 7 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Protocols Targeting Afferent Pathways via Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation for the Plantar Flexors: A Systematic Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Outcomes in randomised controlled trials in prevention and management of carious lesions: a systematic review.Trials · 2017Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and Identification of Gaps.PloS one · 2016Pooled it
- Manual Dexterity Training and Cognitive Function in Adults with Stroke: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Insights from search summary tables for evidence and gap maps: a case study on peer support interventions.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2025Article
- Literature searching methods or guidance and their application to public health topics: A narrative review.Health information and libraries journal · 2022Review
- Development of an efficient search filter to retrieve systematic reviews from PubMed.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2021Article
- Developing a core outcome set for paediatric wrist fractures: a systematic review of prior outcomes.Bone & joint open · 2020Review
- Evaluation of an automatic article selection method for timelier updates of the Comet Core Outcome Set database.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2019Article
- The COMET Handbook: version 1.0.Trials · 2017Review
- Development of a core outcome set for clinical trials in childhood constipation: a study using a Delphi technique.BMJ paediatrics open · 2017Article
- The contribution of databases to the results of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical research methodology · 2016Article
- Core outcome sets and systematic reviews.Systematic reviews · 2016Review
- Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and User Survey.PloS one · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative is developing a publicly accessible online resource to collate the knowledge base for core outcome set development (COS) and the applied work from different health conditions. Ensuring that the database is as comprehensive as possible and keeping it up to date are key to its value for users. This requires the development and application of an optimal, multi-faceted search strategy to identify relevant material. This paper describes the challenges of designing and implementing such a search, outlining the development of the search strategy for studies of COS development, and, in turn, the process for establishing a database of COS.
methodsWe investigated the performance characteristics of this strategy including sensitivity, precision and numbers needed to read. We compared the contribution of databases towards identifying included studies to identify the best combination of methods to retrieve all included studies.
resultsRecall of the search strategies ranged from 4% to 87%, and precision from 0.77% to 1.13%. MEDLINE performed best in terms of recall, retrieving 216 (87%) of the 250 included records, followed by Scopus (44%). The Cochrane Methodology Register found just 4% of the included records. MEDLINE was also the database with the highest precision. The number needed to read varied between 89 (MEDLINE) and 130 (SCOPUS).
conclusionsWe found that two databases and hand searching were required to locate all of the studies in this review. MEDLINE alone retrieved 87% of the included studies, but actually 97% of the included studies were indexed on MEDLINE. The Cochrane Methodology Register did not contribute any records that were not found in the other databases, and will not be included in our future searches to identify studies developing COS. SCOPUS had the lowest precision rate (0.77) and highest number needed to read (130). In future COMET searches for COS a balance needs to be struck between the work involved in screening large numbers of records, the frequency of the searching and the likelihood that eligible studies will be identified by means other than the database searches.
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.