ReviewPloS one2016
Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and User Survey.
Review in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers, 14 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
73 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 'What' and 'How' to Measure in Allergy and Clinical Immunology: A Systematic Review of Core Outcome Sets and Outcome Harmonisation Processes.Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2026Pooled 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
- Core outcome measures for clinical effectiveness trials of nutritional and metabolic interventions in critical illness: an international modified Delphi consensus study evaluation (CONCISE).Critical care (London, England) · 2022Pooled it
- Developing a Core Outcome Set for the Evaluation of Antibiotic Use in Prelabor Rupture of Membranes: A Systematic Review and Semi-Structured Interview.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Pooled 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
- 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
- Systematic review of clinical outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials of burn care.BMJ open · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and Identification of Gaps.PloS one · 2016Pooled it
- Different corticosteroid induction regimens in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: the SIRJIA mixed-methods feasibility study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2020Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Article
- Development of Priority Outcome Domains for Community Mental Health Research via Consensus Among Multiple Stakeholders: Online Delphi Study in Japan.International journal of mental health nursing · 2025Article
- Core outcome set of daily monitoring of gastrointestinal function in adult critically ill patients: a modified Delphi consensus process (COSMOGI).Critical care (London, England) · 2024Article
13 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA COS represents an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all trials of a specific condition. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) initiative aims to collate and stimulate the development and application of COS, by including data on relevant studies within a publically available internet-based resource. In recent years, there has been an interest in increasing the development of COS. Therefore, this study aimed to provide an update of a previous review, and examine the quality of development of COS. A further aim was to understand the reasons why individuals are searching the COMET database.
methodsA multi-faceted search strategy was followed, in order to identify studies that sought to determine which outcomes/domains to measure in clinical trials of a specific condition. Additionally, a pop up survey was added to the COMET website, to ascertain why people were searching the COMET database.
resultsThirty-two reports relating to 29 studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. There has been an improvement in the description of the scope of a COS and an increase in the proportion of studies using literature/systematic reviews and the Delphi technique. Clinical experts continue to be the most common group involved in developing COS, however patient and public involvement has increased. The pop-up survey revealed the most common reasons for visiting the COMET website to be thinking about developing a COS and planning a clinical trial.
conclusionsThis update demonstrates that recent studies appear to have adopted a more structured approach towards COS development and public representation has increased. However, there remains a need for developers to adequately describe details about the scope of COS, and for greater public engagement. The COMET database appears to be a useful resource for both COS developers and users of COS.
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.