Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26792080›Full record

ReviewSystematic reviews2016

Core outcome sets and systematic reviews.

Mike Clarke, Paula R Williamson

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 104 papers, 31 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
104citing papers in PubMed, 31 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

104 citing papers in PubMed, 31 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Effects and safety ofFrontiers in pharmacology · 2024
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Guideline
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

44 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

Mike ClarkeNorthern Ireland Network for Trials Methodology Research, Centre for Public Health, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Block B, Queen's University Belfast, Royal Hospitals, Grosvenor Road, Belfast, BT12 6BJ, UK. m.clarke@qub.ac.uk.
Paula R WilliamsonNorth West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, University of Liverpool, 1st floor Duncan Building, Daulby Street, Liverpool, L69 3GA, UK. p.r.williamson@liverpool.ac.uk.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0901530Medical Research Council MR/J004847/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systematic reviews seek to bring together research evidence to answer the question for the review. The reviewers usually wish to compare, contrast and, if appropriate, combine the findings of the existing research studies. However, these intentions are often thwarted by inconsistencies in the outcomes that were measured and reported in the individual studies. This, in turn, makes it difficult for readers of the review to use it to make informed decisions and choices about health and social care. One solution is for trials in a particular topic area to measure and report a standardised set of outcomes, which would then be used in the review. Core outcome sets are a means of doing this, providing an agreed standardised collection of outcomes for measuring and reporting for a specific area of health. In this commentary, we argue for greater involvement of systematic reviewers in the development and implementation of core outcome sets. This might help with, for example, the selection of outcomes to include in the Summary of findings tables that provide users of the review with the key quantitative findings. Consideration of core outcome sets when reviewers register their topics with Cochrane Review Groups or in PROSPERO would also help reviewers to plan their reviews. A greater uptake of core outcome sets across research, including systematic reviews, would help towards the ultimate aim of improving health and well-being through improving health and social care.

Indexed as

Outcome Assessment, Health CareReview Literature as TopicEvidence-Based MedicineHumans

Identifiers

PMID26792080
PMCPMC4719739

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.