ReviewJournal of comparative effectiveness research2016
Improving the relevance and consistency of outcomes in comparative effectiveness research.
Review in Journal of comparative effectiveness research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 9 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
47 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Active upper-limb therapies for hand function, individual goal achievement, and self-care in children with cerebral palsy: A network meta-analysis.Developmental medicine and child neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Ginkgo biloba for tinnitus.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Outcome Reporting, Definition and Measurement Heterogeneity in Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer Effectiveness Trials of Adjuvant, Prophylactic Treatment After Transurethral Resection.Bladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2021Pooled it
- Interventions Aimed at Increasing Dairy and/or Calcium Consumption of Preschool-Aged Children: A Systematic Literature Review.Nutrients · 2019Pooled 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
- Sound therapy (using amplification devices and/or sound generators) for tinnitus.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and Identification of Gaps.PloS one · 2016Pooled it
- Avoidable waste of research related to outcome planning and reporting in clinical trials.BMC medicine · 2018Trial
- Definition, analysis, reporting, and interpretation of perioperative bleeding in randomized controlled trials: a methodological systematic review.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2026Review
- AI-assisted thematic synthesis of existing neurological core outcome sets: A descriptive reference framework (COS-Neuro).PloS one · 2026Article
- Article
- Aquatic exercise interventions in the treatment of musculoskeletal upper extremity disorders: A scoping review.Clinical rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Non-invasively predicting euploidy in human blastocysts via quantitative 3D morphology measurement: a retrospective cohort study.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2024Article
- Development and content validity testing of a colonoscopy-specific patient-reported experience measure: the Patient Experience Colonoscopy Scale (PECS).Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2024Article
- Brain health measurement: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Development of CORE-CM core outcome domain sets for trials of Chinese medicine for lumbar spinal stenosis.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Outcome measures reported following feminizing genital gender affirmation surgery for transgender women and gender diverse individuals: A systematic review.International journal of transgender health · 2023Review
- Population health interventions for cardiometabolic diseases in primary care: a scoping review and RE-AIM evaluation of current practices.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Policy makers have clearly indicated--through heavy investment in the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute--that reporting outcomes that are meaningful to patients is crucial for improvement in healthcare delivery and cost reduction. Better interpretation and generalizability of clinical research results that incorporate patient-centered outcomes research can be achieved by accelerating the development and uptake of core outcome sets (COS). COS provide a standardized minimum set of the outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials of a specific condition. The level of activity around COS has increased significantly over the past decade, with substantial progress in several clinical domains. However, there are many important clinical conditions for which high-quality COS have not been developed and there are limited resources and capacity with which to develop them. We believe that meaningful progress toward the goals behind the significant investments in patient-centered outcomes research and comparative effectiveness research will depend on a serious effort to address these issues.
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.