Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27465672›Full record

ReviewTrials2016

Development of a core outcome set for use in determining the overall success of gastroschisis treatment.

Benjamin Allin, Andrew Ross, Sean Marven, Nigel J Hall, Marian Knight

Open access · goldAbstract readConsensus StatementReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trials, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. NETSArchives of disease in childhood · 2017
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Development of a gastroschisis core outcome set.Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition · 2019
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Benjamin AllinNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building, Old Road Campus, Oxford, OX3 7LF, England. benjaminallin@doctors.org.uk.
Andrew RossOxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Headley Way, Headington, Oxford, OX3 9DU, England.
Sean MarvenSheffield Children's Hospital, Western Bank, Sheffield, S10 2TH, England.
Nigel J HallFaculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO16 6YD, England.
Marian KnightNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building, Old Road Campus, Oxford, OX3 7LF, England.
University of Oxford · GBOxford University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBSheffield Children's Hospital · GBUniversity of Southampton · GB

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2015-08-076Department of Health NIHR-RP-011-032
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGastroschisis research is limited in quality by the presence of significant heterogeneity in outcome measure reporting (PloS One 10(1):e0116908, 2015). Using core outcome sets in research is one proposed method for addressing this problem (Trials 13:103, 2012; Clin Rheumatol 33(9):1313-1322, 2014; Health Serv Res Policy 17(1):1-2, 2012). Ultimately, standardising outcome measure reporting will improve research quality and translate into improvements in patient care. METHODS/

designCandidate outcome measures have been identified through systematic reviews. These outcome measures will form the starting point for an online, three-phase Delphi process that will be carried out in parallel by three panels of experts. Panel 1 is a neonatal panel, panel 2 is a non-neonatal panel and panel 3 is a lay panel. In round 1, experts will be asked to score the previously identified outcome measures from 1-9 based on how important they think the measures are in determining the overall success of their/their child's/their patient's gastroschisis treatment. In round 2, experts will be presented with the same list of outcome measures and with graphical representations of how their panel scored that outcome in round 1. They will be asked to re-score the outcome measure taking into account how important other members of their panel felt it to be. In round 3, experts will again be asked to re-score each outcome measure, but this time they will receive a graphical representation of the distribution of scores from all three panels which they should take into account when re-scoring. Following round 3 of the Delphi process, 40 experts will be invited to attend a face-to-face consensus meeting. Participants will be invited in a purposive manner to obtain balance between the different panels. The results of the Delphi process will be discussed, and outcomes re-scored. Outcome measures where > 70 % of the participants at the meeting scored them as 7-9 and < 15 % scored them as 1-3 will form the core outcome set. DISCUSSION: Development of a core outcome set will help to reduce the heterogeneity of the outcome measure reporting in gastroschisis. This will increase the quality of research taking place and ultimately improve care provided to infants with gastroschisis.

Indexed as

ConsensusCooperative BehaviorDelphi TechniqueDigestive System Surgical ProceduresEndpoint DeterminationGastroschisisHumansInterdisciplinary CommunicationProcess Assessment, Health CareQuality ImprovementQuality Indicators, Health CareResearch DesignTreatment OutcomeCore outcome setsGastroschisisPaediatric surgery

Identifiers

PMID27465672
PMCPMC4964000
OpenAlexW2500264847

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.