ArticleTrials2016
NETS
Article in Trials, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- NETSArchives of disease in childhood · 2017Pooled it
- Developing a Core Outcome Set for Clinical Trials of Chinese Medicine for Hyperlipidemia.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- Defining and evaluating novel procedures for involving patients in Core Outcome Set research: creating a meaningful long list of candidate outcome domains.Research involvement and engagement · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUse of core outcome sets in research has been proposed as a method for countering the problems caused by heterogeneity of outcome measure reporting. Heterogeneity of outcome measure reporting occurs in Hirschsprung's disease (HD) research and is limiting the development of a robust evidence base to support clinical practice.
methodsCandidate outcome measures have been identified through a systematic review. These outcome measures will form the starting point for a three-phase online Delphi process to 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 to 9 based on how important they think the measures are in determining the overall success of their/their child's/their patient's HD. In round 2, experts will be presented with the same list of outcome measures and 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. Results of the Delphi process will be discussed, and outcomes will be re-scored. Outcome measures where >70% of participants at the meeting scored it 7-9 and <15% scored it 1-3 will form the core outcome set. DISCUSSION: Development of a core outcome set will help to reduce heterogeneity of outcome measure reporting in HD. This will increase the quality of research taking place and ultimately improve care provided to infants with HD.
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.