Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27973622›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2016

Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and Identification of Gaps.

Sarah L Gorst, Elizabeth Gargon, Mike Clarke, Valerie Smith, Paula R Williamson

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 10 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A systematic review on the effectiveness of robot-assisted minimally invasive gastrectomy.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Usefulness of Cochrane Reviews in Clinical Guideline Development-A Survey of 585 Recommendations.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Sarah L GorstMRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research (NWHTMR), Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Elizabeth GargonMRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research (NWHTMR), Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Mike ClarkeNorthern Ireland Network for Trials Methodology Research, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom.
Valerie SmithSchool of Nursing & Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Paula R WilliamsonMRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research (NWHTMR), Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0901530Medical Research Council MR/K025635/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative promotes the development and application of core outcome sets (COS), including relevant studies in an online database. In order to keep the database current, an annual search of the literature is undertaken. This study aimed to update a previous systematic review, in order to identify any further studies where a COS has been developed. Furthermore, no prioritization for COS development has previously been undertaken, therefore this study also aimed to identify COS relevant to the world's most prevalent health conditions.

methodsThe methods used in this updated review followed the same approach used in the original review and the previous update. A survey was also sent to the corresponding authors of COS identified for inclusion in this review, to ascertain what lessons they had learnt from developing their COS. Additionally, the COMET database was searched to identify COS that might be relevant to the conditions with the highest global prevalence.

resultsTwenty-five reports relating to 22 new studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. Further improvements were identified in relation to the description of the scope of the COS, use of the Delphi technique, and the inclusion of patient participants within the development process. Additionally, 33 published and ongoing COS were identified for 13 of the world's most prevalent conditions.

conclusionThe development of a reporting guideline and minimum standards should contribute towards future improvements in development and reporting of COS. This study has also described a first approach to identifying gaps in existing COS, and to priority setting in this area. Important gaps have been identified, on the basis of global burden of disease, and the development and application of COS in these areas should be considered a priority.

Indexed as

Outcome Assessment, Health CareClinical Trials as TopicComparative Effectiveness ResearchDatabases, FactualDelphi TechniqueEndpoint DeterminationHumansResearch DesignSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID27973622
PMCPMC5156438

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.