SynthesisPloS one2016
Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and Identification of Gaps.
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.
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
41 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Continuity of outcome assessment throughout the lifecycle of surgical research: mapping core outcome domains measured in early phase and late phase studies.BMC surgery · 2025Pooled it
- 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 · 2024Pooled it
- Inclusion of participants from low-income and middle-income countries in core outcome sets development: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2021Pooled it
- Patient participation in Delphi surveys to develop core outcome sets: systematic review.BMJ open · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- A systematic review finds Core Outcome Set uptake varies widely across different areas of health.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Article
- Developing a core outcome set for intervention studies in post stroke cognitive impairment (COS-PSCI): a protocol.BMJ open · 2026Article
- 1st Global Consensus for Clinical Guidelines: Identifying a Core Outcome Set for Implant Dentistry in Edentulous Maxilla Rehabilitation.Clinical oral implants research · 2026Article
- Developing a core outcome set for interventions in people with mild cognitive impairment: study protocol.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Core outcomes for speech-language services in Ontario schools: a group concept mapping study and guiding framework.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Review
- The standards of obstetrics and gynecology core outcome sets: A scoping review.Integrative medicine research · 2022Article
- Usefulness of Cochrane Reviews in Clinical Guideline Development-A Survey of 585 Recommendations.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Development of a Core Outcome Set in the Clinical Trials of Traditional Chinese Medicine for Stroke: A Study Protocol.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Patient and family engagement in the development of core outcome sets for two rare chronic diseases in children.Research involvement and engagement · 2021Article
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
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
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.