ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2017
Citation analysis did not provide a reliable assessment of core outcome set uptake.
Article in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review finds Core Outcome Set uptake varies widely across different areas of health.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2021Pooled it
- Article
- Assessing the uptake of infertility core outcome set in IVF randomized controlled trials.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Mechanical ventilation core outcome set uptake in Cochrane systematic reviews: A cross-sectional study.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2024Article
- Uptake of the core outcome set on polycystic ovary syndrome before and after its publication.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Usefulness of Cochrane Reviews in Clinical Guideline Development-A Survey of 585 Recommendations.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Uptake of the OMERACT-OARSI Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis Core Outcome Set: Review of Randomized Controlled Trials from 1997 to 2017.The Journal of rheumatology · 2019Review
- Top 100 cited articles in ophthalmic epidemiology between 2006 and 2016.International journal of ophthalmology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of the study was to evaluate citation analysis as an approach to measuring core outcome set (COS) uptake, by assessing whether the number of citations for a COS report could be used as a surrogate measure of uptake of the COS by clinical trialists. STUDY DESIGN AND
settingCitation data were obtained for COS reports published before 2010 in five disease areas (systemic sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, eczema, sepsis and critical care, and female sexual dysfunction). Those publications identified as a report of a clinical trial were examined to identify whether or not all outcomes in the COS were measured in the trial.
resultsClinical trials measuring the relevant COS made up a small proportion of the total number of citations for COS reports. Not all trials citing a COS report measured all the recommended outcomes. Some trials cited the COS reports for other reasons, including the definition of a condition or other trial design issues addressed by the COS report.
conclusionAlthough citation data can be readily accessed, it should not be assumed that the citing of a COS report indicates that a trial has measured the recommended COS. Alternative methods for assessing COS uptake are needed.
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.