Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28460714›Full record

ReviewBrazilian journal of physical therapy

Core outcome sets for research and clinical practice.

Alessandro Chiarotto, Raymond W Ostelo, Dennis C Turk, Rachelle Buchbinder, Maarten Boers

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Brazilian journal of physical therapy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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.

Alessandro ChiarottoDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, EMGO(+) Institute for Health and Care Research, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, EMGO(+) Institute for Health and Care Research, VU Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Electronic address: a.chiarotto@vu.nl.
Raymond W OsteloDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, EMGO(+) Institute for Health and Care Research, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, EMGO(+) Institute for Health and Care Research, VU Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Dennis C TurkDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Center for Pain Research in Impact, Measurement and Effectiveness, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.
Rachelle BuchbinderMonash Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Cabrini Institute, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Maarten BoersDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, EMGO(+) Institute for Health and Care Research, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, VU Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis masterclass introduces the topic of core outcome sets, describing rationale and methods for developing them, and providing some examples that are relevant for clinical research and practice.

methodA core outcome set is a minimum consensus-based set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials for a specific health condition and/or intervention. Issues surrounding outcome assessment, such as selective reporting and inconsistency across studies, can be addressed by the development of a core set. As suggested by key initiatives in this field (i.e. OMERACT and COMET), the development requires achieving consensus on: (1) core outcome domains and (2) core outcome measurement instruments. Different methods can be used to reach consensus, including: literature systematic reviews to inform the process, qualitative research with clinicians and patients, group discussions (e.g. nominal group technique), and structured surveys (e.g. Delphi technique). Various stakeholders should be involved in the process, with particular attention to patients. RESULTS AND

conclusionsSeveral COSs have been developed for musculoskeletal conditions including a longstanding one for low back pain, IMMPACT recommendations on outcomes for chronic pain, and OMERACT COSs for hip, knee and hand osteoarthritis. There is a lack of COSs for neurological, geriatric, cardio-respiratory and pediatric conditions, therefore, future research could determine the value of developing COSs for these conditions.

Indexed as

ConsensusDelphi TechniqueHumansLow Back PainResearch DesignSurveys and QuestionnairesTreatment OutcomeCore outcome setEffectivenessInterventionsMusculoskeletal pain

Identifiers

PMID28460714
PMCPMC5537457

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.