ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2017
Improving core outcome set development: qualitative interviews with developers provided pointers to inform guidance.
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 31 papers, 5 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
31 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled 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
- Pro-coagulant haemostatic factors for the prevention and treatment of bleeding in people without haemophilia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Exploring qualitative methods reported in registered trials and their yields (EQUITY): systematic review.Trials · 2018Pooled it
- A survey of knowledge, perceptions and use of core outcome sets among clinical trialists.Trials · 2021Trial
- Do patients and the public understand and feel engaged and valued after reading outcome set study invitations? A UK qualitative study.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- What Matters Most? Developing a Core Patient Reported Outcome Set for Individuals With Genetic Intellectual Disabilities: An International Delphi Study.Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Assessment of current patient reported outcome measures for three core outcome domains for single-sided deafness device intervention trials.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Article
- Uptake of core outcome sets in paediatric clinical trials: a protocol.BMJ paediatrics open · 2025Article
- COHESION: a core outcome set for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy.Pediatric research · 2024Article
- Article
- Implementation of the HOME core outcome set for clinical trials of atopic eczema-barriers and opportunities: the HOME IX meeting report.Archives of dermatological research · 2023Article
- Hospital-to-home transitions for children with medical complexity: part 2-a core outcome set.European journal of pediatrics · 2023Article
- Article
- The standards of obstetrics and gynecology core outcome sets: A scoping review.Integrative medicine research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe objective of the study was to explore core outcome set (COS) developers' experiences of their work to inform methodological guidance on COS development and identify areas for future methodological research. STUDY DESIGN AND
settingSemistructured, audio-recorded interviews with a purposive sample of 32 COS developers. Analysis of transcribed interviews was informed by the constant comparative method and framework analysis.
resultsDevelopers found COS development to be challenging, particularly in relation to patient participation and accessing funding. Their accounts raised fundamental questions about the status of COS development and whether it is consultation or research. Developers emphasized how the absence of guidance had affected their work and identified areas where guidance or evidence about COS development would be useful including, patient participation, ethics, international development, and implementation. They particularly wanted guidance on systematic reviews, Delphi, and consensus meetings.
conclusionThe findings raise important questions about the funding, status, and process of COS development and indicate ways that it could be strengthened. Guidance could help developers to strengthen their work, but over specification could threaten quality in COS development. Guidance should therefore highlight common issues to consider and encourage tailoring of COS development to the context and circumstances of particular COS.
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.