ArticleBMJ open2017
Developing a core outcome set for infant colic for primary, secondary and tertiary care settings: a prospective study.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identifying common health indicators from paediatric core outcome sets: a systematic review with narrative synthesis using the WHO International Classification of Functioning, Health and Disability.BMJ paediatrics open · 2022Pooled it
- Synthesizing Core Outcome Sets for outcomes research in cohort studies: a systematic review.Pediatric research · 2022Pooled it
- Inclusion of participants from low-income and middle-income countries in core outcome sets development: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2021Pooled it
- Systematic review of international Delphi surveys for core outcome set development: representation of international patients.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- Comparison of common interventions for the treatment of infantile colic: a systematic review of reviews and guidelines.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- Standardizing outcomes in food allergy research: aligning clinical trials with patient priorities.Current opinion in allergy and clinical immunology · 2025Review
- Core Outcome Sets for Pain Disorders: A Systematic Review of Research and Reporting Quality.Journal of pain research · 2025Review
- Perceived Infant Discomfort Linked to Lower Maternal Oral Health Quality of Life: Results from a Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Study on Nocturnal Infant Crying Evaluation (NICE) and Reflux Disease (RED).Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Evaluating the impact of lactase supplementation on infant colic: Study protocol for a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.JPGN reports · 2024Review
- Predictive validity and cut-off point of the Turkish version of the Infant Colic Scale in the diagnosis of colic.Jornal de pediatriaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveInfant colic (IC) is defined as recurrent and prolonged crying without an obvious cause or evidence of failure to thrive or illness. It is a common problem with a prevalence of 5%-25%. The unknown aetiology results in a wide variety in interventions and use of heterogeneous outcome measures across therapeutic trials. Our aim was to develop a core outcome set (COS) for IC to facilitate and improve evidence synthesis. DESIGN AND
settingProspective study design; primary, secondary and tertiary care.
methodsThe COS was developed using a modified Delphi technique. First, healthcare professionals (HCPs) and parents of infants with IC were asked to list up to five outcomes they considered relevant in the treatment of IC. Outcomes mentioned by >10% of participants were forwarded to a shortlist. In the second round, outcomes on this shortlist were rated and prioritised. The final COS was defined in a face-to-face expert meeting of paediatricians.
resultsF of invited stakeholders (133 HCPs and 55 parents of infants with IC) completed both Delphi rounds. Duration of crying, family stress, sleeping time of infant, quality of life (of family), discomfort of infant and hospital admission/duration were rated as most important outcomes in IC, framing the final COS.
conclusionsThe use of this COS should serve as a minimum of outcomes to be measured and reported. This will benefit evidence synthesis, by enhancing homogeneity of outcomes, and enable evaluation of success in therapeutic trials on IC. Researchers are strongly encouraged to use this COS when setting up a clinical trial in primary, secondary and/or tertiary care or performing a systematic review on IC.
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.