Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28669969›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Agreement on what to measure in randomised controlled trials in burn care: study protocol for the development of a core outcome set.

Amber Young, Sara Brookes, Nichola Rumsey, Jane Blazeby

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Working Towards Holistic Scar Assessment and Improved Shared Decision Making in Global Burn Care.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Development of a gastroschisis core outcome set.Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition · 2019
    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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Amber YoungSchool of Social and Community Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7205-492X
Sara BrookesSchool of Social and Community Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Nichola RumseyCentre for Appearance Research, Department of Health & Social Sciences, Faculty of Health & Applied Sciences, Frenchay Campus, University of the West of England, Frenchay Campus, Bristol, UK.
Jane BlazebySchool of Social and Community Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
University of Bristol · GBUniversity of the West of England · GB

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2016-09-031Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn 2004, nearly 11 million severely burn-injured patients required medical care worldwide. Burns cause prolonged hospitalisation and long-term disability. Although mortality has been reduced, morbidity remains significant.Burn care is costly and decision-making is challenging. A range of procedures are performed at different times after injury; new technology is emerging and alternate care pathways are regularly introduced. Data to guide evidence-based decision-making are lacking. Researchers use different outcomes to assess recovery, so it is not possible to combine trial information to draw meaningful conclusions. Early recovery measures include length of hospital stay, healing time and treatment complications. Longer-term outcomes include issues with function, cosmesis and psychological health. Reporting an agreed set of the most important outcomes (core outcome set (COS)) in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) will allow effective evidence synthesis to support clinical decisions. Patient input will ensure relevance. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The aim is to produce a burn COS for RCT reporting. A long list of outcomes will be identified through systematic reviews of clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Additional outcomes will be identified from interviews with patients over 10 years, parents of children of any age and multidisciplinary professionals. A two-stage modified Delphi exercise will be undertaken to prioritise and condense the list, with patients (n=150) at different stages of recovery. We will also include nursing, therapy (n=100) and medical staff (n=100). A reduced list will be taken to consensus meetings with families and clinical staff to achieve a final COS. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: A COS will reduce outcome reporting heterogeneity in burn care research, allowing more effective use of research funding and facilitating evidence synthesis and evidence-based clinical decision-making. Stakeholders will include journal editors, health commissioners, researchers, patients and professionals. The study has ethical approval and is registered with Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative (http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/798?result=true).

Indexed as

ConsensusEvidence-Based MedicineBurnsClinical Decision-MakingDelphi TechniqueHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignTreatment Outcomeburncore outcome setDelphi surveyoutcomesprotocolrecoveryscaldthermal injury

Identifiers

PMID28669969
PMCPMC5734442
OpenAlexW2726413247

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.