ArticleBMJ open2017
Agreement on what to measure in randomised controlled trials in burn care: study protocol for the development of a core outcome set.
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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review of international Delphi surveys for core outcome set development: representation of international patients.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- Systematic review of clinical outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials of burn care.BMJ open · 2019Pooled it
- Sample size in multistakeholder Delphi surveys: at what minimum sample size do replicability of results stabilize?Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2024Article
- Patient-Reported Outcomes of Maxillomandibular Surgery for Obstructive Sleep Apnea Treatment: A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- 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 · 2024Article
- Article
- Secondary analysis of data from a core outcome set for burns demonstrated the need for involvement of lower income countries.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2022Article
- Establishment of a core outcome set for burn care research: development and international consensus.BMJ medicine · 2022Article
- Improving the comparability and quality of burn research.BMJ medicine · 2022Article
- Consensus on the health education of home-based negative pressure wound therapy for patients with chronic wounds: a modified Delphi study.Burns & trauma · 2021Article
- Obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome: Protocol for the development of a core outcome set.Medicine · 2020Article
- Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for reporting outcomes of management of velopharyngeal dysfunction.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Article
- Article
- Ensuring that the outcome domains proposed for use in burns research are relevant to adult burn patients: a systematic review of qualitative research evidence.Burns & trauma · 2020Article
- Risk of bias and reporting completeness of randomised controlled trials in burn care: protocol for a systematic review.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Protocol for the development of a core indicator set for reporting burn wound infection in trials: ICon-B study.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Development of a gastroschisis core outcome set.Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition · 2019Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.