Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28681707›Full record

ReviewTrials2017

The COMET Handbook: version 1.0.

Paula R Williamson, Douglas G Altman, Heather Bagley, Karen L Barnes, Jane M Blazeby, Sara T Brookes, Mike Clarke, Elizabeth Gargon, Sarah Gorst, Nicola Harman and 6 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Trials, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06726135 (The National Rehabilitation Centre Dataset. Development of a Minimum Dataset for Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation), which is not on this map. Cited by 1,027 papers, 41 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1,027citing papers in PubMed, 41 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.

NCT06726135 not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

The National Rehabilitation Centre Dataset. Development of a Minimum Dataset for Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation: a Modified E-Delphi Study

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorThomasCorbettRan2025 to 2025Enrolled50ConditionsPain, Traumatic Brain Injury, Major Trauma, Multiple Sclerosis
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1,027 citing papers in PubMed, 41 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Exercise therapy for temporomandibular disorders.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. COPD maintenance trials use heterogeneous outcomes and measurement instruments: a systematic literature review.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026
    Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. 'What' and 'How' to Measure in Allergy and Clinical Immunology: A Systematic Review of Core Outcome Sets and Outcome Harmonisation Processes.Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2026
    Pooled it

967 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

16 authors.

Paula R WilliamsonMRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Block F Waterhouse Building, 1-5 Brownlow Street, Liverpool, L69 3GL, UK. prw@liv.ac.uk.
Douglas G AltmanCentre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Heather BagleyMRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Block F Waterhouse Building, 1-5 Brownlow Street, Liverpool, L69 3GL, UK.
Karen L BarnesMRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Block F Waterhouse Building, 1-5 Brownlow Street, Liverpool, L69 3GL, UK.
Jane M BlazebyMRC ConDuCT II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Sara T BrookesMRC ConDuCT II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Mike ClarkeCentre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Elizabeth GargonMRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Block F Waterhouse Building, 1-5 Brownlow Street, Liverpool, L69 3GL, UK.
Sarah GorstMRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Block F Waterhouse Building, 1-5 Brownlow Street, Liverpool, L69 3GL, UK.
Nicola HarmanMRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Block F Waterhouse Building, 1-5 Brownlow Street, Liverpool, L69 3GL, UK.
Jamie J KirkhamMRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Block F Waterhouse Building, 1-5 Brownlow Street, Liverpool, L69 3GL, UK.
Angus McNairMRC ConDuCT II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Cecilia A C PrinsenDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jochen SchmittCenter for Evidence-based Healthcare, Medizinische Fakultät, Technische Univesität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Caroline B TerweeDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Bridget YoungMRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Block F Waterhouse Building, 1-5 Brownlow Street, Liverpool, L69 3GL, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16895Medical Research Council G0800792Medical Research Council G0901530Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1Medical Research Council MR/L004933/1Medical Research Council MR/L004933/2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The selection of appropriate outcomes is crucial when designing clinical trials in order to compare the effects of different interventions directly. For the findings to influence policy and practice, the outcomes need to be relevant and important to key stakeholders including patients and the public, health care professionals and others making decisions about health care. It is now widely acknowledged that insufficient attention has been paid to the choice of outcomes measured in clinical trials. Researchers are increasingly addressing this issue through the development and use of a core outcome set, an agreed standardised collection of outcomes which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all trials for a specific clinical area.Accumulating work in this area has identified the need for guidance on the development, implementation, evaluation and updating of core outcome sets. This Handbook, developed by the COMET Initiative, brings together current thinking and methodological research regarding those issues. We recommend a four-step process to develop a core outcome set. The aim is to update the contents of the Handbook as further research is identified.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicConsensusDatabases, FactualEndpoint DeterminationEvidence-Based MedicineGuideline AdherenceHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicResearch DesignStakeholder ParticipationClinical trialCOMET InitiativeCore outcome setPatients and the public

Identifiers

PMID28681707
PMCPMC5499094

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.