ArticlePloS one2017
A core outcome set for adult cardiac surgery trials: A consensus study.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevention of cardiac surgery-associated acute kidney injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis of non-pharmacological interventions.Critical care (London, England) · 2023Pooled it
- High versus low blood pressure targets for cardiac surgery while on cardiopulmonary bypass.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Synthesizing Core Outcome Sets for outcomes research in cohort studies: a systematic review.Pediatric research · 2022Pooled it
- Predictors of health-related quality of life after cardiac surgery: a systematic review.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2022Pooled it
- Systematic review of international Delphi surveys for core outcome set development: representation of international patients.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- Trial
- Trial
- Recruiting and retaining participants in e-Delphi surveys for core outcome set development: Evaluating the COMiT'ID study.PloS one · 2018Trial
- The participation of lifeworld experts in Delphi processes: A reflection on method and practice.MethodsX · 2025Review
- Review
- Intravenous amino acid for kidney protection: current understanding and future perspectives.Clinical kidney journal · 2025Review
- A minimum dataset for destination therapy with left ventricular assist device: the evidence that matters to decision makers.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025Article
- Development of a core outcome set of quality indicators for enhanced recovery after surgery in minimally invasive cardiac heart valve surgery by interprofessional Delphi consensus.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2024Article
- A Systematic Scoping Review of Essential Methodological Elements for Developing a Tool to Improve the Reporting of Consensus Studies in Classification, Diagnostic Criteria, and Guidelines Development.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
- Strategies for implementing pet robots in care homes and nursing homes for residents with dementia: protocol for a modified Delphi study.Implementation science communications · 2022Article
- Commentary: Presurgical frailty assessment can predict adverse outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery… but where do we go from here?JTCVS open · 2022Article
- Core outcomes sets for studies evaluating critical illness and patient recovery.Current opinion in critical care · 2020Review
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInvasive off- or on-pump cardiac surgery (elective and emergency procedures, excluding transplants are routinely performed to treat complications of ischaemic heart disease. Randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluate the effectiveness of treatments in the setting of cardiac surgery. However, the impact of RCTs is weakened by heterogeneity in outcome measuring and reporting, which hinders comparison across trials. Core outcome sets (COS, a set of outcomes that should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in clinical trials for a specific clinical field) help reduce this problem. In light of the above, we developed a COS for cardiac surgery effectiveness trials.
methodsPotential core outcomes were identified a priori by analysing data on 371 RCTs of 58,253 patients. We reached consensus on core outcomes in an international three-round eDelphi exercise. Outcomes for which at least 60% of the participants chose the response option "no" and less than 20% chose the response option "yes" were excluded.
resultsEighty-six participants from 23 different countries involving adult cardiac patients, cardiac surgeons, anaesthesiologists, nursing staff and researchers contributed to this eDelphi. The panel reached consensus on four core outcomes: 1) Measure of mortality, 2) Measure of quality of life, 3) Measure of hospitalisation and 4) Measure of cerebrovascular complication to be included in adult cardiac surgery trials.
conclusionThis study used robust research methodology to develop a minimum core outcome set for clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of treatments in the setting of cardiac surgery. As a next step, appropriate outcome measurement instruments have to be selected.
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.