Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29370827›Full record

Trial reportTrials2018

Impact of question order on prioritisation of outcomes in the development of a core outcome set: a randomised controlled trial.

Sara T Brookes, Katy A Chalmers, Kerry N L Avery, Karen Coulman, Jane M Blazeby, ROMIO study group

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 3 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.

NCT03498677 nacompletednot on this map

Effects of Question Section Order on Prioritization of Items by Stakeholder Groups in an Online Delphi Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorThinkWellRan2018 to 2019Enrolled385ConditionsBehavior, Adaptive, Decision AnalysisArmspresentation order, alternative presentation order
NCT03505450 completednot on this map

Effects of Population Compared to Purposive Sampling for Consensus in an Online Delphi Study

TypeobservationalSponsorThinkWellRan2018 to 2018Enrolled385ConditionsBehavior, ConsumerArmsPopulation Sample, Purposive sample
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. A scoping review and expert consensus on digital determinants of health.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Sara T BrookesThe MRC ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. S.T.Brookes@bham.ac.uk.
Katy A ChalmersThe MRC ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Kerry N L AveryThe MRC ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Karen CoulmanThe MRC ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Jane M BlazebyThe MRC ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
ROMIO study group

Funding

Cancer Research UK 15958Cancer Research UK 23924Cancer Research UK 25354Department of Health 10/50/65Department of Health DRF-2015-08-023Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCore outcome set (COS) developers increasingly employ Delphi surveys to elicit stakeholders' opinions of which outcomes to measure and report in trials of a particular condition or intervention. Research outside of Delphi surveys and COS development demonstrates that question order can affect response rates and lead to 'context effects', where prior questions determine an item's meaning and influence responses. This study examined the impact of question order within a Delphi survey for a COS for oesophageal cancer surgery.

methodsA randomised controlled trial was nested within the Delphi survey. Patients and health professionals were randomised to receive a survey including clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), where the PRO section appeared first or last. Participants rated (1-9) the importance of 68 items for inclusion in a COS (ratings 7-9 considered 'essential'). Analyses considered the impact of question order on: (1) survey response rates; (2) participants' responses; and (3) items retained at end of the survey.

resultsIn total, 116 patients and 71 professionals returned completed surveys. Question order did not affect response rates among patients, but fewer professionals responded when clinical items appeared first (difference = 31.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 13.6-48.9%, P = 0.001). Question order led to different context effects within patients and professionals. While patients rated clinical items highly, irrespective of question order, more PROs were rated essential when appearing last rather than first (difference = 23.7%, 95% CI = 10.5-40.8%). Among professionals, the greatest impact was on clinical items; a higher percentage rated essential when appearing last (difference = 11.6%, 95% CI = 0.0-23.3%). An interaction between question order and the percentage of PRO/clinical items rated essential was observed for patients (P = 0.025) but not professionals (P = 0.357). Items retained for further consideration at the end of the survey were dependent on question order, with discordant items (retained by one question order group only) observed in patients (18/68 [26%]) and professionals (20/68 [29%]).

conclusionsIn the development of a COS, participants' ratings of potential outcomes within a Delphi survey depend on the context (order) in which the outcomes are asked, consequently impacting on the final COS. Initial piloting is recommended with consideration of the randomisation of items in the survey to reduce potential bias.

trial registrationThe randomised controlled trial reported within this paper was nested within the development of a core outcome set to investigate processes in core outcome set development. Outcomes were not health-related and trial registration was not therefore applicable.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelDelphi TechniquePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdultAgedConsensusEsophageal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNurse CliniciansOutcome Assessment, Health CareStakeholder ParticipationSurgeonsTreatment OutcomeContext effectsCore outcome setDelphiQuestion order

Identifiers

PMID29370827
PMCPMC5784591

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.