SynthesisPloS one2018
Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: An updated systematic review and involvement of low and middle income countries.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 14 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
35 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Continuity of outcome assessment throughout the lifecycle of surgical research: mapping core outcome domains measured in early phase and late phase studies.BMC surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Core outcome sets for trials of interventions to prevent and to treat multimorbidity in adults in low and middle-income countries: the COSMOS study.BMJ global health · 2024Pooled it
- Development of the CORE-Kids core set of outcome domains for studies of childhood limb fractures.The bone & joint journal · 2021Guideline
- Inclusion of participants from low-income and middle-income countries in core outcome sets development: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2021Pooled it
- A core outcome set for the treatment of pregnant women with pregestational diabetes: an international consensus study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2021Pooled it
- Patient participation in Delphi surveys to develop core outcome sets: systematic review.BMJ open · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- A systematic review finds Core Outcome Set uptake varies widely across different areas of health.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2021Pooled it
- Systematic review of international Delphi surveys for core outcome set development: representation of international patients.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- Effects of Workplace-Based Physical Activity Interventions on Cardiorespiratory Fitness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Controlled Trials.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2019Pooled it
- Guideline
- Incorporating patients' perspectives into the initial stages of core outcome set development: a rapid review of qualitative studies of type 2 diabetes.BMJ open diabetes research & care · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conservative management for adults with uncomplicated symptomatic gallstones: the C-GALL RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Trial
- Sleeping without borders: Gaps in contextualizing sleep duration guidelines for adults in low-income countries.Sleep medicine: X · 2026Article
- Methodology for the selection and evaluation of outcomes for Chinese herbal injection in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD): a comprehensive study.Annals of medicine · 2024Review
- Core outcome sets for trials of interventions to prevent and to treat multimorbidity in low- and middle-income countries: the COSMOS study.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Experiences of core outcome set developers on including stakeholders from low- and middle-income countries: An online survey.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Completeness and Mismatch of Patient-Important Outcomes After Trauma.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCore outcome sets (COS) comprise a minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all trials for a specific health condition. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative maintains an up to date, publicly accessible online database of published and ongoing COS. An annual systematic review update is an important part of this process.
methodsThis review employed the same, multifaceted approach that was used in the original review and the previous two updates. This approach has identified studies that sought to determine which outcomes/domains to measure in clinical trials of a specific condition. This update includes an analysis of the inclusion of participants from low and middle income countries (LMICs) as identified by the OECD, in these COS.
resultsEighteen publications, relating to 15 new studies describing the development of 15 COS, were eligible for inclusion in the review. Results show an increase in the use of mixed methods, including Delphi surveys. Clinical experts remain the most common stakeholder group involved. Overall, only 16% of the 259 COS studies published up to the end of 2016 have included participants from LMICs.
conclusionThis review highlights opportunities for greater public participation in COS development and the involvement of stakeholders from a wider range of geographical settings, in particular LMICs.
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.