Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29966731›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2018

A survey of Delphi panelists after core outcome set development revealed positive feedback and methods to facilitate panel member participation.

Alison E Turnbull, Victor D Dinglas, Lisa Aronson Friedman, Caroline M Chessare, Kristin A Sepúlveda, Clifton O Bingham, Dale M Needham

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
16.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Alison E TurnbullOutcomes After Critical Illness and Surgery (OACIS) Group, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Epidemiology, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. Electronic address: turnbull@jhmi.edu.
Victor D DinglasOutcomes After Critical Illness and Surgery (OACIS) Group, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Lisa Aronson FriedmanOutcomes After Critical Illness and Surgery (OACIS) Group, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Caroline M ChessareOutcomes After Critical Illness and Surgery (OACIS) Group, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Kristin A SepúlvedaOutcomes After Critical Illness and Surgery (OACIS) Group, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Clifton O BinghamDivisions of Rheumatology and Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Dale M NeedhamOutcomes After Critical Illness and Surgery (OACIS) Group, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Johns Hopkins University · USJohns Hopkins Medicine · US

Funding

Improving Long-Term Outcomes Clinical Research for Acute Respiratory FailureR24HL111895 · NHLBI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI NEEDHAM, DALE MURRAY · 2013 to 2017
$5.4M
NHLBI NIH HHS R24 HL111895
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe objective of this study was to elicit feedback on consensus methodology used for core outcome set (COS) development. STUDY DESIGN AND

settingAn online survey of international Delphi panelists participating in a recent COS for clinical research studies evaluating acute respiratory failure (ARF) survivors was conducted. Panelists represented 14 countries (56% outside the United States).

resultsSeventy (92%) panelists completed the survey, including 32 researchers, 19 professional association representatives, 4 research funding representatives, and 15 ARF survivors/caregiver members. Among respondents, 91% reported that the time required to participate was appropriate and 96% were not bothered by reminders for timely response. Attributes of measurement instruments and voting results from previous rounds were evaluated differently across stakeholder groups. When measurement properties were explained in the stem of the survey question, 59 (84%) panelists (including 73% of survivors/families) correctly interpreted information about an instrument's reliability. Without a reminder in the stem, only 20 (29%) panelists (including 38% of researchers) correctly identified properties of a COS.

conclusionThis international Delphi panel, including >20% patients/caregivers, favorably reported on feasibility of the methodology. Providing all panelists pertinent information/reminders about the project's objective at each voting round is important to informed decision making across all stakeholder groups.

Indexed as

Outcome Assessment, Health CareAdultAgedAge DistributionConsensusDelphi TechniqueFeedbackFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRespiratory InsufficiencySurveys and QuestionnairesSurvivorsYoung AdultConsensus methodsCore outcome set developmentDelphi studyFeedback strategiesStakeholders

Identifiers

PMID29966731
PMCPMC7419147
OpenAlexW2811005924

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.