SynthesisPloS one2018
Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 4th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research.
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 36 papers, 12 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
36 citing papers in PubMed, 12 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
- Outcomes reported in trials of children and adolescent knee injuries : a systematic review.Bone & joint open · 2025Pooled it
- Core outcome sets for spinal and associated limb, trunk, abdomen or pelvic pain: A systematic review.PloS one · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Inclusion of participants from low-income and middle-income countries in core outcome sets development: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2021Pooled it
- Patient participation in Delphi surveys to develop core outcome sets: systematic review.BMJ open · 2021Pooled it
- A systematic review finds Core Outcome Set uptake varies widely across different areas of health.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Systematic review of international Delphi surveys for core outcome set development: representation of international patients.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- Use of wearable biometric monitoring devices to measure outcomes in randomized clinical trials: a methodological systematic review.BMC medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Core outcomes in neonatology: development of a core outcome set for neonatal research.Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Profiles of research waste in randomized clinical trials comparing de-escalation and escalation strategies for breast cancer treatment.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- PRACTICE: Development of a Core Outcome Set for Trials of Physical Rehabilitation in Critical Illness.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2024Article
- Review
- Article
- Improving continence management for people with dementia in the community in Aotearoa, New Zealand: Protocol for a mixed methods study.PloS one · 2023Article
- Article
- Establishment of a core outcome set for burn care research: development and international consensus.BMJ medicine · 2022Article
- More than half of systematic reviews have relevant core outcome sets.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database is a publically available, searchable repository of published and ongoing core outcome set (COS) studies. An annual systematic review update is carried out to maintain the currency of database content.
methodsThe methods used in the fourth update of the systematic review followed the same approach used in the original review and previous updates. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported the development of a COS, regardless of any restrictions by age, health condition or setting. Searches were carried out in March 2018 to identify studies that had been published or indexed between January 2017 and the end of December 2017.
resultsForty-eight new studies, describing the development of 56 COS, were included. There has been an increase in the number of studies clearly specifying the scope of the COS in terms of the population (n = 43, 90%) and intervention (n = 48, 100%) characteristics. Public participation has continued to rise with over half (n = 27, 56%) of studies in the current review including input from members of the public. The rate of inclusion of all stakeholder groups has increased, in particular participation from non-clinical research experts has risen from 32% (mean average in previous reviews) to 62% (n = 29). Input from participants located in Australasia (n = 17; 41%), Asia (n = 18; 44%), South America (n = 13; 32%) and Africa (n = 7; 17%) have all increased since the previous reviews.
conclusionThis update included a pronounced increase in the number of new COS identified compared to the previous three updates. There was an improvement in the reporting of the scope, stakeholder participants and methods used. Furthermore, there has been an increase in participation from Australasia, Asia, South America and Africa. These advancements are reflective of the efforts made in recent years to raise awareness about the need for COS development and uptake, as well as developments in COS methodology.
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.