SynthesisInternational journal of methods in psychiatric research2019
Comparing outcomes: The Clinical Outcome in Routine Evaluation from an international point of view.
Synthesis in International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparing outcomes: The Clinical Outcome in Routine Evaluation from an international point of view.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2019Pooled it
- Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation Measures for Patients Discharged from Acute Psychiatric Care: Four-Arm Peer and Text Messaging Support Controlled Observational Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Trial
- Group medical visits in cancer survivorship care: a scoping review.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026Article
- Measurement properties of the Swedish clinical outcomes in routine evaluation outcome measures (CORE-OM): Rasch analysis and short version for depressed and anxious out-patients in a multicultural area.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2022Article
- Uncovering the Internal Structure of the German Version of the CORE-OM: A Network Analysis.Clinical psychology & psychotherapyArticle
- Comparison of Commonly Applied Outcome Inventories as Measures of General Internalizing Pathology in Psychological Therapies.Clinical psychology & psychotherapyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe Clinical Outcome in Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measure (CORE-OM) is a freely accessible self-assessment questionnaire with a total of 34 items measuring the progress of psychological or psychotherapeutic treatments according to four scales (well-being, problems, functioning, and risk). The CORE-OM originated in the United Kingdom and has been translated into 54 languages and dialects. The aim of this study is to systematically compare the translated versions.
methodA total of 21 translations were compared using methods of systematic review and meta-analysis.
resultsThe results show a certain heterogeneity between the studies; however, the 21 translations can be declared as equivalent.
conclusionThe factorial structure could not be replicated in any of translations. Therefore, further analysis of the CORE-OM domains is recommended. In addition, some supplementary restrictions on the translation process, data collection, and reporting of results are necessary to ensure comparability and quality of CORE-OM translations.
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.