Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30899531›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open diabetes research & care2019

Incorporating patients' perspectives into the initial stages of core outcome set development: a rapid review of qualitative studies of type 2 diabetes.

Sarah L Gorst, Bridget Young, Paula R Williamson, John P H Wilding, Nicola L Harman

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open diabetes research & care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 4 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.

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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Health system responses for type 1 diabetes: A scoping review.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Involving people with type 2 diabetes in facilitating participation in a cardiovascular screening programme.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    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

5 authors.

Sarah L GorstMRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7818-9646
Bridget YoungMRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Paula R WilliamsonMRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
John P H WildingObesity and Endocrinology Clinical Research Group, University of Liverpool and Aintree University Hospital, Liverpool, UK.
Nicola L HarmanMRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K025635/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conducting systematic reviews of qualitative studies to incorporate patient perspectives within the early stages of core outcome set (COS) development can be resource intensive. We aimed to identify an expedited approach to be used as part of the wider COS development process. Specifically, we undertook a rapid review of qualitative studies of patients' views and experiences of type 2 diabetes. We searched MEDLINE from inception to June 2017 to identify studies reporting qualitative empirical findings of perspectives of people with type 2 diabetes. Qualitative methodological filters were used to minimize irrelevant references. Drawing on content analysis, data synthesis involved identifying text in eligible studies relevant to outcomes of type 2 diabetes and interpreting and categorizing this according to the 38 core domains of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials taxonomy. Of 146 studies screened, 26 were included. Four hundred and fifty-eight outcomes were derived from the included studies. In comparison to the outcomes extracted from clinical trials, more life impact outcomes were derived from the qualitative studies, but fewer physiological/clinical outcomes. Outcomes relating to 'mortality/survival' and 'role functioning' were more prevalent in studies conducted in low/middle-income countries. This rapid review and synthesis of qualitative studies identified outcomes that had not previously been identified by a systematic review of clinical trials. It also identified differences in the types of outcomes given prominence to in the clinical trials and qualitative literatures. Incorporating qualitative evidence on patient perspectives from the outset of the COS development process can help to ensure outcomes that matter to patients are not overlooked. Our method provides a pragmatic and resource-efficient way to do this. For those developing international COS, our method has potential for incorporating the perspectives of patients from diverse countries in the early stages of COS development.

Indexed as

Research DesignConsensusDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2HumansOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient SatisfactionQualitative ResearchTreatment Outcomecore outcome setpatient perspectivesqualitativerapid reviewtype 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID30899531
PMCPMC6398822

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.