ArticleBMJ open2019
Development of reporting guidance and core outcome sets for seamless, standardised evaluation of innovative surgical procedures and devices: a study protocol for content generation and a Delphi consensus process (COHESIVE study).
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Identifying and reporting modifications to surgical innovation: a systematic review of IDEAL/IDEAL-D studies.BMJ open · 2025Pooled it
- Concise stakeholder-informed tool for reporting modifications to innovative surgical procedures and devices: Surgical ModificAtion Reporting Tool (SMART) checklist.The British journal of surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Consensus on the use of artificial intelligence in the management and measurement of vestibular schwannomas: A protocol for a modified delphi consensus.Neuroradiology · 2026Article
- Article
- Information standards for innovative surgery: what patients need to know.The British journal of surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Development of a conceptual framework for reporting modifications in surgical innovation: scoping review.BJS open · 2023Article
- Oxford consensus on primary cam morphology and femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: part 1-definitions, terminology, taxonomy and imaging outcomes.British journal of sports medicine · 2022Article
- Review
- Patient characteristics predict patency of early-cannulation arteriovenous grafts.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Irreversible Electroporation (IRE) in Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Review of Current Clinical Outcomes, Mechanism of Action and Opportunities for Synergistic Therapy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Reporting Modifications in Surgical Innovation: A Systematic Scoping Review Protocol.International journal of surgery protocols · 2021Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionRigorous evaluation of innovative invasive procedures and medical devices is uncommon and lacks reporting standardisation. Devices may therefore enter routine practice without thorough evaluation, resulting in patient harm. Detailed guidance on how to select and report outcomes at each stage of evaluation is lacking. Development of reporting guidance and core outcome sets (COS) is one strategy to promote safe and transparent evaluation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A COS, comprising outcome domains applicable to all phases of evaluation of procedure/device introduction and modification and, if necessary, supplementary domains relevant to specific phases or types of innovation (procedure or device), will be developed according to principles outlined by Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) and Core Outcome Set-Standards for Development (COS-STAD) guidelines. Reporting guidance will be developed concurrently. The study will have the following three phases:1. Generation of a list of relevant outcome domains and reporting items identified from (a) published studies, (b) hospital policy documentation, (c) regulatory body documentation and (d) stakeholder qualitative interviews. Identified items/domains will be categorised using a conceptual framework and formatted into Delphi consensus survey questionnaire items.2. Key stakeholders, including 50 patients and 150 professionals (surgeons, researchers, device manufacturers, regulatory representatives, journal editors) sampled from multinational sources, will complete a Delphi survey to score the importance of each reporting item and outcome.3. A consensus meeting with key stakeholders will discuss and agree the final content of the reporting guidance and COS(s). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by North East-Newcastle and North Tyneside 1 Health Research Authority Research Ethics Committee (18/NE/0378). Dissemination strategies include scientific meeting presentations, peer-reviewed journal publications, development of plain English summaries/materials, patient engagement events, development of a social media identity, workshops and other events.
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.