Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31515426›Full record

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).

Kerry Avery, Jane Blazeby, Nicholas Wilson, Rhiannon Macefield, Sian Cousins, Barry Main, Natalie S Blencowe, Jesmond Zahra, Daisy Elliott, Robert Hinchliffe and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kerry Avery *Bristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK kerry.avery@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-5477-2418
Jane BlazebyBristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Nicholas WilsonBristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Rhiannon MacefieldBristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Sian CousinsBristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Barry MainBristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0622-805X
Natalie S BlencoweBristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6111-2175
Jesmond ZahraBristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Daisy ElliottBristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Robert HinchliffeBristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Shelley Potter *Bristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6977-312X
University of Bristol · GBUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust · GBNorth Bristol NHS Trust · GB

Funding

Department of Health CS-2016-16-019Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1Medical Research Council MR/L004933/1Medical Research Council MR/L004933/2Medical Research Council MR/S001751/1
6 · The paper itself

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

ConsensusDelphi TechniqueEndpoint DeterminationHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicResearch DesignStakeholder ParticipationSurgical EquipmentSurveys and QuestionnairesDelphi techniquedevice approvalguidelines as topicoperativeoutcome assessmentsurgical procedures

Identifiers

PMID31515426
PMCPMC6747635
OpenAlexW2971809556

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.