SynthesisPloS one2019
Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 5th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 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
53 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 used to measure the clinical application of neonatal palliative and/or end-of-life care in neonatal settings: a systematic review.Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The effectiveness of social prescribing in the management of long-term conditions in community-based adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical rehabilitation · 2024Pooled it
- Treatment effect modification due to comorbidity: Individual participant data meta-analyses of 120 randomised controlled trials.PLoS medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Identifying common health indicators from paediatric core outcome sets: a systematic review with narrative synthesis using the WHO International Classification of Functioning, Health and Disability.BMJ paediatrics open · 2022Pooled it
- Outcome measures for assessing change over time in studies of symptomatic children with hypermobility: a systematic review.BMC pediatrics · 2021Pooled 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
- Can harmonisation of outcomes bridge the translation gap for pre-clinical research? A systematic review of outcomes measured in mouse models of type 2 diabetes.Journal of translational medicine · 2020Pooled it
- A survey of knowledge, perceptions and use of core outcome sets among clinical trialists.Trials · 2021Trial
- Selection of Outcomes and Measurement Methods in Clinical Trials for Digital Therapeutics: Qualitative Analysis.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Developing a Core Outcome Set for Herpes Zoster-Associated Neuralgia in Clinical Trials of Traditional Chinese Medicine: A Study Protocol.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
- Higher quality nutrition care process documentation predicts nutrition diagnosis improvement in the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics breastfeeding registry study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
- Developing a Core Outcome Set for Netherton Syndrome: An International Multi-Stakeholder e-Delphi Consensus Study.Dermatology (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Patient-reported outcome measures in pediatrics: An overview of reviews.Pediatric discovery · 2024Review
- Impact of Active learning model and prior knowledge on discovery time of elusive relevant papers: a simulation study.Systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Developing a core outcome set for acetabular fractures: a systematic review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA systematic review of core outcome sets (COS) for research is updated annually to populate an online database. It is a resource intensive review to do annually but automation techniques have potential to aid the process. The production of guidance and standards in COS development means that there is now an expectation that COS are being developed and reported to a higher standard. This is the fifth update to the systematic review and will explore these issues.
methodsSearches were carried out to identify studies published or indexed in 2018. Automated screening methods were used to rank the citations in order of relevance. The cut-off for screening was set to the top 25% in ranked priority order, following development and validation of the algorithm. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported the development of a COS, regardless of any restrictions by age, health condition or setting. COS were assessed against each of the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD).
resultsThirty studies describing the development of 44 COS were included in this update. Six COS (20%) were deemed to have met all 12 criteria representing the 11 minimum standards for COS development (range = 4 to 12 criteria, median = 10 criteria). All 30 COS studies met all four minimum standards for scope. Twenty-one (70%) COS met all three minimum standards for stakeholders. Twenty-three studies (77%) included patients with the condition or their representatives. The number of countries involved in the development of COS ranged from 1 to 39 (median = 10). Six studies (20%) met all four minimum standards [five criteria] for the consensus process.
conclusionAutomated ranking was successfully used to assist the screening process and reduce the workload of this systematic review update. With the provision of guidelines, COS are better reported and being developed to a higher standard.
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.