Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31908789›Full record

ArticleBMJ open diabetes research & care2019

Selecting Core Outcomes for Randomised Effectiveness trials In Type 2 diabetes (SCORE-IT): a patient and healthcare professional consensus on a core outcome set for type 2 diabetes.

Nicola L Harman, John P H Wilding, Dave Curry, James Harris, Jennifer Logue, R John Pemberton, Leigh Perreault, Gareth Thompson, Sean Tunis, Paula R Williamson and 1 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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 34 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 13 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Thiazolidinediones for people with chronic kidney disease and diabetes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Article
  15. Concept analysis of diabetes-related quality of life.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2025
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Low-carbohydrate diet for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Article
  19. Review
  20. 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.

Nicola L HarmanDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6958-6466
John P H WildingInstitute of Ageing and Chronic Disease, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Dave CurryUniversity of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
James HarrisUniversity of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Jennifer LogueInstitute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
R John PembertonUniversity of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Leigh PerreaultDivision of Endocrinology, Metabolism and Diabetes, University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Gareth ThompsonUniversity of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Sean TunisCenter for Medical Technology Policy (CMTP), Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Paula R WilliamsonDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
SCORE-IT Study Team

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Heterogeneity in outcomes measured across trials of glucose-lowering interventions for people with type 2 diabetes impacts on the ability to compare findings and may mean that the results have little importance to healthcare professionals and the patients that they care for. The SCORE-IT study (Selecting Core Outcomes for Randomised Effectiveness trials In Type 2 diabetes) has addressed this issue by establishing consensus on the most important outcomes for non-surgical interventions for hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes. Research design and methods: A comprehensive list of outcomes was developed from registered clinical trials, online patient resources, qualitative literature and long-term studies in the field. This list was then scored in a two-round online Delphi survey completed by healthcare professionals, people with type 2 diabetes, researchers in the field and healthcare policymakers. The results of this online Delphi were discussed and ratified at a face-to-face consensus meeting. Results: 173 people completed both rounds of the online survey (116 people with type 2 diabetes, 37 healthcare professionals, 14 researchers and 6 policymakers), 20 of these attended the consensus meeting (13 people with type 2 diabetes and 7 healthcare professionals). Consensus was reached on 18 core outcomes across five domains, which include outcomes related to diabetes care, quality of life and long-term diabetes-related complications. Conclusions: Implementation of the core outcome set in future trials will ensure that outcomes of importance to all stakeholders are measured and reported, enhancing the relevance of trial findings and facilitating the comparison of results across trials.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Health PersonnelOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient ParticipationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDelphi TechniqueEndpoint DeterminationFemaleHumansImplementation ScienceMaleMiddle Agedoutcomesoutcomes researchrandomized clinical trialsType 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID31908789
PMCPMC6936506

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.